"Ensoulment"? That's absurd. My inalienable rights are not suspended by someone else doubting the existence of my "soul". Such sophistries have been used to justify mass murder quite enough, thank you.
Sarah and Jeremy: It's hard to see from their point of view isn't it. I had the same problem until I kew a gay couple who were togeather for many years and the instant that one of them got sick and unable to communicate, the sick one's family barged in and banned his partner from the hospital room and forbade the hospital from giving him any information. He was escorted out by security and threatened with arrest if he returned. All because the sick one's family was against his being gay. Gay couples have no rights under the law so there was no recourse and my friend died without his beloved partner there by his side. How would you like it if your chosen significant other was treated like that? The rights of gay couples, or at least the rights they SHOULD have, are commonly stepped upon in ways that are hard for the non-gay community to see or understand.
hypnagogue: In a way you have boiled it down to the escence. When does a baby become a person? That is the crux of the argument. When does it transform from a bunch of cells dividing like mad to a self-contained individual with rights? I am not one to put words into geekWithA.45's mouth (I too suspect he is smarter than me), but I think he was using the term "Ensoulment" to describe that point. The point when a mass of cells becomes a person. This has long been the abortion argument. Opinions vary from the instant of conception to (oddly enough) a couple days AFTER birth. Since it is largely a religous argument, government should stay out of it.
I also want to say that government has NO place in regulating morals. Rights sure (as in protecting them) but morals, no. Morals are subjective and mine, yours, and that-guy-over-there's probably don't agree and it isn't the job of government to say who is right and who is wrong as long as nobody's rights are being violated.
Gay couples have no rights under the law so there was no recourse
That's simply not true. Granted, it might require some preparation beforehand, but it's trivially easy to leave letters of intent, and preferably, medical powers of attorney (which may be limited) to prevent exactly that sort of situation from occurring.
That situation, by the way, is identical in unmarried opposite sex couples.
The rights of gay couples, or at least the rights they SHOULD have, are commonly stepped upon
What _rights_ are those? And how are they stepped upon? I hear this bandied around a fair bit, but I usually find that the people I know in those situations and those relationships don't have those problems.
Considering that less than 10 years ago, felony convictions for private gay sex were handed out in the USA, it would seem reasonable to me that the community of people who were the victims of that nonsense would look askance at folks on the Right playing the part of the innocent.
Google up the history, nature and application of anti-sodomy laws, which were dragged kicking and screaming into the dustbin of unconstitutionality only a few years ago. Pretending there isn't any animosity, or that such animosity hasn't manifested in terms of the application of government power in recent history isn't exactly a credible position.
It will be quite some time, and require quite some demonstration of goodwill from the GOP before it would be fair to consider such fears to be unjustified.
-------------
Hypnagogue:
No one is challenging your inalienable rights, nor do they have any basis to do so, given your verifiable, self evident existence.
It is you who assert, without presenting any basis, the interchangeable equivalence of yourself to a fetus, and conclude that since the inalienable rights of a fetus are subject to question, your rights are as well. This logical substitution is illicit, an example of the fallacy of composition.
As a side matter, I forgive your insinuation that I would sanction mass murder.
--==|==--
The question of "ensoulment", or if you prefer, the attainment of personhood speaks to a line that is drawn somewhere between conception and birth at which point it can be said that there is a person there whose life can be deprived.
Prior to this point, no party exists to be aggrieved.
There are a zillion theories as to where that line should be drawn, each with their own merits, and none of which can be objectively proven.
On one end of the spectrum is eggs and sperm, and on the other is a live birth.
I reject out of hand any theory that assigns full human rights to eggs and sperm, because accepting that premise means that to avoid murderer status would require a woman to prevent every instance of menstruation (presumably by pregnancy), and unavoidably assigns Stalin class mass murder status to each male who has ever ejaculated.
Now ~that~ would be an absurd premise.
I accept, without further justification, the premise that a live birth is a full person.
I suspect, but cannot objectively prove, and therefore will not legislate, that personhood is achieved prior to birth, and that the likelihood of this being the case increases as the pregnancy progressess.
I doubt, but cannot objectively prove, and therefore will not legislate, that multicellular clumps are people.
Everyone here is free to draw their own conclusions in this wildly contentious matter.
I do not seek or expect to create any concensus in the matter at all.
My larger point, however, is this: since we cannot objectively determine this point, and can't foresee any method of doing so, no basis for universal agreement exists, even in principle. Without that, the basis for invoking power of government in the matter is flimsy indeed.
In other words, no matter what you conclude about where to draw the line, the matter of finding ethical basis to enforce that view on others is entirely separate.
"I reject out of hand any theory that assigns full human rights to eggs and sperm ..."
... or even to a fertilized egg, because a high percentage of fertilized eggs do not implant, and a high percentage of fertilized eggs that implant spontaneously abort, all without the host in whom these events happen being aware thereof. It seems absurd to me to assign rights to such a cell or small assemblage of cells such that to remove it from the host constitutes murder, given that such removal happens naturally in huge numbers.
But that ain't the whole story, rather it is only the beginning.
It is a fundamental question that is taught in the first year of law school. If you put a grain of sand on a table, it is not a pile of sand. If you add more grains of sand, one grain at a time, at what point do you call it a pile, and why?
No, I don't have an answer, I have only the question.
I've spent quality time with a fetus at 28 weeks. She held my finger, looked in my eyes, shook with pain, and recoiled with fear.
Killing her would have been murder. That's not a matter of opinion, understand, it's a bright line distinction I would defend at the cost of my own life. She is my girl, and she is worth it.
So, please, feel free to feel offended by this: if you advocate 3rd trimester abortions, you are a monster, and I doubt your "ensoulment". Take that how you like.
This is a really superior string of comments from both sides.
I think the Geek's attitude toward abortion is the correct attitude toward marriage. Marriage is a religious institution first, social one second. Civil unions satisfy social interest, so the goverment ought to offer nothing but civil unions to gay or straight couples alike. As churches now disagree on the definition of marriage, the government may not under the First Amendment choose one of these definitions any more than it can choose one type of prayer.
However, it does not work when applied to abortion unless you give up murder as a crime. If murder is to be a crime, the government must have a definition that allows them to determine whether there was a murdered party. They are thus forced to take a position on ensoulment. Many sociopaths, I am given to understand, are essentially solipsists; they do not regard other people as really real. If they kill one of these illusions, the government punishes them anyway, imposing its own definition by force. Then of course there are all the examples of racial dehumanization and even the shameful comment in the other thread claiming liberals were only half human. If any of these people are killed, the government must rule on whether they were people.
I think in this instance a different perspective is necessary. America is a republic. A representative is not serving those he represents by criminalizing a thing that a large portion of his constituents regards as innocent. Society should decide moral issues; representatives may try to lead morally, but their votes should represent.
Russel says it is prudent to err on the side of caution when ending life; and I think he's right. However I suspect he is not looking hard enough at the question in hand. The question is the government's reaction to abortions. We talk about allowing or disallowing abortions, but that is not within the government's power. All they can do is either punish abortions or not, albeit they may hope that the punishment may help to prevent abortions. I think abortion is murder; but murder is a capital crime, and it is prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to ending life.
I think we who believe abortion is murder should primarily try to convince the rest of the country. Inasmuch as we want government action on abortion, the burden of proof and the burden of propaganda are both on us; we must convince the people first. To that end: The fetus is not a part of the mother, as it has a complete set of human DNA which is distinct from the mother's. It is human rather than any other creature, again as evinced by DNA. It grows, eats and respires through the placenta, will generally reproduce sometime after sexual maturity, so it is alive. It is a human life.
A human sperm or egg cell, by the way, does not have a complete (diploid) set of DNA; the sperm and egg each have half a set (haploid), a single strand of the double helix. A sperm or egg fundamentally cannot develop into a human, because humans and other mammals need both paternal and maternal strands, which differ.
"When life starts is a difficult question."
"No, it is a trivial question."
DJ,
I see I need to be a little more specific :)
When that pile of cells starts to be a human life is a difficult question.
EgregiousCharles,
"However I suspect he is not looking hard enough at the question in hand." You're probably right about that.
I wasn't trying to make a statement about government policy or law about ending life, I was trying to suggest that it is a good rule for individuals to err on the side of caution.
"When does a baby become a person?" When left alone rather than altered by 'choice' what else emerges than a person? None of us here would be here if before we arrived here someone decided we were just inconvenient tissue masses. Why, after 50 million of these "choices", has not someone guessed wrong and given birth to an undifferentiated tissue mass? Only tissue masses were destroyed...? MIRACLE!! This is the pivotal dividing argument. Life is either Sacred or contingent. Absolute truth exists, or nothing absolute exists. (The political system spawned from this latter is tyranny. Says the Mao, or the Stalin, or the Pol Pot, "I have the power, therefore I am right.')
"murder hinges on the ensoulment of the fetus, because until that happens, there is no party whose life is deprived"
Sounds like the same kind of pseudo-legal, pseudo-intellectual mumbojumbo that people used 150 years ago to justify slavery. And to say that it is unanswerable except by an appeal to religion and thus "not fit for public policy" is a poorly disguised bully tactic that simply tries to make your belief unassailable and takes the other person's position off the table.
ALL law is a codification of the society and culture's moral values. Theft. Murder. Fraud. Treason. Private property. I could name the whole list of things and so could you. Only when it has to do with sex does it get all bolloxed up. So stop with the "that's religious so you shut up" line of argument. At least be honest and say "I want my sex without consequences, so I'm going to look the other way on the issue of whether this is a human being or not."
Why does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah...
"I want my cotton picked cheap, so I'm going to look the other way on the issue of whether this is a man or not."
The next time a smiling young lady hands you one of those grainy black and white ultrsound pic, try not to be a boor and be careful what you say. She might be "religious" and think it's a baby human. And try to respect the fact that so many people are willing to bear your ridicule in order to protect that human being.
Interestingly, while I am one who believes that abortion is murder, and that homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals (i.e. the right to marry a person of the opposite sex) However, I agree with Geek that these things should not be the subject of Federal Law, and probably not even State law. I recognize that these positions are a result of reasoning from my Christian faith, and my own attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus, but that not everyone will agree with me. I am fine with that, as long as I am free to pursue my own beliefs in peace. The power of the State should not be used to push either agenda.
"When that pile of cells starts to be a human life is a difficult question."
What is that "that pile of cells", if not a complete and distinctive organism which is a very, very, very young, very, very, very immature human being? Are you saying that they could grow into something other than an adult human? Like, say, a turtle, or oak tree? What does the age of the organism have to do with whether or not it is a human being?
"murder hinges on the ensoulment of the fetus, because until that happens, there is no party whose life is deprived"
Sounds like the same kind of pseudo-legal, pseudo-intellectual mumbojumbo that people used 150 years ago to justify slavery. And to say that it is unanswerable except by an appeal to religion and thus "not fit for public policy" is a poorly disguised bully tactic that simply tries to make your belief unassailable and takes the other person's position off the table.
I don't see it as such. I see it as a stipulation that the line between killing an animal and killing a person is drawn by how the law defines "a person". He also adds that definitions of "a person" that cannot be un-tied from one's religious views be "taken off the table, a point with which I agree.
If you can see a way forward to defining the lines between "an undifferentiated tissue mass", "an animal" and "a person" that does not ultimately rely on religious views, and doesn't ultimately legally allow the killing of some few "people" by anyone's definition who "fall through the cracks in the system, by all means trot it out.
I've already made my position on this subject clear, but I will say that I cannot wait until technology provides to humanity a functioning artificial womb, and the surgical ability to transfer a fetus from the uterus to it.
Kevin, I doubt that very much. All this would do is further put the lie to the argument that "choice" is all about a woman's right to govern her body. Viable babies who survive abortion are sometimes killed or allowed to die if the parents don't want them. If it was really about a woman's right to her body, these babies would be saved and put up for adoption. Admittedly, most Democrats are against this practice, but Obama voted against an act that would prohibit it, calling it "a burden on women." There are some on the side of "choice" who are quite simply anti-life. The argument will never stop.
"What is that 'that pile of cells', if not a complete and distinctive organism which is a very, very, very young, very, very, very immature human being?"
Yes, but when? As soon as the zygote forms? Is that a 'very, very, very young, very, very, very immature human being?' Or when there are 4 cells? 16?
"Are you saying that they could grow into something other than an adult human? Like, say, a turtle, or oak tree?"
No. A fertilized human egg can only become a human. I would never suggest otherwise.
"What does the age of the organism have to do with whether or not it is a human being?"
I don't know when it passes from being potentially a human being to the actualization of a human being. Ergo, my statement to err on the side of caution. Treat the zygote as something worth protecting.
Kevin,
Sounds like A Brave New World :)
"Maybe then we can stop arguing the topic."
Ha! Kevin, let me introduce you to the human race. Human race, Kevin. As far as I can tell, if we have a single firing neuron, we will argue. Scientific advancements seem to only add to the stuff we argue about!
As for antipathy towards homosexuals, I see little evidence that this is a defining problem of the Right. In every state in which gay marriage has been proposed, a majority of voters has shot it down, including the not-so-conservative state of California, where blacks -- a decidedly Left-leaning demographic -- overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage.
Does any state enforce anti-sodomy laws against gays anymore? Such laws seem much more like vestiges of the past than a measure of the current political climate -- I haven't researched this, but I'm willing to bet anti-sodomy laws in Southern states date well back to a time when the South was a Democratic stronghold.
I wish geek had instead recognized that the Right has to get over its antipathy towards allowing people the freedom to harm themselves. This means decriminalizing drug use, prostitution, and gambling, and taking all laws off the books requiring adults to wear seat-belts and helmets.
This means decriminalizing drug use, prostitution, and gambling, and taking all laws off the books requiring adults to wear seat-belts and helmets.
I'm not sure you can point to "The Right" as the sole supporters of that.
On each of those, I can't say that I know that there's a definite breakdown Left/Right that you can make there.
My sister is a hard core Leftist - and she's all for making softcore porn illegal, and the death penalty for hardcore. I don't think you'd want to float the idea of legal prostitution by her. :)
In all of those, it's a matter of who wants to control other people, and based on personal experience and reasoning, people fall all over the spectrum on what they're willing to mandate.
I'm glad you prefer to err on the side of caution. There are too few people who prefer to just go blazing ahead without even giving a thought about potential consequences.
"I don't know when it passes from being potentially a human being to the actualization of a human being."
My point is simply that it is inherently human from the DNA on out. Primarily, this is because it's not something else. (This would be the law of identity.)
Furthermore, fertilization is the only "bright line" point that we have. An unfertilized egg cannot grow into an adult human. Nor can a sperm cell. But immediately after these two join, the resulting fertilized cell will grow into an adult human unless something interrupts the process. Once we pass that point, we run into the Sorites paradox where squishy, ineffable words like "potential", "person", "ensouled" or others can be used to argue for "acquisition of the right to life" for anywhere from just after conception to Peter Singer's 28 days after birth.
"The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right."
…
"In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”"
(Kevin, it looks like Russell forgot to close an italics tag. Could you fix it?)
It seems to me that there are two questions involved.
Q1. When does human life start biologically?
Q2. When does the right to life start for a biological human?
Q1, you already answered "My point is simply that it is inherently human from the DNA on out. Primarily, this is because it's not something else." And "[...]the resulting fertilized cell will grow into an adult human [...]"
Biologically speaking, it starts as soon as the egg is fertilized.
Q2, though, is where I get tripped up. Hence my comment about an actualized human being. And that's why I think assigning the right to life at the zygote is a proper place to err on the side of caution. There might not be anything 'there' yet, no 'ensoulment', to use geek's phrase, but I'm more comfortable with the bight line drawn there, then say at the blastomere stage, and embryo and fetus stages are right out.
I'm not sure you can point to "The Right" as the sole supporters of that.
U-J, you are correct, and I wouldn't. But more often than not, the Left is in favor of any freedom that involves licentiousness, while folks on the Right argue that it tears at the moral fabric of society. If we on the Right are positioning ourselves as the Side of Freedom, then we really have to mean it.
"Biologically speaking, it starts as soon as the egg is fertilized."
Yep, we both agree on that.
I just don't think it's rationally possible to separate the biological facts from the legal and moral realm without leading to "he who has the power makes the rules" governance.
I agree completely with EgregiousCharles on abortion--there is just no way for government to remain neutral.
On homosexuality, I favor the repeal of anti-sodomy laws wherever they may still exist. I am opposed to any government recognition of same-sex unions on the grounds that heterosexual marriage is a bedrock societal institution in a way that same-sex unions are not. As Unix-Jedi pointed out, same-sex couples can obtain various rights through existing legal instruments.
That said, in the spirit of libertarianism I'd be willing to embrace a compromise in which the government would recognize heterosexual and homosexual unions equally, but private enterprises would be free to recognize only one type of union if they so choose. Unfortunately, I don't see this as a viable alternative in today's political climate.
Personally my opinion is that, barring any evidence of force or fraud, consenting adults should be able to draw up and agree to whatever kinds of contracts they like.
A quote from a longer essay: "In any case, in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.
As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere."
Hunt for the author.
I've been thinking of something along those lines, Grump. Mostly it started while I was looking up the process for becoming a notary... and suddenly found absurd the thought of jumping through so many hoops to get the government to recognize that I have basic reading comprehension.
So my friends can go to the damn courthouse if they need something notarized :)
No such luck. Pregnancy is a consequence, and ending a pregnancy has consequences. Sometimes nature brings a pregnancy to an end, that has consequences too, even if not legal ones.
Now, every person has to deal with the consequences of his/her actions (or inactions).
Abortion post-viability is very hard (if not impossible) to justify. Likewise, it is very hard on non-religious grounds, to justify with-holding the morning after pill, or to call that murder (since you don't even know if the zygote has properly attached to the womb). Thus, no bright lines.
Since everyone agrees that an unfertilized egg is not alive, I would like a bald eagle omelette with cheddar cheese and chives.
What? I can't? But why not?
If a human fetus isn't really human, then an eagle's egg, even a fertilized one, isn't really an eagle. So the Endangered Species Act shouldn't apply, right?
Of course, just having an eagle feather can get you thrown in jail.
Orwell was right. All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
At least, according to US law.
Mycroft is missing something on the bald eagle thing. The difference in the way bald eagles are treated is not because bald eagles are more than human under law, but that they are less. The government is not concerned with the eagles' personal sovereignty, only that there are more of them. There would be outcry only from crazies if bald eagles were artificially fertilized without eagle choice according to some scientist's breeding and preservation plan (assuming the plan itself were reasonable). There would be outcry from everyone but crazies if humans were thus fertilized. I can make a will that leaves my ashes for a loved one's mantle, but an eagle cannot.
"I am opposed to any government recognition of same-sex unions on the grounds that heterosexual marriage is a bedrock societal institution in a way that same-sex unions are not."
The grounds are undeniable, but I don't think the conclusion is justified. It was also undeniably argued that a state church was a bedrock social institution, and it turned out that both Christianity and society flourished all the more without it.
I think it is fairly obvious that a state definition of marriage is currently undermining real marriage as a bedrock institution through easy divorce. I think it is much harder to argue that state recognition of homosexual civil unions can similarly undermine real straight marriages especially if the state only defines them as civil unions as well.
I can't see how gay civil unions pose any threat to marriages sanctified by God.
Does anyone care to take a stab at why a fetus might not be human and alive? All I see in this thread is "I can't believe", which is hardly evidence. Cell count won't cut it; I am a large person with about 25% more cells than the Geek, but that does not make me 25% more human.
Bonus points if your definition does not allow someone to drug you then abort you before you recover. :)
I guess the govt should stop issuing certificates of live birth.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/11/quote-of-day_18.html (44 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Nice quote by geek, but I am curious to know how the Right's antipathy toward homosexuality is manifested.
Apparently by denying them official state sanction for their aberrant lifestyles.
"Ensoulment"? That's absurd. My inalienable rights are not suspended by someone else doubting the existence of my "soul". Such sophistries have been used to justify mass murder quite enough, thank you.
Sarah and Jeremy: It's hard to see from their point of view isn't it. I had the same problem until I kew a gay couple who were togeather for many years and the instant that one of them got sick and unable to communicate, the sick one's family barged in and banned his partner from the hospital room and forbade the hospital from giving him any information. He was escorted out by security and threatened with arrest if he returned. All because the sick one's family was against his being gay. Gay couples have no rights under the law so there was no recourse and my friend died without his beloved partner there by his side. How would you like it if your chosen significant other was treated like that? The rights of gay couples, or at least the rights they SHOULD have, are commonly stepped upon in ways that are hard for the non-gay community to see or understand.
hypnagogue: In a way you have boiled it down to the escence. When does a baby become a person? That is the crux of the argument. When does it transform from a bunch of cells dividing like mad to a self-contained individual with rights? I am not one to put words into geekWithA.45's mouth (I too suspect he is smarter than me), but I think he was using the term "Ensoulment" to describe that point. The point when a mass of cells becomes a person. This has long been the abortion argument. Opinions vary from the instant of conception to (oddly enough) a couple days AFTER birth. Since it is largely a religous argument, government should stay out of it.
I also want to say that government has NO place in regulating morals. Rights sure (as in protecting them) but morals, no. Morals are subjective and mine, yours, and that-guy-over-there's probably don't agree and it isn't the job of government to say who is right and who is wrong as long as nobody's rights are being violated.
s
Stuart:
Gay couples have no rights under the law so there was no recourse
That's simply not true. Granted, it might require some preparation beforehand, but it's trivially easy to leave letters of intent, and preferably, medical powers of attorney (which may be limited) to prevent exactly that sort of situation from occurring.
That situation, by the way, is identical in unmarried opposite sex couples.
The rights of gay couples, or at least the rights they SHOULD have, are commonly stepped upon
What _rights_ are those? And how are they stepped upon? I hear this bandied around a fair bit, but I usually find that the people I know in those situations and those relationships don't have those problems.
Jeremy, Sarah:
Considering that less than 10 years ago, felony convictions for private gay sex were handed out in the USA, it would seem reasonable to me that the community of people who were the victims of that nonsense would look askance at folks on the Right playing the part of the innocent.
Google up the history, nature and application of anti-sodomy laws, which were dragged kicking and screaming into the dustbin of unconstitutionality only a few years ago. Pretending there isn't any animosity, or that such animosity hasn't manifested in terms of the application of government power in recent history isn't exactly a credible position.
It will be quite some time, and require quite some demonstration of goodwill from the GOP before it would be fair to consider such fears to be unjustified.
-------------
Hypnagogue:
No one is challenging your inalienable rights, nor do they have any basis to do so, given your verifiable, self evident existence.
It is you who assert, without presenting any basis, the interchangeable equivalence of yourself to a fetus, and conclude that since the inalienable rights of a fetus are subject to question, your rights are as well. This logical substitution is illicit, an example of the fallacy of composition.
As a side matter, I forgive your insinuation that I would sanction mass murder.
--==|==--
The question of "ensoulment", or if you prefer, the attainment of personhood speaks to a line that is drawn somewhere between conception and birth at which point it can be said that there is a person there whose life can be deprived.
Prior to this point, no party exists to be aggrieved.
There are a zillion theories as to where that line should be drawn, each with their own merits, and none of which can be objectively proven.
On one end of the spectrum is eggs and sperm, and on the other is a live birth.
I reject out of hand any theory that assigns full human rights to eggs and sperm, because accepting that premise means that to avoid murderer status would require a woman to prevent every instance of menstruation (presumably by pregnancy), and unavoidably assigns Stalin class mass murder status to each male who has ever ejaculated.
Now ~that~ would be an absurd premise.
I accept, without further justification, the premise that a live birth is a full person.
I suspect, but cannot objectively prove, and therefore will not legislate, that personhood is achieved prior to birth, and that the likelihood of this being the case increases as the pregnancy progressess.
I doubt, but cannot objectively prove, and therefore will not legislate, that multicellular clumps are people.
Everyone here is free to draw their own conclusions in this wildly contentious matter.
I do not seek or expect to create any concensus in the matter at all.
My larger point, however, is this: since we cannot objectively determine this point, and can't foresee any method of doing so, no basis for universal agreement exists, even in principle. Without that, the basis for invoking power of government in the matter is flimsy indeed.
In other words, no matter what you conclude about where to draw the line, the matter of finding ethical basis to enforce that view on others is entirely separate.
"I reject out of hand any theory that assigns full human rights to eggs and sperm ..."
... or even to a fertilized egg, because a high percentage of fertilized eggs do not implant, and a high percentage of fertilized eggs that implant spontaneously abort, all without the host in whom these events happen being aware thereof. It seems absurd to me to assign rights to such a cell or small assemblage of cells such that to remove it from the host constitutes murder, given that such removal happens naturally in huge numbers.
But that ain't the whole story, rather it is only the beginning.
It is a fundamental question that is taught in the first year of law school. If you put a grain of sand on a table, it is not a pile of sand. If you add more grains of sand, one grain at a time, at what point do you call it a pile, and why?
No, I don't have an answer, I have only the question.
I've spent quality time with a fetus at 28 weeks. She held my finger, looked in my eyes, shook with pain, and recoiled with fear.
Killing her would have been murder. That's not a matter of opinion, understand, it's a bright line distinction I would defend at the cost of my own life. She is my girl, and she is worth it.
So, please, feel free to feel offended by this: if you advocate 3rd trimester abortions, you are a monster, and I doubt your "ensoulment". Take that how you like.
When life starts is a difficult question.
When it ends, less so.
I think it is prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to ending life.
"When life starts is a difficult question."
No, it is a trivial question.
Life began long, long ago. Life continues at conception.
The egg and sperm are living cells. When they combine, the result is a single living cell. Life doesn't begin then, rather it simply continues.
This is a really superior string of comments from both sides.
I think the Geek's attitude toward abortion is the correct attitude toward marriage. Marriage is a religious institution first, social one second. Civil unions satisfy social interest, so the goverment ought to offer nothing but civil unions to gay or straight couples alike. As churches now disagree on the definition of marriage, the government may not under the First Amendment choose one of these definitions any more than it can choose one type of prayer.
However, it does not work when applied to abortion unless you give up murder as a crime. If murder is to be a crime, the government must have a definition that allows them to determine whether there was a murdered party. They are thus forced to take a position on ensoulment. Many sociopaths, I am given to understand, are essentially solipsists; they do not regard other people as really real. If they kill one of these illusions, the government punishes them anyway, imposing its own definition by force. Then of course there are all the examples of racial dehumanization and even the shameful comment in the other thread claiming liberals were only half human. If any of these people are killed, the government must rule on whether they were people.
I think in this instance a different perspective is necessary. America is a republic. A representative is not serving those he represents by criminalizing a thing that a large portion of his constituents regards as innocent. Society should decide moral issues; representatives may try to lead morally, but their votes should represent.
Russel says it is prudent to err on the side of caution when ending life; and I think he's right. However I suspect he is not looking hard enough at the question in hand. The question is the government's reaction to abortions. We talk about allowing or disallowing abortions, but that is not within the government's power. All they can do is either punish abortions or not, albeit they may hope that the punishment may help to prevent abortions. I think abortion is murder; but murder is a capital crime, and it is prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to ending life.
I think we who believe abortion is murder should primarily try to convince the rest of the country. Inasmuch as we want government action on abortion, the burden of proof and the burden of propaganda are both on us; we must convince the people first. To that end: The fetus is not a part of the mother, as it has a complete set of human DNA which is distinct from the mother's. It is human rather than any other creature, again as evinced by DNA. It grows, eats and respires through the placenta, will generally reproduce sometime after sexual maturity, so it is alive. It is a human life.
A human sperm or egg cell, by the way, does not have a complete (diploid) set of DNA; the sperm and egg each have half a set (haploid), a single strand of the double helix. A sperm or egg fundamentally cannot develop into a human, because humans and other mammals need both paternal and maternal strands, which differ.
"When life starts is a difficult question."
"No, it is a trivial question."
DJ,
I see I need to be a little more specific :)
When that pile of cells starts to be a human life is a difficult question.
EgregiousCharles,
"However I suspect he is not looking hard enough at the question in hand." You're probably right about that.
I wasn't trying to make a statement about government policy or law about ending life, I was trying to suggest that it is a good rule for individuals to err on the side of caution.
"When does a baby become a person?" When left alone rather than altered by 'choice' what else emerges than a person? None of us here would be here if before we arrived here someone decided we were just inconvenient tissue masses. Why, after 50 million of these "choices", has not someone guessed wrong and given birth to an undifferentiated tissue mass? Only tissue masses were destroyed...? MIRACLE!! This is the pivotal dividing argument. Life is either Sacred or contingent. Absolute truth exists, or nothing absolute exists. (The political system spawned from this latter is tyranny. Says the Mao, or the Stalin, or the Pol Pot, "I have the power, therefore I am right.')
"murder hinges on the ensoulment of the fetus, because until that happens, there is no party whose life is deprived"
Sounds like the same kind of pseudo-legal, pseudo-intellectual mumbojumbo that people used 150 years ago to justify slavery. And to say that it is unanswerable except by an appeal to religion and thus "not fit for public policy" is a poorly disguised bully tactic that simply tries to make your belief unassailable and takes the other person's position off the table.
ALL law is a codification of the society and culture's moral values. Theft. Murder. Fraud. Treason. Private property. I could name the whole list of things and so could you. Only when it has to do with sex does it get all bolloxed up. So stop with the "that's religious so you shut up" line of argument. At least be honest and say "I want my sex without consequences, so I'm going to look the other way on the issue of whether this is a human being or not."
Why does that sound familiar? Oh, yeah...
"I want my cotton picked cheap, so I'm going to look the other way on the issue of whether this is a man or not."
The next time a smiling young lady hands you one of those grainy black and white ultrsound pic, try not to be a boor and be careful what you say. She might be "religious" and think it's a baby human. And try to respect the fact that so many people are willing to bear your ridicule in order to protect that human being.
Interestingly, while I am one who believes that abortion is murder, and that homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals (i.e. the right to marry a person of the opposite sex) However, I agree with Geek that these things should not be the subject of Federal Law, and probably not even State law. I recognize that these positions are a result of reasoning from my Christian faith, and my own attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus, but that not everyone will agree with me. I am fine with that, as long as I am free to pursue my own beliefs in peace. The power of the State should not be used to push either agenda.
"When that pile of cells starts to be a human life is a difficult question."
What is that "that pile of cells", if not a complete and distinctive organism which is a very, very, very young, very, very, very immature human being? Are you saying that they could grow into something other than an adult human? Like, say, a turtle, or oak tree? What does the age of the organism have to do with whether or not it is a human being?
"murder hinges on the ensoulment of the fetus, because until that happens, there is no party whose life is deprived"
Sounds like the same kind of pseudo-legal, pseudo-intellectual mumbojumbo that people used 150 years ago to justify slavery. And to say that it is unanswerable except by an appeal to religion and thus "not fit for public policy" is a poorly disguised bully tactic that simply tries to make your belief unassailable and takes the other person's position off the table.
I don't see it as such. I see it as a stipulation that the line between killing an animal and killing a person is drawn by how the law defines "a person". He also adds that definitions of "a person" that cannot be un-tied from one's religious views be "taken off the table, a point with which I agree.
If you can see a way forward to defining the lines between "an undifferentiated tissue mass", "an animal" and "a person" that does not ultimately rely on religious views, and doesn't ultimately legally allow the killing of some few "people" by anyone's definition who "fall through the cracks in the system, by all means trot it out.
I've already made my position on this subject clear, but I will say that I cannot wait until technology provides to humanity a functioning artificial womb, and the surgical ability to transfer a fetus from the uterus to it.
Maybe then we can stop arguing the topic.
Maybe then we can stop arguing the topic.
Kevin, I doubt that very much. All this would do is further put the lie to the argument that "choice" is all about a woman's right to govern her body. Viable babies who survive abortion are sometimes killed or allowed to die if the parents don't want them. If it was really about a woman's right to her body, these babies would be saved and put up for adoption. Admittedly, most Democrats are against this practice, but Obama voted against an act that would prohibit it, calling it "a burden on women." There are some on the side of "choice" who are quite simply anti-life. The argument will never stop.
Ed,
"What is that 'that pile of cells', if not a complete and distinctive organism which is a very, very, very young, very, very, very immature human being?"
Yes, but when? As soon as the zygote forms? Is that a 'very, very, very young, very, very, very immature human being?' Or when there are 4 cells? 16?
"Are you saying that they could grow into something other than an adult human? Like, say, a turtle, or oak tree?"
No. A fertilized human egg can only become a human. I would never suggest otherwise.
"What does the age of the organism have to do with whether or not it is a human being?"
I don't know when it passes from being potentially a human being to the actualization of a human being. Ergo, my statement to err on the side of caution. Treat the zygote as something worth protecting.
Kevin,
Sounds like A Brave New World :)
"Maybe then we can stop arguing the topic."
Ha! Kevin, let me introduce you to the human race. Human race, Kevin. As far as I can tell, if we have a single firing neuron, we will argue. Scientific advancements seem to only add to the stuff we argue about!
Ah, yes the elusive end tag...
(Fixed. - Ed.)
As for antipathy towards homosexuals, I see little evidence that this is a defining problem of the Right. In every state in which gay marriage has been proposed, a majority of voters has shot it down, including the not-so-conservative state of California, where blacks -- a decidedly Left-leaning demographic -- overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage.
Does any state enforce anti-sodomy laws against gays anymore? Such laws seem much more like vestiges of the past than a measure of the current political climate -- I haven't researched this, but I'm willing to bet anti-sodomy laws in Southern states date well back to a time when the South was a Democratic stronghold.
I wish geek had instead recognized that the Right has to get over its antipathy towards allowing people the freedom to harm themselves. This means decriminalizing drug use, prostitution, and gambling, and taking all laws off the books requiring adults to wear seat-belts and helmets.
Kevin:
But will TheWonCare cover it?
Sarah:
This means decriminalizing drug use, prostitution, and gambling, and taking all laws off the books requiring adults to wear seat-belts and helmets.
I'm not sure you can point to "The Right" as the sole supporters of that.
On each of those, I can't say that I know that there's a definite breakdown Left/Right that you can make there.
My sister is a hard core Leftist - and she's all for making softcore porn illegal, and the death penalty for hardcore. I don't think you'd want to float the idea of legal prostitution by her. :)
In all of those, it's a matter of who wants to control other people, and based on personal experience and reasoning, people fall all over the spectrum on what they're willing to mandate.
Russell,
I'm glad you prefer to err on the side of caution. There are too few people who prefer to just go blazing ahead without even giving a thought about potential consequences.
"I don't know when it passes from being potentially a human being to the actualization of a human being."
My point is simply that it is inherently human from the DNA on out. Primarily, this is because it's not something else. (This would be the law of identity.)
Furthermore, fertilization is the only "bright line" point that we have. An unfertilized egg cannot grow into an adult human. Nor can a sperm cell. But immediately after these two join, the resulting fertilized cell will grow into an adult human unless something interrupts the process. Once we pass that point, we run into the Sorites paradox where squishy, ineffable words like "potential", "person", "ensouled" or others can be used to argue for "acquisition of the right to life" for anywhere from just after conception to Peter Singer's 28 days after birth.
Just take a look at how Peter Singer uses this type of argument.
"The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right."
…
"In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”"
(Kevin, it looks like Russell forgot to close an italics tag. Could you fix it?)
Correction: There are too many who prefer to just go blazing ahead…
Ed,
It seems to me that there are two questions involved.
Q1. When does human life start biologically?
Q2. When does the right to life start for a biological human?
Q1, you already answered "My point is simply that it is inherently human from the DNA on out. Primarily, this is because it's not something else." And "[...]the resulting fertilized cell will grow into an adult human [...]"
Biologically speaking, it starts as soon as the egg is fertilized.
Q2, though, is where I get tripped up. Hence my comment about an actualized human being. And that's why I think assigning the right to life at the zygote is a proper place to err on the side of caution. There might not be anything 'there' yet, no 'ensoulment', to use geek's phrase, but I'm more comfortable with the bight line drawn there, then say at the blastomere stage, and embryo and fetus stages are right out.
I'm not sure you can point to "The Right" as the sole supporters of that.
U-J, you are correct, and I wouldn't. But more often than not, the Left is in favor of any freedom that involves licentiousness, while folks on the Right argue that it tears at the moral fabric of society. If we on the Right are positioning ourselves as the Side of Freedom, then we really have to mean it.
"Biologically speaking, it starts as soon as the egg is fertilized."
Yep, we both agree on that.
I just don't think it's rationally possible to separate the biological facts from the legal and moral realm without leading to "he who has the power makes the rules" governance.
I agree completely with EgregiousCharles on abortion--there is just no way for government to remain neutral.
On homosexuality, I favor the repeal of anti-sodomy laws wherever they may still exist. I am opposed to any government recognition of same-sex unions on the grounds that heterosexual marriage is a bedrock societal institution in a way that same-sex unions are not. As Unix-Jedi pointed out, same-sex couples can obtain various rights through existing legal instruments.
That said, in the spirit of libertarianism I'd be willing to embrace a compromise in which the government would recognize heterosexual and homosexual unions equally, but private enterprises would be free to recognize only one type of union if they so choose. Unfortunately, I don't see this as a viable alternative in today's political climate.
Personally my opinion is that, barring any evidence of force or fraud, consenting adults should be able to draw up and agree to whatever kinds of contracts they like.
A quote from a longer essay: "In any case, in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.
As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere."
Hunt for the author.
I've been thinking of something along those lines, Grump. Mostly it started while I was looking up the process for becoming a notary... and suddenly found absurd the thought of jumping through so many hoops to get the government to recognize that I have basic reading comprehension.
So my friends can go to the damn courthouse if they need something notarized :)
BillH: I want my sex without consequences
No such luck. Pregnancy is a consequence, and ending a pregnancy has consequences. Sometimes nature brings a pregnancy to an end, that has consequences too, even if not legal ones.
Now, every person has to deal with the consequences of his/her actions (or inactions).
Abortion post-viability is very hard (if not impossible) to justify. Likewise, it is very hard on non-religious grounds, to justify with-holding the morning after pill, or to call that murder (since you don't even know if the zygote has properly attached to the womb). Thus, no bright lines.
Since everyone agrees that an unfertilized egg is not alive, I would like a bald eagle omelette with cheddar cheese and chives.
What? I can't? But why not?
If a human fetus isn't really human, then an eagle's egg, even a fertilized one, isn't really an eagle. So the Endangered Species Act shouldn't apply, right?
Of course, just having an eagle feather can get you thrown in jail.
Orwell was right. All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
At least, according to US law.
I would like a bald eagle omelette with cheddar cheese and chives.
No, really, you don't. They're skunky. And the cheddar and chives doesn't cover it.
Mycroft is missing something on the bald eagle thing. The difference in the way bald eagles are treated is not because bald eagles are more than human under law, but that they are less. The government is not concerned with the eagles' personal sovereignty, only that there are more of them. There would be outcry only from crazies if bald eagles were artificially fertilized without eagle choice according to some scientist's breeding and preservation plan (assuming the plan itself were reasonable). There would be outcry from everyone but crazies if humans were thus fertilized. I can make a will that leaves my ashes for a loved one's mantle, but an eagle cannot.
Kerry, I love the quote you provided and enjoyed the revelation of the authorship!
Eric, nice to hear from you!
"I am opposed to any government recognition of same-sex unions on the grounds that heterosexual marriage is a bedrock societal institution in a way that same-sex unions are not."
The grounds are undeniable, but I don't think the conclusion is justified. It was also undeniably argued that a state church was a bedrock social institution, and it turned out that both Christianity and society flourished all the more without it.
I think it is fairly obvious that a state definition of marriage is currently undermining real marriage as a bedrock institution through easy divorce. I think it is much harder to argue that state recognition of homosexual civil unions can similarly undermine real straight marriages especially if the state only defines them as civil unions as well.
I can't see how gay civil unions pose any threat to marriages sanctified by God.
Does anyone care to take a stab at why a fetus might not be human and alive? All I see in this thread is "I can't believe", which is hardly evidence. Cell count won't cut it; I am a large person with about 25% more cells than the Geek, but that does not make me 25% more human.
Bonus points if your definition does not allow someone to drug you then abort you before you recover. :)
Charles, thanks for the kind words. It seemed to me naming John Paul II up front would immediately cause the mind blinders to engage.
The divide is between those who believe there is something greater than ourselves those who do not.
If a human fetus isn't really human
I guess the govt should stop issuing certificates of live birth.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>