It's Unethical and Immoral to Impose a Belief that Stems from Religion
As a Catholic, I believe in transubstantiation—when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine and become instead the body and blood of Christ. While as a Catholic, I strongly believe this to be true; it would be ludicrous for me to start a campaign that sought to translate this religious belief into civil law.
Similarly, it is unethical and immoral to seek to impose on society a belief that stems from religious teachings—especially religious teachings that are not accepted by the majority of adherents to one faith, let alone those of other faiths. Hard cases make bad laws. In the absence of even the possibility of any scientific certainty on this issue, to seek to legislate this would lead to totalitarianism where the views of a small minority are imposed on the majority. This would lead us to situations like those that existed in China and Romania, where women are either forced to have abortions or forced to carry all pregnancies to term.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
First of all - it is not a "belief" that fetuses are alive. Marsupials are a great example: their fetuses crawl out of the womb at 12 days old and into the pouch of their mothers to continue growth. One would never classify such a capable organism as an inanimate object. Of course there are steps in the pregnancy process leading up to fetal development. But a human fetus moves around and takes on a distinctly human-like shape within the first trimester. To abort in the second trimester is to kill a living organism.
Secondly, you're saying that people have these moral opinions because of their religion ? I guess atheists and agnostics are all amoral then. This is news...
This is excellent. Saint Thomas used the concept of substance and accidents to explain this phenomenon. These are Philosophic concepts not religious .
The analogy with the fetus is clear: the substance is that a fetus is a human being. the accident is that a fetus in a determined moment is more or less developed, but these are differences in accidents never of substance or kind.
As you can see the belief that a fetus is a human being are justified by the same philosophic concepts used to explain the transubstantiation. No religion there.
O'Brien's argument attacks a belief because it is held on religious grounds. How does our classification of a belief system change the degree to which the implied moral code is right or wrong?
Is a moral system based on religion somehow different from a moral system based on individual personal/spiritual beliefs? I don't believe that any moral system is somehow special.
While few would argue that the murder of a healthy, non-hostile 25 year old is right, there is no objective "evidence" that killing this person is wrong. We encode this particular moral tenant into law because society generally agrees that the tenant is right. When you start adding other critera (criminal, terrorist, brain dead, fetus), the concensus breaks down and we start to ask these questions.
Would a redistribution argument automatically be wrong if it came from a religious commandment? While I'm generally against redistribution, I don't believe that we should ignore the belief simply becuase it's religious in nature.
Consequently, I would posit that this argument is fundamentally flawed because it does not address the flaws in the moral code, instead criticizing it because of its source.
You correctly point out that O'Brien's argument commits the genetic fallacy. As a pro-life atheist, I have no patience for such tactics. It has started to seem so obnoxious from my point of view that I decided to try to start a group for like-minded people- just to show up the invalidity of the tactic of dismissing pro-life arguments based upon their presumed religious motivation.
If anyone has an interest in this, please send a note to
SPLASH- Society of Pro Life Agnostics and Secular Humanists
SplashForLife (at) gmail (dot) com
I don't think it does unless you think all morality and beliefs stem from religion. It is immoral to murder someone. I could argue that that belief stems from the 10 commandants (Thou shall not kill). Since this is a belief that stems from religion shall we then legalize murder? The belief that life begins at conception is in no way a religious belief. It is a biological one.
Do you ever wonder where that first heart beat comes from? It just... POP... occurs. What makes it do that?
It's kind of wondering why the big bang banged. If you believe that the Big Bang even banged at all. Or like wondering where "God" comes from, if your of that sort.
No one really knows yet.... I think that's interesting. Apparently, it's inherent to these certain cells, but the exact cause as to why the heart begins to beat is unknown.
Except from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/937254975.An .r.html (okay, so it's practically all of it...!)
"The electric stimulus that triggers the muscular portion of the heart, known as the myocardium, to contract is myogenic. This means that the contractions arise spontaneously within the myocardium itself, and propagate from cell to cell. Input from the central nervous system can modify the heart rate (the frequency of heart beats), but it does not initiate beats.
The ability of cardiac myocytes (the cells that comprise the myocardium) to beat is an intrinsic property of these cells. In fact, myocytes removed from the early heart and grown in culture will beat sporadically, and if they become connected to each other, will then begin to beat rhythmically, in unison. As a functional organ, the heart begins to beat very early, even before it has assumed its final form. Interestingly, the heart begins to beat even before structures such as valves and septa (singular: septum; the muscular walls that divide the chambers) have formed! The initial contractions are peristaltic--that is, they proceed in a wave-like fashion along the length of the heart. Later, once the heart has matured and the conduction system has developed, the contractions proceed in an orderly, timed sequence through the different chambers.
Because beating is an intrinsic property of the cardiac myocytes, exactly what causes the heart to begin contracting is essentially a cell biological question. Unfortunately, there is not yet a definite answer to this question. We are beginning to understand how cardiac myocytes are specified very early in development, long before the heart has even formed. And we are learning more about their differentiation--that is, how these cells, ***which initially are not any different from cells*** that will give rise to the stomach or to muscles in the arm, develop the characteristics that allow them to contribute to the beating heart. From research in these areas, it is clear that certain things are required in order for the heart to beat. For instance, cardiac myocytes must have contractile proteins, such as actin and myosin, that are properly assembled into a scaffold (known as a sarcom ere) that allows contraction to take place. In addition, these cells must have specialized structures called gap junctions, which allow them to communicate so they can beat together in a synchronized fashion. Thus, while it is clear that certain elements must be in place for the heart to beat, it is not yet clear what stimuli are responsible for initiating contraction."
FASCINATING!
I am happy that someone said this. The law cannot ignore morality, and just because many voters derive their morality from religion- that does not mean that they shouldn't weigh in on the issues. It is incumbent upon them to do just the opposite. Unlike transubstantiation, the ending of a human life is not a theological nicety- it is an important moral controversy.
Objections to the death penalty stem from religion but it seems that most who favor abortion rights also object to the death penalty. It's a major contradiction. It seems that there's a major faction in the Liberal Community that believe in certain unrelated and often contradictory aspects of the Liberal agenda on faith without thinking it through. They then object to Conservative Christians for doing the same thing.
Most in the "Conservative" community will favor banning abortion , yet call for the end of the welfare state. ....As if the child has any sort of say in the crappy lifestyle choices of the parents. As if the life that is so valuable inside the womb has suddenly become none of their concern. I've always found that a bit odd.
The very idea that a "Christian" can be in favor of putting anyone to death is absurd. The whole view of Christianity is to turn the other cheek. It is denying that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is valid.
Let me remind you that the Catholic Church, and most other Christian Churches openly oppose the death penalty. It's only the Conservative Christians, in reality a small but very vocal minority, that favor the death penalty based primarily on Political, not Religious ideals.
Quite honestly present objections to the Welfare State stem from the fact, and over 40 years it has become very apparent, that unrestricted welfare does more harm than good to everyone involved. Welfare was originally intended as a temporary safe net to carry people through hard times but the overly liberal welfare policies of the 60's and 70's resulted in broken families, increased drug abuse and children with no direction or will to succeed on their own. The term for this is "The Law Of Unintended Consequences". It happens all the time with laws that are meant to solve a problem but create new unforeseen consequences that are usually worse than the original problem. It occurs because Politicians are usually looking for a politically popular quick fix without ever examining what the total effect of that law will be.
The greatest amount of charity comes not from Government but from Churches. I forgot to add that when Conservatives object to Government welfare most objections stem from the fact that the Administrative branches of the Federal Government involved in welfare are corrupt and inefficient with a fairly small percentage of tax dollars actually going to help the poor. You would be hard pressed to find many people, Conservative or otherwise who object to helping the poor. They just feel that the bloated inefficient Federal bureaucracy is not the way to do it. Why do Liberals not understand that? It seems obvious. Instead the knee jerk reaction is "Conservatives don't want to help the poor" as if the present system is the only alternative. It seems that the "Liberals" are the ones unwilling to try new ideas not the "Conservatives". It's also why, IMO, Socialism will never work as well as Capitolism. It goes against human nature.
A little bit of this and a little bit of that.... a dash of socialism, a healthy handful of capitalism, and the passing on of taxes back to the states, sprinkling of other things.... Choosing to mix disciplines and principles will eventually lead to a government system in which a classification of one is useless, since we recognize that no one classification will work alone. To work toward the creation of a more perfect union! YES! That's why it's probably best if you discard these nonsensical labels of Conservative and Liberal. Most people don't even know what those mean anymore, they've become so distorted. Ever notice the hostility you automatically transpose onto so-called "Liberals"? People hate this name "SocialistBetty"... make completely irrelevant comments about it. ...which is why I chose it. Because I'm evil like that. But more to expose how people really feel about things without having to dig very much. I share more of the true values of conservatism (old-school) than I do socialism. Although socialism has nice aspects to it, it's like saying that Kant, as a philosopher, was completely right about everything. Um... no. But to combine those things that do work with what Does work in capitalism... to find the "Golden Mean" and untie the Gordian knot... it may not be possible, but our love of labels certainly isn't helping.
Isn't that what we're supposed to be striving for? A more perfect union of our states? Not getting hung up on naming ourselves as one thing and one thing only?
Since we seem to agree may I suggest that your alias is misleading and does more harm than good. We are all guilty of stereotyping to some degree including you I gather from some of your comments.
Liberals do not, to the extent that Conservatives do....
...mind you these labels do not truly describe the majority of either party as labels are the exaggerations of the extremes.....
anyway, they do not use the church as a platform for election in the same manner. As in, the Christian values they profess are actual campaign tactics. This group makes up a very large portion of the "right to life" fan base.
What don't you understand about how it is contradictory to be against abortion AND, at the same time, be against welfare?
If the church was doing such a good job.. as, if the private or faith based sector were doing such a good job at providing help to the poor... there would be no need for the welfare state to exist. Further more, if - as is claimed - more than 3/4's of the population is Christian, why is there resistance to welfare?
To say that life is precious and must be protected against the ill-choices of the parent. If we say we must protect the voiceless... why does it not seem contradictory to you to protect the voiceless lives of children against the ill choices of their parents? Or as is more likely, considering the evidence, the ill choices of the parenT?
This bloated inefficiency you speak to comes not from the fact that welfare is not intended to actually help the poor. It is meant to keep the poor as exactly that - poor.
But that aside, you speak as if Conservatives have not controlled congress. You make it sound as if "Conservatives" as this bastion of gleaming solidarity in beliefs... and are not corrupt. If they are part of the government - they are corrupt.
But you're ignoring the point... If Conservatives run their campaigns with an eye toward the Christian base, they should be more proactive in welfare.... since life is so precious as to choose it over liberty.
You Said
"What don't you understand about how it is contradictory to be against abortion AND, at the same time, be against welfare? "
I clearly stated that almost nobody is against welfare. Do you get that? What conservatives and Libertarians are against is the present inefficient system that does such a poor and not very cost effective job in which 70% of the money is squandered in the Bureaucracy. If after saying this you still believe that Conservatives are against welfare you are too closed minded to talk too. You keep referring to the welfare state. Yes it's the welfare state as it presently exists that I as a Libertarian am against. I am not against Government sponsored welfare as long as it cam be done in a far more efficient manor. The first step I believe would be to keep the Federal Bureaucracy out of it and allow it to be administered solely by the States. That is only a first step however.
I never said that Conservatives are not corrupt BTW. They are politicians and as such are just as corrupt as the Liberals. When I say Conservative I mean the common person. I have a general distrusts of politicians no matter what party they belong too.
Once again there is NO RESISTANCE TO WELFARE. There is a problem with the way that it is administered by the government. The idea that Conservatives and Republicans are against welfare is pure Liberal/Democrat propaganda just like the idea that Liberals are anti American, soft on Terrorism etc. is pure Conservative/Republican propaganda. I don't like either party.
You said
"This bloated inefficiency you speak to comes not from the fact that welfare is not intended to actually help the poor. It is meant to keep the poor as exactly that - poor."
I don't agree with the second sentence. It implies some kind of conspiracy, a conspiracy btw that Conservatives claim that the Democrats are involved in. They say the Democrats want the poor to stay that way because poor people traditionally vote Democratic. Liberals say that Republicans want the poor to remain poor because they're selfish. I don't believe either are true. As for the first sentence, good intentions don't pay the bills.
It's not like it's done on purpose.... but it's what has happened. Now I won't claim to be an expert, but I did do a 19 page research paper on welfare and its affects. However, it was localized so it was beneficial only to my area; although it could be applied to other rural areas of any state. And I was only a freshman so I might it read now and find it now very good... but from what I *remember*, it may be that "welfare reform" was looked at as a whole - although even then I still have to say that it is designed - as a whole - to keep poor people poor.
There are good reasons why I say this. While it's true that we are generally a victim of our own creation, being low-low income is one that can be changed IF the circumstances are right. The circumstances the current welfare laws (in my state) create do not allow a large degree of change -which is the entire point of the welfare system: to help people attain a point where they do not need assistance. Most welfare recipients are yo-yo's in the system...because welfare will not help people achieve financial independence by its design
Welfare cannot help people achieve financial independence and it can even be a road block against it. That's probably what you are talking about. Maybe some kind of educational/Vocational program along with assistance in finding a job in addition to financial assistance might be an answer. One of the best ways out of poverty is job training along with a strong economy. Right now the economy isn't too good but I'm sure it will get better despite all the doom and gloom in the news media.
We surely have gotten off the beaten path here but the question "when does life begin?" is pretty vague and seems to depend on ones opinion as to what is life. It's kind of a poor question.
Materialist often make such dumb statements.
Gee anything we find in the Bible or Holy book, no matter how true, can't, (by Jon's reasoning), be
imposed on the secular world.
Maybe Jon just doesn't want any rules?
Sorry Jon, some truths of the secular and religious world, just coincidently, run parallel.
The prophets just thought of them first. The framers realized they were great ideas.
What criteria would you use to guide behavior?
Neo-Darwinism and eugenics? Flawed human reasoning? It is a slippery slope!
Are you even aware of the fallen nature of man?
Et Tu Brute?
Is it unethical and immoral to impose a fact based on scientific evidence! Non so blind as those who have eyes but cannot see.
I'm curious to know how this is a fact based on scientific evidence. And hasn't science been wrong before throughout history? Let me know more info if you can. Thanks
So, what you are saying here, essentially, is it is unethical and immoral to impose what is true. Of course, the irony in such a statement is the simple fact that if a thing is the truth, it needs no one to impose it. The genuine truth cannot be argued with or bargained with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or happiness that you failed or refused to recognize it or readily recognized and applied it. If it, in fact, is the genuine truth, imposition or non-imposition have no effect. Either way, it remains the truth. In the thinking and behavior of those who value what is true over what is not, there is no need of imposition. They already hold to what is genuinely true as consistently as they are able. To them, in their set of values, it IS immoral or unethical - really the same thing - NOT to abide by what is true in their lives. They realize that to ignore fact is to betray the needs of their own lives and the lives of others. Valuing their lives and quite probably all life, they know to ignore any fact is to put their life and other life in danger. They value genuine truth because to do otherwise is reckless. Theirs is an honest and, in the end, the only consistently workable set of values.
What you say is true. In the value set of they who do not respect the genuine truth or genuine fact, it IS immoral or unethical to impose the truth. To them, it IS unethical to speak of facts and consistently logical reasoning. What they value are whatever notions and statements they find convenient, acceptable or comfortable quite in spite of the truth or falsehood of those notions and statements. They are not interested in the truth of a thing, only in its comfort level in their own estimation. They are interested only in what takes very little effort to integrate into their soup of poorly-connected thinking and feelings, words and actions.
What you really meant to say is, "In my set of values, it is unethical to value what is true." All I can say to that is, genuine truth cares little for what you feel is ethical or unethical. The truth is the truth, fact is fact, quite independent of how you feel about it. Recognize the facts or truth, or complete disregard them. They remain and their will be consequences - good or bad - for your choices.
The strongest objection Mr. OBrien can come up with is that "there is no consensus". So we're flipping coins here. Maybe it's a life. Maybe it isn't.
Then he goes on to say that believing it to be a life at conception is merely a religious opinion that should not be imposed upon the majority. My only objection is that we're not talking about religious ceremonies that only Christians are expected to observe in the first place. To make the whole nation (believers and non-believers) take part in some ritual would go way beyond what even the Old Testament prescribed.
What we're talking about here is a potential LIFE. We see a human-looking lump in the road in front of us and we have a choice of whether to run it over thereby killing it if it is human or just let it go on it's way and at the very worst inconvenience us for at least 18 years.
Call me crazy, but I kind of remember a time when black people weren't considered exactly human and hence weren't afforded the rights a human would get. And if you killed one of them it really didn't matter because it's not like it was a REAL life anyway, right? And I also remember that there were a few people whom (because of their religious views) thought that this was wrong and they were bold enough to say "Yes, these ARE lives. Yes these ARE people. Yes you are killing people and that's wrong."
The people that fought for black equality couldn't really prove that blacks should be given the same rights as white people. All they could do is hold to their deep religious beliefs that that was so. In the same way, people who think that a fetus is a life have the right to try to impose that on the public. And, you know what, maybe they're wrong. But if they truly believe that is a human life that you are killing (at conception or when it's a fetus, whatever the argument) they should be ashamed of themselves if they don't fight for that life.
hope i made sense.
thank you
I think you make great sense!
When I found out I was pregnant I immediately was excited. I didn't wait until my baby was "big enough to deem viable" I knew right then and there that life was growing inside of me. Most women will tell you the same thing. We all know a precious life is there regardless of his or her stage of development. People arguing to the contrary are attempting to justify murder with a lot of rhetoric (professing themselves wise they became fools).
I also know many women who are spending the rest of their life grieving over the baby they aborted. You will not be able to argue away their grief with "When is life viabile" rhetoric.
In the words of John Donne: "No man is an island...any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.."
Or how about Psalm 139:16 .."your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
It's interesting to note that one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to legalize abortion . By the time he was deposed they were killing 6 year olds who were still wetting the bed because they were deemed imperfect.
Hitler knew that if you can devalue life at one level, you can learn to devalue at any level.
My favorite line by Jon OBrien is "hard cases make bad law ." It is easy for people with limited experience to make harsh judgements on certain issues, especially if they are indoctrinated when they are young by religious beliefs.
"Hard cases make bad laws." "People arguing to the contrary are attemtpting to justify murder with a lot of rhetoric (professing themselves wise they became fools.") Biblical quote, I assume.
In 1969, before abortion became legal in this country, the doctor who delivered me 11 years before treated me after I had been raped by a stranger in my own bed with my whole family asleep in the house. With tears in his eyes, he ensured that I would not have my rapist's baby at age 12. According to you, my doctor, my parents, and I are murderers.
I believe this is what Jon O Brien or anyone else would refer to as a "hard case." The problem with blanket judgments such as yours, and what makes abortion unique, is that a choice often has to be made between the welfare of the mother and that of the fetus, in my case, a fertilized egg. For my parents and my doctor, the choice was obvious, but not to many callous religious zealots. Forcing a child to have her rapist's child is tantamount to raping her again, yet the Catholic church has intervened in such cases against the child. It is sad to say that the last 15 years have shown us that the Catholic Church has turned a blind eye and even enabled horrific child abuse on a large scale, permanently damaging their credibility on any such issue to the core.
These situations get very messy ethically and medically, and are best left between women and their physicians. Envision yourself at the door of an ER watching a scenario similar to the one descibed above. Most rational people would turn and run, not walk away from such a situation, with an overwhelming feeling that they had violated that family's privacy with only a glimpse and undrstanding of what was taking place. The thought of actually intervening is unfathomable when it has actual human faces. It is much easier when there are not.
Because of the numerous factors to be considered, abortion lends itself to limited legislation at best. Abortion restrictions do indeed "make bad law."
I am very sorry for what happened to you. You are wrong in assuming that because I know that abortion kills a child that I must not care about the mother. I do care about the mother and I care about you. I have personal friends who have had an abortion and I love them.
I also love that precious life that was inside of you. You don't know if carrying your child to term would be raping you again because you never did carry your baby to term. You don't know that you are better off aborting your baby because you can never know what life would have been like with him or her.
You are also assuming that because I base my beliefs on Christian principles that I must be wrong. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? That He doesn't love and care for us at every level? That He doesn't care for your child who is now with Him? Can you substantiate any claim you make or imply that abortion is justifiable? What happened to you was horrific but how did having an abortion make it better? That baby didn't commit a crime against you but he/she received the death penalty for it.
Rape is wrong but so is murder . What moral stand are you taking? Rape is wrong because it was done to me but murder is not wrong because I committed it?
I don't know you and you probably don't think I understand you but I am going to be praying for you everyday. You may not believe it, but God loves you because He made you and He is watching over you and can bring healing into your life.
I am always just blown away that prolife people would even consider suggesting that a traumatized child rape victim should have her rapist's baby.
YES. YES. YES. I was better off "aborting" that fertilized egg (two cells with a complete set of chromosomes does not constitute a "life" in my opinion, but potential life) and limiting the entire incident to that.It was NOT murder ,it was absolutely justified, and your suggestions to the contrary are just abusive. I refuse to buy into it. MY WELFARE as a traumatized young girl with a fully formed brain, body, and consciousness should have and did take precedence over a fertilized egg. That should be a No Brainer to any rational person. No loving God would ask such a thing. Are you even considering the health risks to a child delivering a baby? Did you research that at all before suggesting it?
The problem is people do not have a clue how a child's mind works, just how traumatic this is. Since you cannot understand, I will tell you that my Catholic faith,with its obsession with virginity, caused me to believe that I was ruined, dirty, defiled,that God sent this man to do this to me because I had been bad. Why else would he allow such a thing? There is no other explanation to a child, and religious teachings serve to reinforce it. That's the kind of thing that misogynistic religious dogma does to a child rape victim. The combination is absolutely lethal to a sexually abused child's spirit and self esteem. Rape of a child is spiritual murder. Needless to say, I am no longer Catholic. And although i can tell you mean well, I feel sorry for you because you have swallowed that dogma hook, line, and sinker.
First of all, I want to reiterate how sorry I am for what happened to you. Furthermore I am sorry that you had to receive further trauma at the hands of those who claimed to be representing Christ and His church yet, by your account, treated you in an unChristlike, unscriptural manner. You did nothing to deserve what happened to you and any Christian leader who has made you feel that way are one day going to be held accountable to God.
It's understandable that you have a lot of anger against the Church as well as people like me who are Christian (I'm not Catholic, by the way). Therefore, I am not going to get into an arguement with you about when life begins. I am going to tell you that there is a God and according to scripture He knew you and loved you before He even created the universe. He loves you so much He sent His son to earth to die a cruel death on a cross so one day you can spend eternity with Him. Where, as it says in the last book of the Bible "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain..."(Revelation 21:4). This gives me great hope. An end is coming to all evil. If it is not true, what have we to look forward to? More people committing crimes, more suffering until finally we destroy each other?
God cares about you and has healing and blessings to give you if you would only turn to Him.
As I said, it doesn't matter to me what you might think about me but I am not going to stop praying for you.
I disagree with the binary assumption: human or not human. Something that has the potential to be human is not the same as something that is human, but it is certainly not worthless. I feel that it is dangerous to deal in absolutes.
Is a brain dead person on life support a human? I'd say yes. Now in a fire, who should be rescued first, the unconscious nurse or the vegetable? Harsh!
Is a convicted criminal a human? I'd say yes. But we strip that person of their inalienable rights.
Is a soldier in an enemy army a human? How about an 'enemy combatant'? ...
The truth is that we assign, as a society, the rights we deem appropriate to the circumstances. We constantly balance one person's rights against another's. We do not have a black and white system where every human gets the same treatment.
It is a crime to sterilize someone against their will. That is assault on the potential parent, not the potential children. Somewhere along the way the potential child starts to get rights independent of the potential parent. In some unfortunate cases, those rights are in opposition. I do not believe that we should ascribe equal rights to the fertilized egg and the unconscious nurse. If only one can be saved it should be the potential mother.
The humanity (humanness?) of a fetus grows with time. It is not a light switch nor a flip of a coin.
Whether or not something is human is easily determined by examining its genetic code. Human blood can be proved to be human, and canine blood to be non-human scientifically. Whether or not something counts as a life is also a settled manner in science for most things- including fetuses (but not for some relatively odd things like viruses and prions).
If it is not merely a constituent part, but complete, and if it has the appropriate life functions, then it is a life. (This rules out cases such as human tissue which has been made to continue to survive apart from the person it came from.)
There is no question but that a new human life comes into being at conception. Any scientist will have to admit that, and the US court system has even reviewed and verified that this is scientifically verifiable.
The real position of people like O'Brien (who know better, but still say that 'it isn't clear when life begins' , because that is more marketable) is that in spite of the fact that a new human life exists at conception, they don't think that all human lives deserve rights- even the right to avoid being destroyed. 'Personhood' is a quality which supposedly is present in most humans after birth but which is never present at certain points when the life is still in utero. Since personhood can arguably mean whatever you want it to mean, if it is necessary in order for human life to receive rights, then they can justify abortion . 'Personhood' is not a scientific term. 'Human' and 'life' are scientifically definable.
Human lives begin at conception- this is an established fact.
When human lives get "personhood" is unknown.
I used 'humanity' rather than 'personhood.' I am not talking about having human DNA, which along with life, is present before conception as well as after. In the science that you are invoking, there is no such thing as new life - life is a continuum, as is the DNA that encodes it. Human DNA by itself defines a cell as Homo sapiens, but does not make a cell a person. That is why we are trying to develop a term to describe what IS new, a new person. There is no single point in time, no switch that occurs where a developing human goes from having none of the characteristics of a person to having all of the characteristics of a person. That is the binary thinking that I am arguing against.
In the miraculous process of going from 2 adult humans to 3 adult humans there are many intricate biological steps that all must be taken at the right time and in the right order. At every stage, there is life, and that life has human DNA. Along that path, the potential adult human is granted incrementally increasing rights - from none while it is still a sperm and egg to full rights at 18 years (or 25 if you want to rent a car).
Many humans never make it, or get sick and lose some of these rights, or make mistakes and have these rights revoked. It is our job (as a society) to assign rights to humans at different stages of their existence. Rights to citizens, rights to criminals, rights to the insane, rights to children, rights to pregnant women, and rights to the unborn. I shudder to compress such complexity into a binary box built of DNA.
Using 'humanity' rather than 'personhood' clouds the issue, because many people will not realize that being a living human being is not the same as being a person. When a new human life exists- ie, when there is a new organism which is alive and which is a member of our species- is incontrovertibly established by science as being at conception. Because 'personhood' is a subjective distinction, it could be binary or shades of grey or whatever is in the eye of the beholder. It is a philosophical category, and not empirically verifiable. Unfortunately, many in the public at large may hear 'humanity' and think the subject is science rather than ideology.
The idea that there is no such thing as new life is an oft repeated pro-choice trope. Obviously there has been life on earth since before humanity existed, and there has been a continuity of human life since the species first evolved. That is missing the point. Life 'in toto' isn't what is meant when the question "When does life begin", is asked. New and unique lives are what is being referred to. Otherwise, we would ask, "When did life begin", or "When was there first life on earth?" A new and unique, and complete human organism exists at conception. That is when the life cycle begins. That organism undergoes development and change continuously from that point until death- but the organism is complete at conception. (I already addressed the issue of DNA indicating that a cell is a human cell without being a human beings in my previous comment. It is just a constituent part of a human organism, but not one itself.)
Again, when human life begins is clear: at conception. The only dispute regards the hazy issue of 'personhood'- which is a matter of opinion, not to mention a distinction that may not even be meaningful. It is important to let the average person know that there is no scientific dispute, because that is the misperception that people are (intentionally?) being led to make.
You make many definitive statements about what is true. These are your opinions, not incontrovertible truths, as you present them. This subject is debatable even if you say it isn't.
I take particular exception to this statement, "A new and unique, and complete human organism exists at conception."
At conception there is a single cell that, more likely than not, possess errors that will prevent it from becoming a complete organism. Even in the case where the fertilized egg has no defects it is not a complete human - the hardest, most miraculous parts of becoming a complete human organism are still to come. You appear to be equating the potential to be complete with actually being complete. I believe there is an important difference between an acorn and an oak tree.
You are wrong when you say, "When a new human life exists- ie, when there is a new organism which is alive and which is a member of our species- is incontrovertibly established by science as being at conception."
The phrase, "incontrovertibly established by science," is far from true.
Scientists as a group do not agree on this very debate. The question is, "when is there something new?" Many biologists that deal in whole organisms (e.g. organismal biologists, ecologists, etc.) use a definition that includes "independent" when counting the members of a species. Geneticists mark conception as the creation of a unique gene combination that is then subject to selective pressures. However, they will tell you that the same thing is true at the onset of a cancer. Many neuroscientists put the creation of something new significantly later, when neural or even cognitive activity begins. Immunologists tend to put importance on the start of the self-selection process when the developing embryo begins to distinguish (at a molecular, not cognitive, level) between self and non-self.
It is not true that science has shown conception to be the most important beginning. There are many firsts in each cycle of life, each of them equally necessary for the continuity of life. Our modern popular obsession with the importance of DNA leads to the idea that conception is the most important benchmark. I don't think it is. Oh, and a trope can certainly be true.
Tropes can be true, but a purely ' pro-choice trope' is ideological.
First, a brief point- then I'll address objections. Every species has a life cycle. The human life cycle begins at conception. You are in a position wherein the beginning of the life cycle must of necessity be occurring to something other than a living human organism. How can one make sense of that? I posit that one cannot.
"a single cell that, more likely than not, possess errors that will prevent it from becoming a complete organism"
Such a cell might not develop into an adult. A lot of genetic anomalies prevent reaching adulthood. If one is present in an infant, that wouldn't be a basis for denying the infant is human, which brings us right back to where we started.
"where the fertilized egg has no defects it is not a complete human - the hardest, most miraculous parts of becoming a complete human organism are still to come."
First a question: You used the term 'miraculous'. I won't make a silly objection about its being non-scientific. Would you permit me to use the term 'created' in a secular sense? As in, " at this point a new life is created."
Secondly, you contend that something isn't completely human until some point well after the organism's life cycle has begun. How can you argue that a zygote or an embryo or a fetus (human or not) is not a living member of it's species? If we were talking about gametes, then I'd agree. They require other cells to make a complete human. Are you using "complete" in another sense?
If you're using the term "human" as synonymous with "person", then you're not making a scientific observation. Are you using it to mean "mature" or maybe "independent"? If so, you are employing an arbitrary distinction. One could say that an organism isn't "complete" until it has reached the final stage of its life cycle. Then a kitten isn't complete, but a cat capable of reproduction is. By any objective standard, a kitten is considered a complete (albeit not fully mature) living feline.
"You appear to be equating the potential to be complete with actually being complete."
Frankly, I am confused by this. Can you expand on it a bit?
"there is an important difference between an acorn and an oak tree"
Quite right! I know of two cases where there are scientific disputes about when something qualifies as being alive. The first (things like viruses and prions), I mentioned before. The second is a seed. A seed is an embryo which can go dormant. That raises an interesting question: "if it is dormant, then is it living?" I'm not sure that there is an accepted answer. Humans (as far as I know) don't become dormant.
"organismal biologists, ecologists, etc.) use a definition that includes "independent" when counting the members of a species"
I must admit that I've never heard of 'organismal biology'. Maybe for counting purpose that's the practise, but I have trouble believing that any biologist would maintain that an embryo (non-dormant) isn't alive and isn't completely human or feline as the case may be.
"Geneticists mark conception as the creation of a unique gene combination that is then subject to selective pressures. However, they will tell you that the same thing is true at the onset of a cancer."
Sure, in the latter case you have a complete living cancer cell. That's not incompatible with my position.
"Immunologists tend to put importance on the start of the self-selection process... It is not true that science has shown conception to be the most important beginning... Our modern popular obsession... leads to the idea that conception is the most important benchmark. I don't think it is."
POSSIBLY THE MOST IMPORTANT OBSERVATION:
When do they "put importance on"? Which is "the most important beginning"? These are questions about value determinations. They are questions about what to emphasize or give significance. Now, there can be value determinations which are context specific, and therefore testable. You've given excellent examples regarding branches of science. "Which of these three breakfast cereals is best?" Is an untestable value judgment. "Which of these three cars is best... at saving gas for driving on city streets?" Is (likely) empirical.
"When Does Life Begin?" is not a matter of determining value. It is an objective question, although ambiguous. If we agree that the question might better be stated along the lines of "At What Point Does A New Human Life First Exist?"- then it is a matter of fact.
It begins at conception, and that isn't a value judgment...
or an opinion.
You begin with a conclusion that is important to you personally and then use arguments that justify this immovable conclusion. It seems logical to you but is not actually logical. This is immediately apparent in this latest post where you begin by stating your conclusion as a fact, "The human life cycle begins at conception." This is exactly the question that is under discussion. If you feel that this is not debatable, then there can't be much further conversation. My own position is that a cycle does not have a defined beginning, literally the chicken and the egg question. I am not arguing that there is a different start point, or that there is an absence of life at any point in the cycle, or that at any point the life involved is not human (the species).
I am interested in this discussion and would be thrilled to have someone put together a good argument. What is it that uniquely comes into existence at conception (or any other point in the cycle)?
Specific responses:
I have no trouble with the word 'created.'
I said the phrase, "complete human" when quoting you. I never said, "completely human" that was you changing the words to justify your foregone conclusion.
I have never suggested that a fetus is not living, nor have I suggested that it wasn't human (the species). You are restating my words as straw men, either as a rhetorical device or because you misunderstood me.
A fertilized egg also requires other cells to make it a complete human.
Expanding the point, there is a difference between potential and actual. It would be impossible to treat everything with potential as though it has already realized that potential. As an imperfect metaphor, the paints at an art store would be prohibitively priced because they have the potential to become a masterpiece, they just need an artist to incubate them properly. Cutting down a hundred year oak is unfortunate, but nobody begrudges the squirrel the hundreds of acorns it destroys. Potential has its own value, but not the same value as the actual accomplishment.
There is no scientific dispute about acorns, oak trees, nor fetuses, these things are all alive. Dormant has nothing to do with it.
Organismal Biology is an old field within Biology. There are many universities that offer it as a major or as an advanced degree. My discussion of different fields was all in support of my statement that scientists don't agree on the answer to this question, including scientists who are anti- abortion (such as myself). This was done to refute your statements that the issue is incontrovertibly resolved by science.
This is a discussion about gray areas and interpretations as well as ever increasing scientific information. I suspect that we should end the conversation now. One of us is open to being convinced, but the other is not. While I think I am right in this matter, I have been wrong many times in the past.
Is the purpose to discuss gray areas or something else?
Most of this site is devoted to social controversies. For example, one could ask 'does free will exists' or 'is causality universal, or are there events which are uncaused', but that doesn't seem like the sorts of things that make it to the site.
I more or less assumed that this topic was supposed to be about this...
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/06/053093P.pdf
The South Dakota legislature passed a law wherein women had to be told prior to getting an abortion that "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
Planned Parenthood sued. They said that the statement was ideological rather than medical. They particularly objected to the use of the term "human being".
The statute had an internal definition of the term: "an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation."
Planned Parenthood argued that the Supreme Court had said that it's not for the states to resolve when life begins.
By the way, I understand the difference between potential and actual. That wasn't my confusion.
It's significant that there's a huge array of what can be considered 'potential', of course.
Someone can say of a bright 8 year old interested in politics, "we have potential president here."
That's a far sight from the potential of a 28 year old to become a 29 year old.
I wanted to know what you meant by 'potentially complete'. Things can be complete or incomplete. If a part or a member of a set is missing, then it is incomplete. If all the parts are present, or all the members of a set, then it is complete.
So, do you mean 'incomplete' but with a possibility of getting some missing bits in the future?
Which missing bits? Adult humans need oxygen and nutrients, so the fact that fetuses need them shouldn't matter even if they come from blood. (Or do you think that the fact that it comes from blood is enough to make it a missing part?)
It seems to me that all the parts are there- the set is complete.
Now if you meant that it was only potentially 'completed', like a puzzle set that contains all of the pieces, but which is unassembled, then I would understand.
Embryos could be considered to be unassembled if you think that there is some level of development that constitutes 'fully assembled'. How they would be missing parts is what confuses me.
You've implied that I have a faulty idea of what a 'life cycle' is. I'm not a scientist, and you've said that you are. I'd think that a life cycle would begin with the union of two gametes, then there would be continuous growth until to maturity when it would produce a new gamete- and when that gamete unites with another, then it starts over with a new member of the species. Or anyway, that's what I think it is for a mammal. Obviously a fungus wouldn't have the same sort of cycle.
If you think that's wrong- where should I go to get a good definition of the term 'life cycle'? (an online source)
Putting aside for now a formal definition, can we both agree to the following?
-a life cycle is common to at least all the healthy and/or functional members of the same species
-every such member (if it doesn't die prematurely) moves through each step of that cycle
-any individual member of a mammalian species is at every point in time distinct from all of the other members of that species (except in cases of identical twins or multiples)
-gametes are not members of a species
-organs or parts of organs are not members of a species
[I don't know what the classification would be for hair or fingernails- but the same for them.]
-the life cycle is finite; at some point it leaves off for one individual member of the species and starts up again with a different member [I had someone quote a passage from a Sagan book once that talked about a cycle of life stretching back continuously across generation after generation or somesuch- I don't consider that to be a life cycle. My understanding is that a life cycle applies to an individual]
If you disagree with one or more, which and why?
I suppose that one could start the life cycle with a gamete rather than with a fertilized egg, but the gamete is obviously not an instance of a human- it only has half the genes of a human. A new human obviously wouldn't be created until the union of two gametes- even if you did start the story a little earlier.
-----------
You are making a distinction between a 'complete human being' and what I was describing as an organism which is not a gamete or a portion of a human, but which is itself 'completely human'.
Why do you want to make such a distinction? I don't see a difference.
If something is not a "complete human"- then it would seem to follow that it is either a "portion of a human", a gamete, or something non-human. I can't see any way around those 3 being the options. Am I missing something? If not, then a zygote is a complete human.
-----
Maybe I assumed incorrectly about there being an overlap between philosopher's defining what is living and scientists defining what is living because the philosophers tend to point to the criteria for life that they get from scientists. I was told that seeds are disputed. Aren't (at least some) seeds not growing when they are dormant? I had the impression that it was almost like suspended animation (which technically would be suspended life).
Sorry- I forgot that this was HTML format...
I wish there were a preview feature :)
I'l try again.
Tropes can be true, but a purely ' pro-choice trope' is ideological.
First, a brief point- then I'll address objections. Every species has a life cycle. The human life cycle begins at conception. You are in a position wherein the beginning of the life cycle must of necessity be occurring to something other than a living human organism. How can one make sense of that? I posit that one cannot.
Such a cell might not develop into an adult. A lot of genetic anomalies prevent reaching adulthood. If one is present in an infant, that wouldn't be a basis for denying the infant is human, which brings us right back to where we started.
First a question: You used the term 'miraculous'. I won't make a silly objection about its being non-scientific. Would you permit me to use the term 'created' in a secular sense? As in, " at this point a new life is created."
Secondly, you contend that something isn't completely human until some point well after the organism's life cycle has begun. How can you argue that a zygote or an embryo or a fetus (human or not) is not a living member of it's species? If we were talking about gametes, then I'd agree. They require other cells to make a complete human. Are you using "complete" in another sense?
If you're using the term "human" as synonymous with "person", then you're not making a scientific observation. Are you using it to mean "mature" or maybe "independent"? If so, you are employing an arbitrary distinction. One could say that an organism isn't "complete" until it has reached the final stage of its life cycle. Then a kitten isn't complete, but a cat capable of reproduction is. By any objective standard, a kitten is considered a complete (albeit not fully mature) living feline.
Frankly, I am confused by this. Can you expand on it a bit?
Quite right! I know of two cases where there are scientific disputes about when something qualifies as being alive. The first (things like viruses and prions), I mentioned before. The second is a seed. A seed is an embryo which can go dormant. That raises an interesting question: "if it is dormant, then is it living?" I'm not sure that there is an accepted answer. Humans (as far as I know) don't become dormant.
I must admit that I've never heard of 'organismal biology'. I have trouble believing that any biologist would maintain that an embryo (non-dormant) isn't alive and isn't completely human or feline as the case may be.
Sure, in the latter case you have a complete living cancer cell. That's not incompatible with my position.
POSSIBLY THE MOST IMPORTANT OBSERVATION:
When do they "put importance on"? Which is "the most important beginning"? These are questions about value determinations. They are questions about what to emphasize or give significance. Now, there can be value determinations which are context specific, and therefore testable. You've given excellent examples regarding branches of science. "Which of these three breakfast cereals is best?" Is an untestable value judgment. "Which of these three cars is best... at saving gas for driving on city streets?" Is (likely) empirical.
"When Does Life Begin?" is not a matter of determining value. It is an objective question, although ambiguous. If we agree that the question might better be stated along the lines of "At What Point Does A New Human Life First Exist?"- then it is a matter of fact.
It begins at conception, and that isn't a value judgment...
or an opinion.
Sorry if it came off as seeming like I was making this into a black and white issue; that's not what I meant. I despise black and white thinking. My term was meant to highlight the stark discrepancy between the issue at hand and the method with which Mr. O'Brien uses to make a decision on that issue.
If you're deciding who gets the last piece of chicken at the dinner table, flipping a coin is OK. But if you're deciding who to marry, what college to go to, or what job to take; flipping a coin is childish.
At the core, what O'Brien seems to be saying is that, "Well, there really is no consensus so let's just say it's not a life." And that strikes me as a lazy and ill-advised method for potentially deciding to kill a life. In essence this method strikes me as being as useless and uninformed as flipping coins. (And that was my poorly constructed point)
Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, I truly believe that BECAUSE there is no consensus and BECAUSE there is no surety, you should take the opposition extra seriously. Because with the (seemingly) low level of certainty on this issue we have right now, even the smallest amount of evidence can make the scale tip either way. And which ever way the scale tips, a world is turned upside down:
A pro-lifer who stops an abortion is putting a child in the hands of a mother who may be a child herself and/or the victim of a rapist and who probably is not mentally ready to have a child in the first place (otherwise she wouldn't have considered abortion). Her world is getting turned upside down. On the other hand, a pro-choicer is potentially killing a human being simply for being a potential nuisance. That world is definitely turned upside down.
These are serious and profound issues on both sides with serious and profound implications, and I think that they should not be answered with something as shallow as flipping coins. And Mr. O'brien's method strikes me as the equivalent of just that.
In conclusion, that is why I recommended your post because I believe that your method is a smart and informed way to go about making decisions on this issue. I'm uncommitted on a whole litany of issues. The only issue I am and always have been committed to is approaching these problems reasonably and rationally with the proper amount of caution no matter what conclusion is reached. I bash the method rather than the conclusion.
thanks for you time
Hope I made more sense this time
I think you made a really good point there. It really makes me re-consider my views toward the subject. Nice job.