The President at Notre Dame
President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame was just fine, as far as it went. We really should treat one another respectfully and not caricature our opponents’ views. But it’s also important to note that this can only be the primary concern for those who support legal abortion, and especially those like the President who oppose any significant restrictions on abortion whatsoever. If you have already decided that abortion is not the taking of a person’s life, then of course civility in debate is going to be at the forefront of your mind. Thus the widespread applause for Obama’s generosity of spirit, even among people who have no intention of treating the pro-life movement with anything but contempt.
Similarly, the President’s appeals to the value of humility and doubt —
But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own. This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness.
— are particularly appealing to those who support the status quo, even though I believe he truly means for this to be a lesson to all Americans, including himself. The more humble and self-doubting we are, the less likely we are to achieve, or even to press for, significant social change. The great fighters for full civil rights for women and people of color could not have afforded much doubt. They were driven, and had to be driven, by unshakeable conviction.
(By the way, this is why Andrew Sullivan’s frequent insistence that the difference between him and the “Christianists” is that he is epistemologically flexible and comfortable with doubt while they are purely dogmatic — “their certainty is the real blasphemy” — is simply untenable. He doesn't hold his commitment to full civil rights for gay and lesbian people in a tentative way: he is committed to it with all his heart and mind. The difference between Andrew and your average “Christianist” is not that one is more certain than the other, it’s that they are equally certain about different things. Both of them might at some point say “I could be wrong” but neither of them believes it.)
So God bless the President. He’s trying his very best, given his convictions about abortion. But for those of us who believe that those convictions are wrong, good intentions just don't go very far.
God bless the President indeed, and God bless those Christian leaders – the late Fr. Neuhaus and John Piper and Albert Mohler and Robbie George and Hadley Arkes and on and on – who patently refuse to be self-doubting about the fact that abortion is murder.
— Matt Stokes · May 18, 02:33 PM · #
I think you are somewhat mistaken on Andrew Sullivan. From what I understand his chirstianists are modeled on Islamists. The point is not so much that some people are certain of thier beliefs but that these people are certain enough to the extent that they are willing to impose thiei beliefs on others, and this imposition that resticts others ability to do as their conscience dictates. Gay marriage and abortion are perfect examples. If these are made available you lose nothing except maybe some nights sleep lost to religious anguish. You still have every right to act as your conscience dictates. If abortiona nd gay marriage are resticted, then vast swaths of adults—beings blessed with reason, consciences, and free will—lose access to choices that can profoundly affect their lives for the positive.
Obviously, as a society we have a ligitmate need to prevent actions that harm others (I know that pro-lifers believe that the fetus is being harmed, but issue is genuinely ambiguous, and thus is a perfect instance where the descision should be left to the individual conscience). But religious based laws tend to prevent people from doing things that harm no one—if anyone—but themselves. Plus there is a slippery slope here. Religious laws that starts out only resticting certain actions might in the end start compelling me to do religious based things: wear a beard for instance, or a cross on my lapel.
So the issue is not that groups of people are certain about differnt things and thus are equal, the issue is what they are certain about. Being certain that gays should not marry has a way different effect on the world than being certain that they should. It is the same with abortion. My certainty that a fetus at 12 weeks has no desire, will, or onsciousness and thus cannot be harmed at most offends your view of the world. If your certainty that abortion is the taking of an innocent life is expressed in law, then I am compelled to bear a child I don’t want profundly, hugely affecting my life. Of course there are arguments to be made about the effect personal desicions have on society, but I do not believe you can steer societies by passing laws restricting behaviors that a large percentage of that society approve of.
Anyway, I think you will see that Sullivan is fairly consistant in this regard. He is pro-life but he supports roe vrs wade as the best solution to the free conscience problem. And he supports religious exemptions to gay marriage.
— cw · May 18, 02:53 PM · #
Respect is only the primary concern for people who believe (or want people to think, whatever) there is a middle ground to be had. So the question becomes: is there no compromise available from the moral right? Because I think most of us on the left are genuinely willing to recognize that the people on the right have a pretty good point.
— wfrost · May 18, 02:58 PM · #
You make an interesting point but not all that compelling. For me, I grew up in Pro-Life country and hadn’t heard a real pro-choice argument until college. It took about 1 year before I turned pro-choice finally deciding that the pro-life argument, although compelling in a superficial sense, was clearly wrong. Present company excepted, my dealings with most pro-life people tell me that they simply haven’t been exposed to full complexities of the argument. Of course, someone with strong pro-choice convictions would say that.
And what’s with the dig about Obama not supporting significant reduction in abortion? As compared to the pro-life movement which mixes almost indistinguishably with the anti-contraception and anti-sex ed crowd as well as those who have no problem with underfunding programs that would take care of these kids. With positions like these, I really have a hard time seeing the leaders of the pro-life movement as actually caring about the unborn. Their policies are about controlling sex. Until that mess is cleaned up and they start reflecting the real convictions of the pro-lifers I’ve known my whole life, I can’t really take their “convictions” seriously.
— KJ · May 18, 03:03 PM · #
cw:
And is Sullivan not “imposing” his beliefs when, e.g., he says – as he should! – the U.S. should outlaw torture? How about people who want to raise taxes or institute single-payer health care?
As to the question of harm, as you note the central question in the abortion debate is precisely that of whether the harm done (because there clearly is harm done) in an abortion is or isn’t a violation of human rights. If by “moral ambiguity” you mean the presence of real disagreement over the answer to this question among people of good faith, then you’re right that there is such a thing in this instance – but as Alan notes there are all sorts of cases where this is obviously no reason at all to leave things to the “individual conscience”.
— John Schwenkler · May 18, 03:11 PM · #
John, I think cw has already answered your questions. If destroying fetuses has no effect on me, only on my view of the world, then the same logic must apply to torture. As long as no one is torturing me, then what right do I have to complain? Moreover, cw does not believe “you can steer societies by passing laws restricting behaviors that a large percentage of that society approve of” — well, over 70% of Americans believe that torture of suspected terrorists is at least sometimes justified, so that’s pretty definitive, isn’t it? Those of us who oppose either abortion or torture just need to accept the way things are.
wfrost: most of us on the left are genuinely willing to recognize that the people on the right have a pretty good point. Presumably excepting the other pro-abortion commenters on this thread, who think that the pro-life position is not only clearly wrong but (says KW) not even held in good faith. That Obama message about humility and charity is really catching on, huh?
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 04:02 PM · #
I wrote a paper in law school about abortion law and the formal disenfranchisement of the father in the abortion decision. I toyed with “sex as an implied contract with a potential third-party beneficiary”, and tried to figure out a way to evenly distribute pregnancy and parenting costs between the parties (by monetizing the rights of the mother and father) while making the necessary health exceptions, so as to remove the patina of female irresponsibility and male powerlessness that surrounds the issue, while keeping abortion an available option dependent upon the meeting of the minds and diligent activity of two adults (laches applies after the first trimester), making contraception universally available while instituting real costs to irresponsible sexual behavior — but really what I learned was that I should never, ever discuss abortion in public again.
— Sargent · May 18, 04:06 PM · #
Can someone explain this to me? “Belief in things not seen” is the exact opposite of doubt.
This substantially misrepresents Andrew Sullivan, but I find it completely consistent with Alan Jacob’s mission to malign those he disagrees with. There’s just something about the subject of religion that he absolutely can’t approach honestly.
— Chet · May 18, 04:21 PM · #
“As to the question of harm, as you note the central question in the abortion debate is precisely that of whether the harm done (because there clearly is harm done) in an abortion is or isn’t a violation of human rights.”
I don’t believe that there is clearly harm done.
“And is Sullivan not “imposing” his beliefs when, e.g., he says – as he should! – the U.S. should outlaw torture? How about people who want to raise taxes or institute single-payer health care?”
You almost got me there. Torture raises the exact same kind of moral horror that abortion does. But…. in torture the harm IS clear. The torturee has will, desire, and consciousness and can definitely experience harm. The fetus at 12 weeks, not so much, as far as I can tell.
The best argument for harm in first trimester abortion is that the fetus’ potential is harmed. If left to grow the fetus would enjoy human life in it’s fullest. You could say that the state has a duty to protect that future life for the fetus who can’t protect it for itself and beyond that doesn’t care what happens to it becasue it has no capacity to care. The state in this case becomes like a parent compelling their child to go to school because—while they don’t care now, they will in the future. It is guardianship.
But for me, the central fact is the fetus at 12 weeks doesn’t care in any way. It doesn’t exisit as a being yet becasue it doesn’t have the parts to exisist as a being. If I abort it, it will never know what it has lost. It will experience no harm. Then I hold that up against the harm someone forced to bear a child will experience. It could be enormous harm, it could be small harm, but it is still more harm than the 12 week old fetus experiences.
I know that’s cold blooded, but this is an area fraught with all kinds of emotion and think you have to be cold blooded to get anywhere.
— cw · May 18, 04:29 PM · #
Glib and petty, especially from a man who here is basically saying “when are you people going to realize what murderers you all are?”
Ta-Nahisi is right; Obama’s greatest strength is how petty he makes you all look.
— Chet · May 18, 04:37 PM · #
Chet! Que pasa, man? How are things in the Ninth Circle of Hell, where you will spend all eternity in the foul clutches of His Satanic Majesty? — I guess the day you got internet access down there was a pretty big one for y’all, huh?
cw, I think when you say “harm” you mean “pain.” People, animals, and plants can all (in varying circumstances) be harmed without experiencing pain. That’s just a clarification, not a criticism. But congrats on the cold-bloodedness. It’s gotten a lot of people a long way.
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 04:37 PM · #
Well, that’s just silly. A fetus is harmed in an abortion, just as a bunch of plants are harmed when you mow your lawn. The question is whether this harm is an injustice, and if so whether it is the sort of injustice that deserves to be proscribed by law.
— John Schwenkler · May 18, 04:41 PM · #
It’s worth noting that there’s fundamental rights at stake for both sides here. We could pass a law mandating donation of kidneys, and it would likely save lives with no argument over the personhood status of the lives in question. But it still would seem, to me at least, like it was crossing some fundamental line into a new order of coercion where the state should not go.
So what’s at stake here is not just who is a person, but what sorts of things the state is permitted to do to protect a person’s life.
Comparisons to enhanced interrogation could be made by either side.
— Consumatopia · May 18, 04:52 PM · #
This idea of ‘personhood’ was brought up in my class when I presented my paper, i.e., that harm qua loss of potential was too vague, and that we should instead look to harms that are visited on a real, functional human consciousness.
All kinds of interesting “what ifs” and “but waits” suggest themselves. If personhood is our standard for harm, how do we justify making necrophilia a criminal offense? What about killing pets and livestock? What about Piaget and Kohlberg et al. and their theories about the stages of moral development? What if it can be shown that a child isn’t self-aware until 4, not moral until 8, and not settled in identity until 17? What about kids born with brain damage, or with congenital retardation? What about adults like H.M., or Phineas Gage, or family members in a coma, who’ve had their personhood removed by events? Some of these questions are more germane than others, but each highlights the difficulty of using “personhood” as a standard.
The upshot is, there are no easy fixes, no theoretical skeleton keys. This debate will be settled by negotiation and consensus, or it won’t be settled at all.
— Sargent · May 18, 04:56 PM · #
Alan,
This cuts both ways though, right? In the mirror universe, President Alan Jacobs would be giving a speech saying that, though there are clear differences, the pro-life status quo should listen carefully, with ‘humility and doubt’, at concerns about jailing women for seeking an abortion or the number of women dying from drinking drain cleaner and other internet-recipe pennyroyal teas, while giving the thumbs up to jail women and juking statistics on women dying from drinking pennyroyal tea.
— rortybomb · May 18, 05:29 PM · #
Even as an uncomfortable supporter of abortion-rights, I’ve always found myself sympathetic to pro-life supporters: After all, if someone truly believes that a full, human life is being extinguished, why should anyone expect that person to embrace a middle ground or treat with the other? It seems silly.
— James F. Elliott · May 18, 05:29 PM · #
Not at all, rortybomb. In the mirror universe I would declare myself the Sun God and abolish the Republic, replacing it with a cult of Me so absolute it would make Kim Jong Il blush.
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 05:34 PM · #
rortybomb, seriously, your scenario is certainly partly true, as I think my post makes clear. Defenders of the status quo will always counsel patience, humility, and self-doubt, won’t they? And sometimes they’ll be right, and sometimes they’ll be wrong. People who like the status quo will always treat such counsel as deeply wise. And sometimes they’ll be right, and sometimes they’ll be wrong.
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 05:38 PM · #
I should have said pro-life Obama, that reads as personal and I didn’t mean it that way.
That said: Sun God Alan Jacobs provides for all the young people out of his benevolence and wisdom! Or so they say on the television. And everywhere.
— rortybomb · May 18, 05:38 PM · #
James F., that’s precisely why I don’t think you can expect pro-lifers to be too terribly soothed by Obama’s speech, fine though it was in many ways.
And on an unrelated note, I am about fifty pages into Deadhouse Gates . . . and I’m struggling. You should probably intercede for me with one of the Ascendants. One of the nice ones. If there are any nice ones.
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 05:45 PM · #
I think Alan makes some great points. It is true that it would come across as weird and condescending to tell someone from the Civil Rights movement that “there are no certainties” and “we should be humble.”
However, I do believe this is a substantively different issue. The difference is that the notion of personhood itself is in question here in a way it is not in other debates over civil rights.
When a fertilized egg is sitting in a womb, is it part of the mother? Part of a new human being? Both? At what point is the fetus a new moral agent? Clearly it isn’t making decisions at 3 days old— there’s no brain yet. But even with no brain, it is an amazing thing— something that will develop into a full-fledged human.
It is all the weirdness surrounding this concept (and the boundary between moral agency and non-agency) that is at the heart of the disagreement. And that is simply not true about other civil rights debates.
And I think this weirdness inherently makes the debate more intellectually difficult. And the intellectual difficulty makes it important for us to be civil.
I dunno. Even deciding whether we should be civil is hard. But I think reasonable people should be able to straddle the sides of this debate and realize that both sides are talking meaningfully, just with different starting points.
— mk · May 18, 05:51 PM · #
“Well, that’s just silly. A fetus is harmed in an abortion, just as a bunch of plants are harmed when you mow your lawn. The question is whether this harm is an injustice, and if so whether it is the sort of injustice that deserves to be proscribed by law.”
That’s another way of looking at the same thing. We can say that it is an injustice that this fetsus was aborted but the question is why? Now we a right back where we started. Harm is one test of injustice.
And Alan, I don’t mean just pain when I say harm. If the fetus has no idea of existance, then when exisitance is taken away from it, it experiences no harm. It feels nothing becasue it hasn’t the equipment to feel. We see that it has been harmed, has experienced a loss, and so it is perfectly reasonable that we should step in to protect it, but the fetus itself cannot experience harm.
It like if someone was considering you (or whoever) for a genius-type grant. They read through all your work without you haveing any idea of what they are considering. They decide against giving you the grant. You have no idea of all this that occured. You have lost something, but experience no loss. There is no pain, no grief, no regret…
— cw · May 18, 06:00 PM · #
While I believe in legal abortion, I understand why it is that those who see it as murder are so vehement in their opposition. I am pro-choice, but I would certainly be against any partner of mine having an abortion, because I also can’t square it with my Christian faith. That being said, I support legal abortion (1)Because I believe in the separation of church and state (2)because outlawing abortion won’t stop it from happening, it will just make it more dangerous to lower-income women. Yet I understand the passion behind those who actively oppose it. What I do not understand is why this same amount of passion isn’t transmitted into other areas where Christians have clear ethical obligations.
I assume that the primary Christian argument against abortion is that it is an unjust act which causes suffering and death to the fetus. But there many areas and circumstances outside of abortion where these same things occur. If you are going to take such a hard line on abortion, then surely you are obligated to refrain from purchasing items which are made in sweatshops by child labor?; surely you must vehemently oppose any politician who supports the death penalty and torture?; surely you must structure your life so that you are giving to and are active in programs which actively work against poverty and homelessness? Before you dismiss me as being a Jim Wallis clone, note that I am not necessarily talking about government action but how we in our own personal behavior act on our Christian obligations. And quite frankly, I think there are many other areas outside of abortion which demand our focus. There are many living people who are having things done to them as bad as abortion; when will Christians show the same amount of moral outrage at these injustices?
— Bert · May 18, 06:04 PM · #
Sorry cw, but I don’t follow your argument at all. “Harm” does not mean the same thing as “the experience of harm”; indeed, it’s exactly because of this that, as your comment suggests, harm is different from pain. Clearly it’s possible to harm someone without his or her knowing, or even being able to know about, it.
You’re right, though, that this doesn’t move us much past where we’ve started, since not all harms are injustices, let alone injustices that deserve to be outlawed. My point was mostly a quibble, but I don’t think it was an unimportant one.
— John Schwenkler · May 18, 06:08 PM · #
rortybomb, I thought that was the point Alan was making. Not to rehash the abortion debate yet again, but that it’s always easier for the status quo, the side that holds the power, to talk about humility and self-doubt. And that reformers, the side that’s out of power, only make any headway when they passionately believe in their cause.
— Michael Straight · May 18, 06:16 PM · #
cw and others who write about a fetus lacking an idea of its own existence, or moral agency, or other such criteria: how do you distinguish a fetus from a healthy hour-old infant in those regards? What capacities and abilities does the newborn have that the fetus lacks, that grant personhood to the infant but deny it to the fetus?
— Karl · May 18, 06:27 PM · #
There are many living people who are having things done to them as bad as abortion; when will Christians show the same amount of moral outrage at these injustices?
I think I could make a case that death is worse than most other things that happen to people, but in answer to your question, bert: many millions of us do. But alas, not nearly as many as should. Christians are especially stingy with their money, as recent studies have shown. It’s pathetic.
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 06:28 PM · #
<i>What capacities and abilities does the newborn have that the fetus lacks</i>?
Independence. The decision by the state to take away the newborn from the mother, and the decision by the mother to give away the newborn to an adoptive parent, involves much less of a violation of the mother’s liberty.
— Francis · May 18, 06:37 PM · #
Independence? How long would the newborn live if left on its own? What about a “dependent” fetus that is 8 months and 3 weeks post-conception and weighs seven pounds, vs. a premie newborn that is 6 months post-conception and weighs 3 pounds?
“The decision by the state to take away the newborn from the mother, and the decision by the mother to give away the newborn to an adoptive parent, involves much less of a violation of the mother’s liberty.”
-Tell that to a mother who has her child taken from her by the state against her will.
I’m not looking primarily to argue. I’d really like to know if there’s an intellectually sustainable argument from pro choice folks for the personhood of a newborn, but the non-personhood of a fetus. One that deprives the fetus of personhood status, without similarly denying personhood status to newborns, mentally handicapped adults and elderly people with advanced dementia. It may be that there is one and I just can’t think of it.
— Karl · May 18, 07:03 PM · #
Let me just pretend, then, that you’ve made an effort to defend yourself.
Let’s say, for a minute, that Andrew Sullivan was, say, only 75% committed in heart and mind to civil equality for gays and lesbians. Committed by a majority and therefore moved to action, but nonetheless willing to entertain (but ultimately reject) the notion that he is “objectively disordered”, possessed of a mental illness or defect unrecognized by any mental health professional that disqualifies his relationships from being normalized.
How would you distinguish Andrew Sullivan at 75% commitment – or even 51% commitment – from Andrew Sullivan at 100% commitment? After all, all he’s done is blog and write books about it, and live those principles in his life, and taken advantage of legal recognition where it’s been made available by the actions of people completely unconnected to him.
He’s never, say, killed himself by detonating a dynamite vest at a straights-only hangout. He’s never, say, targeted for assassination leaders of the anti-gay-marriage movement (indeed, he’s criticized efforts to “out” anti-gay gay politicians and retributive boycotts against Prop 8 supporters.) He’s never advocated remaking the United States government by any means necessary to enact his desired agenda (indeed, he’s critical of judicial efforts to enact civil equality for gays.)
A Christianist (and, yes, they do exist) once remarked to me, upon learning of the secular basis of the foundation of this country, that the Founding Fathers were the greatest snowjob artists of human history, because they created a secular state that “everyone assumed was Christian.” Her conclusion was that the US Constitution was a betrayal of God’s command that the United States be formed as a Christian nation.
That’s what it means to be “is committed to it with all his heart and mind.” The parity between Sullivan and Christianism is a false, absurd, and disingenuous one, and The American Scene bigwigs should be curious why this continues to be an issue that you absolutely cannot write about honestly.
— Chet · May 18, 07:05 PM · #
The problem, like everything, is IQ.
The LIFEwarriors don’t understand that differentiated cell clumps are simply not human life. There is insufficient neocortical substrate to support thought and REM sleep until six months gestation. There is insufficient substrate to do a lot of things, like sense pain or pressure as well.
cw is right, any attempt to restrict abortion rights of the citizen host womb is giving the developing proto-citizen rights that trump the citizen mothers.
Ross mused at length about any compromise requiring overturning Roe.
I can safely predict that will not happen as long as the human-life-at-conception-frothers are the face of the pro-life movement. Also, like others have said, it is essential that the RtL movement accept that birthcontrol and sex education AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD are good things.
The demonization of PP by the hardcore right is one of those amazingly idiotic things that can only happen among the 40percenters.
I am far more afraid of stupid people than of crazy people. For one thing, there are many, many more of them.
— matoko_chan · May 18, 07:50 PM · #
So clear, in fact, it needs not be argued! Why, I’m sure I just fromuled John Shwenkler’s immortal fribniz; a crime I should surely be jailed for!
This is not to mention all the imaginary persons harmed by imaginary crimes against them; why, surely being imaginary doesn’t eliminate the possibility of being harmed, right? John Shwenkler proudly stands for the rights and safety of Mytho-Americans!
— Chet · May 18, 08:10 PM · #
matoko_chan, the differentiated cell clumps are inarguably alive. What kind of life are they before they become human life? At what point does that supposed other kind of life become human life? At the time it is capable of REM sleep? Who came up with that as the criteria?
— Karl · May 18, 08:24 PM · #
“I think I could make a case that death is worse than most other things that happen to people”
I don’t disagree with that; I just think that doubt as to how best to deal with any societal problem is not necessarily insincere or cowardly. Typically, it is liberals rather than conservatives who believe that simple, applicable programs can rid us of societies’ ills. And the women’s rights movement was not without complexity; they left black rights behind, believing that they could only achieve suffrage for white women. Also, I think Malcolm X offered a very eloquent counter-argument to MLK’s strategy of nonviolence: namely that self-defense against an exploiter or attacker is perfectly moral. So these movements were not without their moral complexity
To me, this was the most significant passage of Obama’s speech:
“Unfortunately, finding that common ground – recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” – is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man – our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.”
Obama essentially defends the idea of Original Sin, though from a liberal perspective. But it’s just like you say in your book, liberals believe in sin, they just tend to focus on greed and exploitation while conservatives focus on sex and personal morality(or at least most religious conservatives do).
— Bert · May 18, 08:26 PM · #
At the time it is capable of REM sleep?
6 months gestation, plus or minus a week.
Who came up with that as the criteria?
REM is evidence of dreaming which is evidence of thought.
What kind of life are they before they become human life?
Non-sentient life. Like a tumor or a teratoma.
Tumors and teratomas have human genomes, the genome of the host.
Are tumors and teratomas human life?
— matoko_chan · May 18, 08:33 PM · #
Okay, I think I’ve got it now: if a tumor has the genome of its host, and a fetus is like a tumor, then a fetus also has the genome of its “host,” right, matoko? It must, or else your analogy is senseless. And no one with your IQ could possibly make an analogy that bad.
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 09:00 PM · #
One difference I see is that left alone to run their natural course, tumors and teratomas don’t become human babies. Nor does any other group of living differentiated cells, other than a fetus. And left alone, a human fetus will not develop into anything other than a human baby. So withholding of “this life is human life” status from those living cells until the point in time in which thought is possible, or until viability outside the womb (which has proven to be a constantly moving target), or until some other chosen developmental milestone, seems rather artificial to me and appears to be done with a desired end result in mind. Disagree if you will, but I hope you will refrain from suggesting that disagreement with your position is necessarily due to stupidity, lack of thought or insufficient information.
— Karl · May 18, 09:06 PM · #
Wow. That sure is some … reasoning there, chet. With arguments like this to contend with, we philosophy-types don’t stand a chance.
— John Schwenkler · May 18, 09:10 PM · #
Alan Jacobs · May 18, 05:00 PM · #
Ekshually a fetus is a parasite.
Karl, the development of sufficient nervous tissue to support thought is a developmental milestone that people like me are willing to accept. Potential by teleological argument is not.
The legal implications of your approach include lawyers suing for forced implantation of terminally cryostasised embryos on their behalf and criminalizing certain forms of birth control as murder.
Remember, my side is not the side that needs to compromise.
Yours is.
— matoko_chan · May 18, 09:48 PM · #
/sigh
Here I go violating Conor’s Rule.
Karl, the ONLY reason to believe that a differentiated cell clump without a brain or a nervous system is a “human life” is ensoulment, and that is an antique superstition from the Dark Ages.
How can I not think of people that believe that as ignorant superstionalists?
And ignorant superstionalist <i>hypocrites</i> as well, since they do not fiercely oppose invitro fertilization and fertility therapy.
— matoko_chan · May 18, 09:55 PM · #
Remember, my side is not the side that needs to compromise.
Please notice my President didn’t say that. He really is wunnerful, isn’t he?
So reasonable, so polite. He gives respect to the opposition and worth to their views.
I had a riding clinic with the great Olympian Karen O’Connor once.
I’ll never forget what she said about working with a difficult horse.
You have to open a door for them, give them a place to go.
Obama is very good at that.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 18, 10:04 PM · #
Oh, it’s a parasite — but wait, a minute ago it was a tumor. I am so confused. I must not have the IQ to keep up.
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 10:17 PM · #
Now, matoko, I know you’re not interested in the facts of the matter — of this matter or any other. You’re a pretend magician: you think if you utter phrases like “IQ” and “cell clump” that will pass as knowledge. But if you ever do become interested in joining what some folks like to call the reality-based community, here’s something you’ll need to know: a fetus is a “cell clump” only in the sense that you and I are cell clumps; a fetus is not a parasite; a fetus is not a tumor. (There are, believe it or not, reasons why we have these different words: they indicate different things.) A fetus is an organism of a given species that is gestating. A human fetus is a gestating human being. If you want to say that it’s legally and morally permissible to kill it, by all means go ahead. But have the courage to say that that’s what you’re doing. All this verbal posturing suggests a reluctance to be straightforward about what you’re advocating. In some people that could be perceived as the workings of conscience, so you should be careful. You should follow cw’s advice and practice being cold-blooded.
— Alan Jacobs · May 18, 10:31 PM · #
You’d know, wouldn’t you, Jacobs? Or are you about to send me off to my Plantiga homework, again? Gosh, I can never understand why the pro-life camp is perceived as arguing in bad faith.
— Chet · May 18, 11:06 PM · #
And the funniest thing about Jacobs’ immediately preceding post – the words “woman” or “mother” or even “uterus” are completely absent from it. Why, there’s absolutely no indication at all that anyone but a fetus is involved in Jacobs’ mental conception of pregnancy.
A fetus gestates, to Alan; all by it’s lonesome, apparently. Apparently being pro-life is a form of mental ultrasound, allowing a perfect view of the “unborn” by making the woman completely invisible.
— Chet · May 18, 11:11 PM · #
It seems like the more complex the arguments over what constitutes life, the more obvious it is that we don’t have the capacity to fully understand what we’re dealing with. It’s a sign to me that we ought to respect life and not be so cavalier about abortion. There’s an inner-city minister whose name and location I forgot who points out that if we want abortion to come to an end we ought to support that in every way, including taking in children whose parents are unwilling or unable to care for them.
— Joules · May 18, 11:25 PM · #
Alan: this is almost certainly not the place to have this conversation, but let me ask.
If you were to compare the moral disgust you feel about different instances of abortion, would it look like this?
Procrastinated-and-therefore-partial-birth abortion > second trimester choice abortion > first trimester choice abortion > abortion to save the mother’s life (or after rape, etc.) > childless sex with contraception > 0.00 > birth out of wedlock > childless sex out of wedlock > marriage then birth — with the zero possibly ahead of “childless sex with contraception”?
The debate is over where to maintain (and imply) the zero, right? Would you be okay if the zero moved up three notches, if, in return, you got the state to outlaw the worst offenses? In other words, does the moral disgust increase linearly or exponentially from zero?
Feel free to ignore me.
— Sargent · May 18, 11:30 PM · #
Sargent, I don’t think of it in terms of “moral disgust,” largely because I’m not as good as I should be at feeling moral disgust. But I think abortion is a very bad thing and I would like to end it, except in the usual handful of exceptional cases; and I would prefer to do that not by legislation but by various private and voluntary strategies and organizations that serve sexually active young people, and unwed mothers and their children. If my fellow Christians gave more than one or two percent of their income to charitable causes — see my response earlier to bert — some approximation of that goal could be within reach. That would make legislative strategies less necessary but also, I think, more plausible, since pro-lifers would then be putting their money where their mouths are. But in any case, this is a battle that has to be fought on multiple fronts to have any chance of getting anywhere. Right now I’d just like to see us regain some of the ground we’ve lost since Obama took office.
— Alan Jacobs · May 19, 12:07 AM · #
Alan,
Yours response to abortion seems to me to be very similar to the Clintonian response to abrtion: rare, safe, and legal. I’m pretty sure Obama, who is also a Christian, feels the same way. So I don’t think youhave lost any ground, in fact I have believe Obama is at least willing to listen arguments for second trimester restrictions, which would be a move in your direction.
I also agree with you that abortion is a bad thing and that there are non-legislative methods that will reduce it, but that these methods are probably not palitable to the average Christian right to lifer. We are talking realistic sex ed and contraceptives, plus giving financial help to poor unwed women and girls so that they can keep their babies: day care, job training, etc…
So I think your best bet is to come together with people with views similar to yours, which seem to me to be more likely liberals.
— cw · May 19, 12:30 AM · #
cw, I hear you, but I want to be clear that I don’t think abortion should be legal — I just don’t think a major change in the law is likely anytime soon, and I don’t want to invest too much more time and energy in that. All the evidence that I have so far suggests that Obama is going to do everything in his power to make abortions easier to get, and I don’t think easier to get = rare, so . . . But I would dearly love to be proved wrong. And the President is exactly right when he says that people who have differing views about the legality of abortion can work together to make abortion rarer. I devoutly hope that happens.
— Alan Jacobs · May 19, 12:35 AM · #
Alan I never see the word “contraception” in your posts about reducing abortions.
Why is that? What is the explanation for the apathy, if not outright hostility, to expanded access to contraception – the one thing that most prevents abortion – among the pro-life right aside from the pro-choice interpretation that it’s all just a giant put-on, that pro-lifers care not about saving fetuses but about sexual finger-wagging? (After all, I’ve never heard a pro-lifer advocate that a mother who’s had an abortion should have her children taken into foster care, but surely a woman capable of killing one of her children is capable of killing the rest. Isn’t that because even pro-lifers recognize, on some level, that life begins at birth and there’s a qualitative difference between abortion and the murder of a real human being?)
— Chet · May 19, 01:45 AM · #
You deserve better trolls, Alan.
— Kate Marie · May 19, 02:25 AM · #
Indeed. Chet, why do you bother? Your contributions to the discussion rarely move beyond shrill expressions of hostility, and it’s clear as day that you don’t like your interlocutors any more than they (we) like you. So why not just go away?
Oh, that’s right. You’re a troll. And Alan deserves better.
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 02:32 AM · #
Why do y’all allow such trolls here? It dissuades people who are interested in good faith debate from bothering to wade in.
— Stuart Buck · May 19, 02:39 AM · #
To the contrary; even an uncharitable estimation has to put me at about 50% compelling arguments and 50% chiding hostility.
I’ve never seen you post anything of intelligent substance, John, yet they let you post on the front page. Nonetheless if you think you have the “substrate”, as matoko tends to put it, why don’t you address my argument instead of telling me what an asshole I am?
— Chet · May 19, 03:09 AM · #
Because that’s what you seem to be, Chet, and because abuse isn’t argument.
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 03:42 AM · #
If you want to say that it’s legally and morally permissible to kill it, by all means go ahead.
Okfine, I shall. It is legally and morally permissable to remove non-compliant life support from a non-sentient, non-sensate, differentiated cell clump, be it a teratoma, tumor, embryo, blastula, nerula, or 16 cell cleavage stage.
Happy now?
It is also legally and morally permissable, even, for meh obligatory , (in my scient slice of the Level III Branching Multipath Metaverse that homo sapiens sapiens happens to inhabit) to scorn people who cling to medieval and dark ages cognitive processing in order to argue against scientific fact.
For what reason?
Surely Alan has enough substrate that he doesn’t believe in….. /shudder….. ensoulement?
— matoko_chan · May 19, 04:05 AM · #
Apolos Conor, I have one more thing to say.
the ground we’ve lost since Obama took office.
Nope, you exactly where you were.
Because of Roe v Wade.
Unless that is overturned,,,,,,,you are simply dead in the water.
Which is why you should take O up on his open door.
Nah nah, hey hey
Roe v Wade is here to stay
doesn’t matter what they say
cuz they never vote that way.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 04:18 AM · #
If we had the medical technology to save and re-implant (we surely have all the parts, they probably haven’t been put together yet) zygotes that are expelled due to birth control – let’s say it’s 20 years from now and this procedure is cheap – do you believe the state ought to compel women to have the zygotes re-implanted on the grounds that a zygote is life like you and me and therefore real deaths could be prevented?
What about fertility clinics – are you for or against? The pill, in general?
I’m certain I can move you out past the first day of conception WRT the acceptability of the killing of embryos. I’d guess we’re just a few weeks apart on when it’s acceptable to kill or allow embryos to die.
There’s no meaningful scientific truth that draws bright lines to guide us. And religious absolutism really isn’t that absolute: it refuses to proceed to its logical but offensive (in a modern liberal democracy) conclusions.
It’s the absolutists who are making black and white out of what is actually gray. At that point – you’re right – it’s hard to continue the discussion.
— Steve C · May 19, 04:26 AM · #
We are 10 years out from the J-womb, Steve C.
They have done ectogenesis with goats.
That should make famed goat-blogger, Mark Steyn, happy at least.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 05:03 AM · #
“If you have already decided that abortion is not the taking of a person’s life, then of course civility in debate is going to be at the forefront of your mind. Thus the widespread applause for Obama’s generosity of spirit, even among people who have no intention of treating the pro-life movement with anything but contempt.”
This is the position of someone who realizes his side has lost the debate, Alan. I don’t know how else to read it.
If you think there’s no purpose to civil discussion on the issue it can only be because you think no one’s mind can be changed. You’ve given up completely on the idea of persuasion.
Well, there’s always martyrdom, I guess.
— Erik Siegrist · May 19, 05:13 AM · #
Erik,
Prof. Jacobs hardly said “there’s no purpose to civil discussion.” Read more carefully. Those of us who see most abortions as murder are compelled to give our attention to that outrage first, before turning to less important (though not unimportant) issues like speaking nicely. See also the third sentence in his post (”primary concern”).
You’ve even quoted his word “forefront.”
— Seth C. Holler · May 19, 06:27 AM · #
Saying that something is “clear” – and italicizing it to boot! – when it most definitely is not isn’t argument, either. There’s at least three arguments of mine just in this thread alone. Again, instead of telling me I’m a troll, why don’t you grapple with one of them?
— Chet · May 19, 07:43 AM · #
Is this what you’re referring to, Chet?
“‘Harm’ does not mean the same thing as ‘the experience of harm’; indeed, it’s exactly because of this that, as your comment suggests, harm is different from pain. Clearly it’s possible to harm someone without his or her knowing, or even being able to know about, it.”
That seems pretty damned clear to me, Chet. Is harm different from pain? Clearly. Is it possible to harm someone without his or her knowing? Clearly. If John’s statement is unclear to you, that’s not John’s fault.
Was that silly little statement about mytho-Americans meant to be a refutation of John’s point? Bless your heart, Chet. Were you under the impression that fetuses are imaginary? In the words of everybody’s favorite Ubermensch, Matoko Chan, “LOL!”
— Kate Marie · May 19, 08:13 AM · #
I’m very much enjoying this thread. I think Alan has hit the nail on the head and I want to laud Alan and John and other commenters for their patience and good faith, which makes me happy and proud to be a TAS blogger.
I just want to add a little addendum to say that being pro-life is not the same as believing “abortion is murder.” In law school I was taught that a penal offense involves both action and intent (and I believe it is the same in the Anglo-American legal tradition: mens rea and the other one). I think most women (not all) who have abortions, and even most abortionists (although I’m more doubtful on that score), don’t have the intent to commit murder when they have abortions, and even if they did I could think of plenty of mitigating circumstances, emotional agitation, etc.
I’m pro-life. I think abortion is homicide, but I don’t think it’s murder, and using the murder rhetoric only muddles and inflames the issue.
— PEG · May 19, 08:41 AM · #
Addendum to the addendum: wait, I thought matoko got banned?
— PEG · May 19, 09:00 AM · #
I have an idea: Let’s discuss ‘Atlas Shrugged’ again in the same light-hearted manner that we did a couple of months ago! Huh?
And PEG: You sub-stratum socon! LOL! What kind of IQ do you have not to know the virulent Matoko strain might have dissipated for a while but has come back ever stronger?
— Jeff · May 19, 11:51 AM · #
And that is not all…..now that I have become cw’s padawan learner I shall be not only virulent but become subtle and infinitely more powerful than before.
Hitting Dr. Jacobs over the head with blunt instruments like poll data that shows 68% of Americans oppose overturning Roe is simply not working.
“Always two there are, a master and an apprentice.”
— matoko_chan · May 19, 12:41 PM · #
Matoko, I will say this, my friend: You are incorrigible. And the promise of your becoming subtle, of all things, is something I await with baited breath.
In the meantime, being a socon, and therefore not so much on the IQ side of things (and yes, easily led; I almost forgot that one) and speaking of polls: My guess is you have easily dismissed the recent Gallup poll showing a majority of Americans call themselves pro-life. In reply, please refrain from using: Socon, sub-stratum, IQ and Palinism. Thx v much.
— Jeff W · May 19, 01:09 PM · #
Thank you, Kate Marie. (And bless your heart, indeed.)
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 01:34 PM · #
showing a majority of Americans call themselves pro-life.
Danger! Danger! Outlier Alert!
“Even as anti-abortionists celebrated that headline, some informed criticism of the Gallup findings has pretty clearly shown them to be an almost certain outlier, and highly misleading to boot.
First up, the partisan composition of the Gallup poll sample drew some attention—not surprisingly, since Gallup itself suggested that the “big shift” on abortion was occurring almost entirely among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
Charles Franklin at pollster.com made this discovery and observation:
The latest Gallup (5/7-10/09) poll has party identification tied at 32-32 and caused an immediate howl of “outlier!” in the comments at Pollster.com. In this case, the howl is justified. Compared to all recent Gallup polls (so we compare apples to apples) this latest stands out quite a bit from the rest.”
— matoko_chan · May 19, 01:46 PM · #
I don’t use sub-stratum….I use sub-sapient or sub-sentient.
Why can’t I use Palinism?
She is going to be your nominee, and you guyz can’t even mention her name.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 19, 01:54 PM · #
Matoko-Chan
If I read it correctly, your line breaks annoy Alan. I know you like to annoy (or at least some part of you needs to annoy). To do that via line breaks is quite subtle.
— cw · May 19, 02:18 PM · #
/makes respectful obeiance to cw the Dark Jedi
summation
verdict
I believe linkage annoys him also…..and poll data.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 19, 02:33 PM · #
matoko_chan: Specifically, when does a fetus cease to be a kind of tumor (or parasite)? Does it occur before or after birth? Whenever it occurs, would you agree that abortion ceases to be a morally neutral choice at that point?
If so, how do you respond to the fact that President Obama voted (four times?) in opposition to a law that would have made it illegal to allow abortion survivors (that is, born-alive, full-term infants) to die by withholding medical treatment from them?
cw: Does allowing abortion survivors to die by withholding medical treatment from them amount to harm?
If so, how do you respond to the fact that President Obama voted (four times?) in opposition to a law that would have made it illegal to allow abortion survivors (that is, born-alive, full-term infants) to die by withholding medical treatment from them?
For me, this is why President Obama’s pleas for open-mindedness and epistemic humility seem hollow. A man who is willing to adopt a position as extreme as his own has no choice but to ask others to be tolerant of his ideas. He advocates something that many people find morally objectionable, and he seems unwilling to accept even the most intuitively obvious restraints on that position, under any circumstances at all.
I’m genuinely interested to know what your responses would be to all of this stuff, though. Thanks in advance for giving me your thoughts.
— Bill · May 19, 03:08 PM · #
“Those of us who see most abortions as murder are compelled to give our attention to that outrage first, before turning to less important (though not unimportant) issues like speaking nicely.”
Seth, you might feel that you are compelled to do so, but you have to realize that in doing so you forsake any real opportunity for dialogue. You can’t start a conversation by accusing someone of murder and then expect them to listen to much of anything else you have to say.
If you’ve decided dialogue is futile, that’s fine. Maybe the time for persuasion on this issue has passed. But don’t pretend like it’s still a concern of yours.
— Erik Siegrist · May 19, 03:11 PM · #
Specifically, when does a fetus cease to be a kind of tumor (or parasite)?
I have answered that question at least 4x in this thread.
Can’t you read?
A durable statistic from the GSS is that 80% of respondents believe maternal health should be an exception for late term abortions. That is the right way to approach a compromise.
Do pro-lifers do that?
Nope.
At this point, compromise and dialogue are all you have got……for the next 8 years.
Meh, I’d take O up on his offer, but I completely understand your valid desire to just keep whilin’ out on him instead….BECAUSE OF THE OUTRAGE!
That is the Conservative Way.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 03:33 PM · #
“If so, how do you respond to the fact that President Obama voted (four times?) in opposition to a law that would have made it illegal to allow abortion survivors (that is, born-alive, full-term infants) to die by withholding medical treatment from them?”
Bill, I’d explain it by saying that it was illegal to allow babies to die in Illinois long before such legislation was introduced, and that the bills had no practical value and were pure political grandstanding.
If you’re willing to believe that an abortion doctor would let a ‘survivor’ die rather than make all possible effort to save it, then I can only assume you’d also be willing to believe that said abortion doctor could easily find a second abortion doctor to pop their head in the door and say ‘Non-viable” just to satisfy the requirements of the bills — since that’s all they did, require a second opinion with regard to viability.
— Erik Siegrist · May 19, 03:44 PM · #
“A durable statistic from the GSS is that 80% of respondents believe maternal health should be an exception for late term abortions. That is the right way to approach a compromise.”
One problem with this exception from a pro-life point of view is that (unknown to most respondents to such polls) “maternal health” is defined so broadly that a Dr. who thinks an abortion is the best way out of a woman’s tough predicament and who has no personal moral objection to late term abortions, can find that the mother’s health will be adversely impacted by having a baby she doesn’t want in pretty much every case (it will cause her stress, which is bad for health, it may lead to depression, etc.). So the exception completely swallows the rule. If abortion advocates would draft or consent to a rule that more narrowly defined what is meant by “maternal health” such that it applied only to presently life threatening conditions, then there might be more room for compromise.
— Karl · May 19, 03:59 PM · #
If abortion advocates would draft or consent to a rule that more narrowly defined what is meant by “maternal health” such that it applied only to presently life threatening conditions, then there might be more room for compromise.
But the pro-choice side has no reason to compromise.
You do.
Try to be a Machiavellian pragmatist like Our President instead of a principled inflexible loozer.
lol
— matoko_chan · May 19, 04:09 PM · #
Then explain why John Shwenkler shouldn’t be concerned about his fromuled fribniz. Clearly (see I can do it too), a “harm” that you cannot ever possibly know about is no harm at all.
After all, we’re not talking about stealing from your checking account, and then you find out about it a week later. We’re talking about a “harm” that a fetus cannot and will not ever possibly be able to experience.
Clearly that’s no harm at all. You can’t meaningfully be harmed in a way you have no capacity ever to know about, and that’s what we’re talking about. But John simply seems to think that an italicized “clearly” obviates that point. When I point that out, suddenly I’m the troll. Sure.
Sure – an example of individuals who cannot possibly experience harm under any circumstances (by virtue of not existing). Yet, to John, that’s “clearly” no obstacle to harming them, and I was just wondering when he would begin his brave defense of their safety and rights.
John’s “so clear it need not be defended” construction of “harm that you never can know about is still harmful” leads inevitably to the harm of imaginary persons (like, say, the personhood of fetuses) being set equal to or greater than the harm to objectively real persons (like, say, mothers.) I find that pretty stupid, but, then, I’m just a troll; nowhere near the perspicacity required to post on the front page of TAS (which apparently is just the ability to say “clearly” when a conclusion is anything but.)
— Chet · May 19, 04:40 PM · #
matoko_chan: I can read. The trouble is, I’m not sure where you think the line actually is. You seem to suggest that “sentience,” or “sensability” should be the criterion for viable personhood, and that that develops at some point during the gestation of the fetus.
As you said:
“There is insufficient neocortical substrate to support thought and REM sleep until six months gestation. There is insufficient substrate to do a lot of things, like sense pain or pressure as well.”
Also, but less explicitly:
“It is legally and morally permissable to remove non-compliant life support from a non-sentient, non-sensate, differentiated cell clump, be it a teratoma, tumor, embryo, blastula, nerula, or 16 cell cleavage stage.”
Then again, you also seem to suggest that everyone who regards a fetus as a “human” is guilty of superstitious and magical thinking.
“It is also legally and morally permissable [sic]…to scorn people who cling to medieval and dark ages cognitive processing in order to argue against scientific fact.”
So, I wasn’t clear about exactly where you think the distinction between “fetus” (=“tumor” or “parasite”) and “person” (=“someone whose right to choose must be protected”) actually lies. The evidence seems to come down in favor of some time prior to birth (6 months’ gestation, I guess?), but I wasn’t entirely clear, and I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. I just figured I’d ask.
Now, if I’m right that “sentience” occurs before birth, and that that property confers viable personhood on a fetus, then are you not bothered by President Obama’s support for late term abortions and partial birth abortions.
If I’m wrong that “personhood” occurs before birth (but that you do think it occurs at some point after birth), then I’d still be interested to know how you respond to President Obama’s position on law that I mentioned above?
That’s what I actually wanted to know about.
Where compromise and dialogue are concerned, I was hoping for some of the latter. And as for outrage, I tried to be clear that that wasn’t the tone I was looking for.
As I said:
“I’m genuinely interested to know what your responses would be to all of this stuff…Thanks in advance for giving me your thoughts.”
Not that I blame you for missing it. Sometimes the internet can be such a blunt tool for expressing sincere curiosity and good faith explicitly.
Anyway, I’m genuinely interested to know what you responses would be to all of this stuff. Thanks in advance for giving me your thoughts.
— Bill · May 19, 04:41 PM · #
And if someone shoots you in the head while you’re sleeping, Chet? Unfriggingbelievable.
Note that I made it quite clear that I think it’s open to dispute whether the harm done to a fetus is an injustice that deserves to be outlawed. What isn’t so open is whether it’s harm, and whether the fetus’s incapacity to know about it (recall the trivial example of mowing your lawn) alters that in any way. It doesn’t.
What also isn’t open to dispute is whether you’re worth the time and the effort. Clearly, you aren't.
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 05:04 PM · #
Erik: Thanks for your response. It works great for you, or at least it would, if you had been the one casting the votes. Unfortunately, I’m not sure it works for President Obama at all.
My understanding has always been that his initial justification(s) for his votes had to do with the fact that: a.) he regarded the legislation as a stealthy attempt by pro-lifers to begin imposing real, legislative limits on abortion rights, and b.) he wanted the law to resemble federal legislation on the topic more closely.
If “a,” then are you bothered at all by the lengths that he is willing to go to for the sake of protecting a principle that is presently a matter of settled Constitutional law?
If “b,” then 1.) he does not seem to have regarded the practice as already illegal in Illinois; and 2.) Am I really supposed to believe that he just didn’t think the state legislation prohibited the practice effectively enough, or failed to punish it sufficiently?
Now, I’m not a lawyer, and — believe it or not — this isn’t a topic that I follow closely, or even talk about frequently. So, maybe my understanding of Obama’s justification is mistaken. However, I sincerely don’t remember the President ever claiming what you claim.
I am also under the impression that President Obama was the only person who voted as he did on all of this. Was he really the only person in Illinois who realized that the legislation was redundant? In a state as reliably democratic as Illinois, why would everyone but Barack Obama be engaged in political grandstanding of this kind, when such a simple justification for voting “no” is right there in front of us? So —even if I’m wrong about the President’s justification for his votes — doesn’t this fact suggest that President Obama’s approach to the whole question of abortion is squarely outside the bounds of what most people seem to think is reasonable? When a guy is willing to plant his flag in a place where he will be perceived as saying, “some living babies should be allowed to die, in order to protect my policy preferences,” it seems to me as if his thinking on that matter is: a.) pretty extreme; b.) non-negotiable; and c.) not especially humble or tolerant of the views of others. Therein lies my larger point: I don’t think that much of a person’s pleas for humility and toleration when they seem to have no choice but to make those pleas, and they plainly refuse to grant what they are asking for to anyone but themselves.
As for your other question, I’m willing to believe that an abortion doctor would let a ‘survivor’ die rather than making all possible effort to save it, because that is apparently what happens, when — for reasons that I cannot imagine — late term abortions fail to do what they are supposed to do. What other people might or might not do to get around a prohibition such a law is not something that I know anything about, and I’m not a mind reader or a fortune teller. I’m not sure if I’m willing to write off every law, the spirit of which might easily be circumvented by unscrupulous people, as pointless political grandstanding, however.
I’m sorry that I made you feel like you needed the scare quotes around “victim.” I can see how that looks like an inflammatory word choice, but I sincerely don’t know how else to talk about these particular viable or non-viable lumps of cells or people, who have or have not been subject to harm by a person other than themselves, without unnecessarily complicating the syntax of things. I’m happy to stipulate that we should call them whatever you want.
If you’re willing to believe that an abortion doctor would let a ‘survivor’ die rather than make all possible effort to save it, then I can only assume you’d also be willing to believe that said abortion doctor could easily find a second abortion doctor to pop their head in the door and say ‘Non-viable” just to satisfy the requirements of the bills — since that’s all they did, require a second opinion with regard to viability.
— Bill · May 19, 05:25 PM · #
Then again, you also seem to suggest that everyone who regards a fetus as a “human” is guilty of superstitious and magical thinking.
No, individuals who insist insensate non-sentient differentiated cell clumps are “human” ARE guilty of superstitious and magical thinking.
I said 6 months. You can’t read.
And your posts on Obama reek of TEH OUTRAGE.
The stench of your bias and ignorance is overpowering.
No thanx.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 05:29 PM · #
matoko_chan: OK. Thanks for your time. I had fun, and I’m sorry that I came across as biased and ignorant. I tried to do better than that. Anyway, take care.
— Bill · May 19, 05:35 PM · #
I kind of think I’d notice. Briefly. There’d be a substantial personal history that would be lost; my around-30 years of personal subjective experience, knowledge, and viewpoint. 30-so years of being a human being would come to an end. And, of course, all my friends and family would be harmed by my murder; it’s really on their behalf that my murderer would be brought to justice. I, obviously, would be beyond caring.
None of that applies to fetuses. Death means nothing to an organism incapable of the sensations of life. No harm is possible to that which is incapable of experiencing it. (Otherwise you should be more concerned about your fribniz. Why aren’t you? Why aren’t you obsessed with all the possible ways in which you could be harmed without ever in your life knowing about it? Isn’t it because you understand, contrary to what you’re telling me now, “no harm no foul”? And doesn’t that make you “Unfriggingbelievably” disingenuous?)
I think I’ve made a pretty good case that it isn’t, in fact, as closed as you seem to think it is. The reason I think I’ve made a good case is because you seem completely unable to respond to it with anything but sputtering indignation that anyone would dare to disagree with you. “Clearly.” (See how easy that is?)
That tells me you just haven’t thought it through. Maybe you should take some time off, think about these things; I think TAS would be better served without your half-formed ideas on the front page.
But I’m just an unbelievable troll, who isn’t worth the time to respond to – despite you having done so three times now – so what could I possibly know?
— Chet · May 19, 05:43 PM · #
even among people who have no intention of treating the pro-life movement with anything but contempt.
Please understand, I am not Obama.
I have nothing but contempt for the pro-life movement at this point.
On empirical observation the pro-life movement is made up of two equally stupid and possibly intersecting subsets— the OUTRAGE frothers that flatly refuse to compromise or dialogue and the medieval superstionalists that try to argue that diploid oocytes and blastulae and nerulas are actually teeny weeny adorable little homunculi with citizen rights that trump the host citizen’s right to autonomy over her own body.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 05:55 PM · #
And what if you didn’t? Would it matter to the question of whether it was harm? Of course not.
True, though that obviously doesn’t entail that it should mean nothing to us.
False! Consider the plants! When you cut them, you harm them, plain and simple. The relevant question is whether their inability to experience it makes the harm morally indifferent.
See, it’s this kind of “reasoning” that gets you into trouble.
Yes, you are … and apparently not much.
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 06:05 PM · #
John
I have to side with Chet here. If you shot someone in the head while they are sleeping you would have ended all his hopes and dreams for his life. You would have ended his consciousness. You would have thwarted his desire to live. THese are all things that exist in real time.
A 12 week old fetus has none of these things in real time. The only thing that fetus possess that can be taken away from it is potential. That is definitly harm, but the fetus doesn’t care. The fetus can’t care. I think this fact is meaningful.
— cw · May 19, 06:19 PM · #
cw:
Then you agree with me! That’s all I was saying. I agree that there is room to debate the extent to which the fetus’s inability to care about the harm is a morally relevant factor; my only point – check the record – was that the harm is obviously present.
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 06:25 PM · #
Everybody who knows me would, which is really the harm of murder. That someone is taken out of the fabric of society by another’s actions. And anyway, me – I’m thinking about it now, aren’t I? I’m reflecting on my inevitable death? That’s why we find death so much scarier than animals do, or fetuses do – we can reflect on it, anticipate it, and be certain that we will, one day, die.
None of that is going on in the fetus. The capacity to experience harm is not there. I certainly have it, which is why I would be harmed by my murder even if I was not conscious at the time. I was conscious in the past and could contemplate my death and would have continued to do so in the future.
So plain and simple, again, that it need not be argued, apparently. Sorry, but I don’t see the harm to the grass in my lawn by being mowed. It’s capacity to grow continues unabated, it’s no worse for the experience. Just shorter.
Sputter, sputter.
Oo, clever. Really got me there when you agreed with my sarcasm. I see now why your titanic intellect is so desired by the editors of TAS.
— Chet · May 19, 06:27 PM · #
Bill, too much there to respond to in a forum like this, but I’ll try to hit a few points:
1. Certainly what I offered was my explanation for why I think the bills weren’t worth passing into law, and not Obama’s public statements on them. But if you’re already familiar with Obama’s statements I guess your question was just rhetorical anyway.
2. Obama was not the only person to vote ‘Present’ on those bills. In fact in another comment there’s a link to the Illinois Senate session that includes the vote on one of the bills. I believe the appropriate section of the PDF starts at about page 32 or so. His particular ‘Present’ votes, as opposed to flat ‘No’ votes, were part of a strategy he and Planned Parenthood worked out.
3. From my perspective I see your interpretation of his motives as “allowing babies to die to defend a policy principle” as the extreme position, not his votes. You need to bring a lot more evidence to the table before I’m willing to consider that anyone would be that inhuman and callous, sorry.
4. I didn’t even used the word ‘victim’ at all in my post, much less put scare quotes around it. I did put single quotes around ‘survivor’ because part of the debate with regard to these bills is over whether the fetuses actually are survivors or not, and over the fact that it’s a judgment call on the part of the doctor whether they are or not. Labeling them ‘survivors’ implicitly says you don’t believe the doctor if the call goes the other way.
— Erik Siegrist · May 19, 06:35 PM · #
Thanks for this AJ – I’m in complete agreement w/ you.
— mp · May 19, 06:35 PM · #
Really, John, what’s the point?
Maybe you can wrap your “substrate” around this scenario, Chet. I have been added, without my knowledge, to a distant relative’s will. Upon distant relative’s death, I am to receive a substantial amount of money that would allow me to pay for a college education (which I otherwise cannot afford). Distant relative dies. Distant relative’s son finds and destroys most recent will (which includes bequest to me). I remain in ignorance of the will and its destruction. Have I been harmed by the action?
— Kate Marie · May 19, 06:40 PM · #
And what if you pull the grass out and burn it?
(Can anyone really be this thick?)
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 06:44 PM · #
“And, of course, all my friends and family would be harmed by my murder; it’s really on their behalf that my murderer would be brought to justice. I, obviously, would be beyond caring.
None of that applies to fetuses. Death means nothing to an organism incapable of the sensations of life.”
I would think that this point applies to the mother and father of the fetus.
Some fetuses feel pain, certainly, and some are capable of living outside the womb (in the case of a premature birth, say), but even those that can’t feel pain and can’t live on their own outside the womb are still connected to real humans outside the womb.
If so, it could be that “on their behalf” the life of the fetus was valued even before it could value itself.
— David · May 19, 07:01 PM · #
I’ve finished dealing directly with Our Lady of Substantial Substrate, but I do have a question for the TAS bloggers here.
When one wades past all the cutesy buzzwords in Matoko’s posts, one of the only points that one can discern in Matoko’s ramblings is that “substrate” or I.Q. are largely matters of genetic inheritance. How, therefore, is Matoko’s contempt for the “substrate”-challenged among us any different from, say, constantly making fun of people with birth defects? [I’m leaving aside the question of whether Matoko’s assessment of her interlocutors’ “substrate” is in any way accurate; it seems clear to me that it’s not and that her assessment of “substrate” has more to do with whether her interlocutors are willing to accept her bare assertions as actual arguments.]
Obviously, she’s young. I was guilty of a similar pride when I was her age, though perhaps my “superstitious” Catholic upbringing prevented my expressing it in quite such bald and unpleasant terms. In any event, do you think Matoko Chan is simply uniquely off her rocker, or simply young and “stupid,” or does she, perhaps, represent something more ominous? Is she somehow the poisonous flower of meritocracy or of hyper-rationalism? I wonder what Dostoyevsky would have made of her.
— Kate Marie · May 19, 07:05 PM · #
WTF? What a stupid question.
No. Next!
— Chet · May 19, 07:43 PM · #
No, it’s not. At issue is whether harm is possible where the subject of the harm doesn’t know about it. Pulling a plant up by the roots and burning it is obviously an example of this. So it’s possible. QED.
Up next: For reductio, the view that stealing money from someone doesn’t do that person harm unless he or she knows about it. Stupid, indeed.
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 07:53 PM · #
So should the action of burning the will be illegal, Chet? I’m assuming, based on your “logic,” that it should not. (I do realize that making logical assumptions is probably futile in this case].
— Kate Marie · May 19, 07:59 PM · #
“No. Next!”
Not so fast. Her future potential (educational, monetary, social, etc.) has been harmed by the destruction of the will. Beyond that, the quality of life of her family and future offspring may be harmed as well by her inability (thanks to the will’s destruction) to go to college.
None of this is certain, of course, but it is possible (likely?). I would think such future harm is worth evaluating.
— David · May 19, 08:02 PM · #
Sure, Kate, but not because of the non-existent harm to you. No harm, no foul.
Otherwise, why not be concerned about your immortal fribniz? Surely, just because you don’t know what that term means, or what harm I could possibly have done to it (I have it right here, so, you know, better watch out), doesn’t mean you shouldn’t send the cops over post-haste!
— Chet · May 19, 08:09 PM · #
David,
I take your point, but I think it’s clear that I have been actually harmed — not just potentially harmed — by the destruction of the will. I was legally entitled to that money, and the distant relative’s son essentially stole that money from me. And I have been actually harmed whether I know it or not.
John pointed out — way upthread — that harm and the experience of harm are not the same thing. Chet seems to be wildly conflating those two concepts, but I don’t except much in the way of precise definitions or rigorous arguments from him.
I am interested to see whether Chet is going to follow his own “logic” and declare that the destruction of the will should not be illegal.
— Kate Marie · May 19, 08:09 PM · #
Why should it be illegal, Chet? Who has been harmed?
— Kate Marie · May 19, 08:12 PM · #
David, has my “future potential” been harmed by your refusal to empty your bank account and send it to me? (I could certainly benefit from the money.)
Why aren’t you harming me, right now, by stinginess? The experience of the harm is intrinsic to the harm. The concepts can’t be divorced. That’s why getting a haircut isn’t assault. It’s stupid to try to divorce them; you’d be forced to conclude that every American citizen who died before 1935 was harmed by their failure to receive Social Security payments, despite that program not existing at the time; and, of course, all of us living today are immeasurably harmed by not having whatever future people will have a right to, in the future. Infinite harm, in other words; a whole holocaust of harm we’re tragically unaware of.
I find that pretty stupid and ridiculous. Harm means experiencing harm. Otherwise, you know, watch out for your fribniz. I’m about to fromulate on it.
— Chet · May 19, 08:15 PM · #
John,
I didn’t phrase it right in my original post where I said a 12 week old fetus can’t be harmed. What I have been trying to talk about all along are the special existential circumstances of the fetus and how that may or may not affect the morality of abortion.
Isn’t this a fun topic.
— cw · May 19, 08:21 PM · #
Erik: some thoughts on each of those…
1. PRESIDENT OBAMA’S JUSTIFICATIONS FOR HIS VOTES: I’m nothing more than passingly familiar with Obama’s comments on the laws, as I thought that I said in my previous post. I also thought that I admitted you could be right, and that perhaps the President has used the justification you suggest in the past. But even if he did do that, I still feel as if his position is undermined by his other justifications for his votes, which are a.) not necessarily incompatible with the belief that it’s a bad idea to have laws against refusing medical care to [rhetorically inoffensive plural lexeme]; and b.) sometimes at odds with the suggestion that refusing medical care to [rhetorically inoffensive plural lexeme] was already illegal in Illinois.
To, me the weight of the evidence seems suggest that: a.) President Obama regarded the legislation as sufficiently important to require a vote of some kind; b.) He sincerely believes the legislation to be a bad idea; and c.) He is willing to take his chances in the court of public opinion for casting votes according to his conscience. Whether or not any of those things is true, I cannot say. But it seems to me as if that’s the most likely interpretation of the data.
What I wanted to know was how pro-choice folks feel about supporting a president who refuses to support legislation that would explicitly protect [rhetorically inoffensive plural lexeme], particularly when some of them — in this thread, at any rate — regard sentience (and therefore, personhood, I think) to develop at some point around the sixth month of gestation.
I gather from your responses that you are untroubled by the whole thing, because: a.) You disagree with some — but not all — of President Obama’s thinking about the need for such legislation, and you are willing to ascribe to him only those motivations that seem to place him above the fray; and b.) You regard the question whether or not [rhetorically inoffensive plural lexeme] are actually alive as an exceptionally difficult question, answerable only by medical professionals, among whom there is no legally definable standard for assessment, that could reasonably be expected to stand up in court.
I’m not trying to be unfair here. I’m trying to work out what it is that you think about all of this. Am I close?
2. LINK: This is helpful. Missed it. Thanks. I will read and consider.
3. MY INTERPRETATION OF THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVES: You have mistunderstood me. I am not interpreting his motives. Or at any rate, I am trying to be as cautious in my interpretations of his motives as I can be. I don’t have a particularly clear picture of the President’s thinking on this matter, because the evidence seems to point in a few different directions. What I do know is what he has done. He has refused to support the legislation that we are talking about. What I said was that — by doing such a thing — he has planted his flag in a place where he will be perceived as saying “some living babies should be allowed to die, in order to protect my policy preferences.” And in fact, that is precisely how some people do perceive his position on this matter. That interpretation may be extreme, or it may not, but it isn’t an interpretation that I have actually put on the facts.
It seems to me as if a person who is willing to take on that kind of liability for the sake of ideological consistency is very sincerely and self-consciously extreme about defending his ideological prior commitments. And therefore, probably not really willing to do a whole lot of listening to, or compromising with, people who don’t agree with him. That — I think — sort of takes the shine off of his pleas for toleration and humility in the face of disagreement — His actions are not really humble or tolerant of others’ views, in any way that I can see.
Now, do you really need me to provide evidence to suggest that people are capable of inhumanity and callousness on such a scale that they will allow others to die for their own benefit, convenience or even entertainment? Doesn’t that happen all of the time? How does genocide happen? How are governments able to disappear those who disagree with them? Why am I continually reading news stories about mothers who throw their infants into dumpsters, or people who are get beaten to death by muggers while other people are standing right there and watching? You are aware that the Romans used to pay money to watch gladiators die, right?
4. ‘SURVIVOR’ v. ‘VICTIM’: I apologize again. Careless typing and thinking. My point here was not to make you mad, but to let you know that I didn’t mean to give offense by using inflammatory language. That’s all I meant, and nothing else. I really am aware that the language people use in this discussion can be endlessly problematic. And obviously, I am sometimes guilty of both giving and taking offense, despite my best intentions. If you will let me know which word you prefer, I will be happy to use it in the future.
Anyway, I think I’ll probably leave the last word for you. I have a dissertation proposal that needs finishing. Thanks.
— Bill · May 19, 08:40 PM · #
Okfine, lets deal.
In response to your frivolous “argument by teleological potential” see Becker.
“Many comments on my discussion centered on the issue of abortion, and that is an especially difficult issue for someone who believes in individual rights. For there is an obvious conflict between the rights of women to control their bodies and their motherhood, and the rights of fetuses that might be far enough along in their development to be considered human beings. This is a very prominent example of the general difficulty of determining where to draw the line when the rights of children conflict with the rights of their parents. I do not claim to have a definitive resolution of this conflict in the case of abortion, or in some other parent-child conflicts. But I come down on the side of women’s rights to make decisions about their body, except in very late term abortions where fetuses can survive outside a woman’s body, and therefore can be considered real children.
Abortions often allow women to have children at later dates when they are better prepared emotionally and in other ways to have children. In effect, abortions in these cases would allow women to substitute children who would be born later, and would be better taken care of, for the fetuses that are aborted now. That seems to me to be a tradeoff worth making. Moreover, laws banning abortion would be difficult to enforce against wealthy women since they would be able to get abortions illegally under reasonably good conditions, including by going abroad. Poor women who want abortions would suffer the most from enforcement of an anti-abortion law, as they are the ones who mainly suffer from laws against the use of drugs and many other types of laws.”
The difference between Katemarie and meh, is I escaped from the cruel intellectual scold’s bridle of the catholic church long ago….about 4th grade at Immaculate Conception to be exact.
I am however, a contributor at Super Rational.
This is a group blog where we have literally spent years discussing a single experiment in reason.
But there was one Elephant—a New
Elephant—an Elephant’s Child—who was full of ‘satiable
curtiosity, and that means she asked ever so many questions.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 08:48 PM · #
“David, has my “future potential” been harmed by your refusal to empty your bank account and send it to me? (I could certainly benefit from the money.)”
Of course your future potential has been harmed by my decision not to do that. But you’re missing a point Kate brought up: in her thought experiment, the inheritance was legally hers until the will was illegally destroyed. I am under no legal obligation to empty my account and send you the money, however.
A related point was raised earlier that you didn’t answer: are you harmed if someone steals money from you and you never notice?
If I do choose to send you any money in the future, I suggest that you use it for counseling…you seem to have an unhealthy urge to fromulate on everyone’s fribniz. :)
This has been a fun thread, but I’m off to enjoy the outdoors. I think I’ll set Kate’s will on fire and burn my grass with it. I’m sure I’ll learn something relevant to this discussion.
— David · May 19, 08:50 PM · #
Chet, from a lawyer’s point of view, you are wrong. Actually from a whole lot of points of view you are wrong. But speaking just as a lawyer for the time being, the law recognizes that harm has been done to Kate Marie in her example whether she is aware of the harm or not. The law likewise recognizes that harm has been done to a patient who has suffered from medical malpractice (think of the classic example of a surgical sponge left inside a patient) or to the unwitting victim of fraud. In each of those cases, the point at which the victim discovers the harm may be more or less legally significant (for statute of limitations purposes, for example). But the initial harm occurred when the act was committed, not when it was discovered.
— Karl · May 19, 08:55 PM · #
cw: Sounds good; that small clarification is all I was gunning for.
Whoop de do.
— John Schwenkler · May 19, 08:56 PM · #
/sigh
I gather from your responses that you are untroubled by the whole thing
No, I would be very willing to work to prevent third tri-abortions and protect viable fetuses.
But that is not what Alan wants, now is it?
I see the whole pro-life movement as profoundly dishonest, hypocritical, stubborn, medieval and unreasonable.
You are simply not arguing in good faith when you begin the argument by trumpeting that ALL LIFE IS SACRED EVEN DIPLOID OOCYTES and OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING FETUSES AND/OR LEAVING THEM TO DIE IN CLOSETS.
You see, I am even more of a machiavellian pragmatist than Obama is, and I understand human nature very well.
IMHO, freedom of the individual trumps not-freedom everytime.
Alas, my right to have autonomy over my body trumps your right to tell me I don’t.
— matoko_chan · May 19, 09:01 PM · #
Chet — I was going to say “with all due respect” but I’m really not sure how much respect is due to your “arguments” at this point — you’re starting to remind me of the Freshman boys, in the philosophy course I took when I was an undergraduate, who used to furrow their brows in the presence of any logical analysis or precise definitions and ask, “But what is reality?”
I ask you again. Why should the destruction of the will be illegal if no one has been harmed?
— Kate Marie · May 19, 09:14 PM · #
[Sorry ahead of time for the long quotation.]
There are very good arguments for the personhood of the fetus/embryo/etc. that don’t don’t rely on “teleological potential.”
Here’s Robert George in The Clash of Orthodoxies:
“Let’s take the central issues of life and death. If we lay aside all the rhetorical grandstanding and obviously fallacious arguments, questions of abortion, infanticide, suicide, and euthanasia turn on the question of whether bodily life is intrinsically good, as Judaism and Christianity teach, or merely instrumentally good, as orthodox secularists believe.
If the former, then even the life of an early embryo or a severely retarded child or a comatose person has value and dignity. Their value and dignity are not to be judged by what they can do, how they feel, or what we judge their ‘quality of life’ to be. Their value and dignity transcend the instrumental purposes to which their lives can be put. They enjoy a moral inviolability that will be respected and protected in any fully just regime of law.
If bodily life is, as orthodox secularists believe, merely a means to other ends and not an end in itself, then a person who no longer gets what he wants out of life may legitimately make a final exit by suicide. If he is unable to commit suicide under his own power, he is entitled to assistance. If he is not lucid enough to make the decision for himself, then judgment must be substituted for him by the family or by a court to make the ‘right to die’ effectively available to him.
Secularists would have us believe that, apart from special revelation, we have no reason to affirm the intrinsic goodness and moral inviolability of human life. That simply isn’t true. In fact, the secularist proposition that bodily life is merely instrumentally good entails a metaphysical dualism of the person and the body that is rationally untenable.
Implicit in the view that human life is merely instrumentally and not intrinsically valuable is a particular understanding of the human person as an essentially non-bodily being who inhabits a nonpersonal body. According to this understanding — which contrasts with the Judeo-Christian view of the human person as a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit — the ‘person’ is the conscious and desiring ‘self’ as distinct from the body which may exist (as in the case of pre- and post-conscious human beings) as a merely ‘biological,’ and thus sub-personal reality. But the dualistic view of the human person makes nonsense of the experience all of us have in our activities of being dynamically unified actors — of being, that is, embodied persons and not persons who merely ‘inhabit’ our bodies and direct them as extrinsic instruments under our control, like automobiles. We don’t sit in the physical body and direct it as an instrument, the way we sit in a car and make it go left or right.
This experience of unity of body, mind, and spirit, is itself no mere illusion. Philosophical arguments have undermined any theory that purports to demonstrate that a human being is, in fact, two distinct realities, namely, a ‘person’ and a (sub-personal) body. Any such theory will, unavoidably, contradict its own starting point, since reflection necessarily begins from one’s own conscious awareness of oneself as a unitary actor. So the defender of dualism, in the end, will never be able to identify the ‘I’ who undertakes the project of reflection. He will simply be unable to settle whether the ‘I’ is the conscious and desiring aspect of the ‘self,’ or the ‘mere living body.’ If he seeks to identify the ‘I’ with the former, then he separates himself inexplicably from the living human organism that is recognized by others (and indeed, by himself) as the reality whose behavior (thinking, questioning, asserting, etc.) constitutes the philosophical enterprise in question. And if, instead, he identifies the ‘I’ with that “mere living body,” then he leaves no role for the conscious and desiring aspect of the ‘self’ which, on the dualistic account, is truly the ‘person.’ As a recent treatment of the subject sums up the matter, ‘person’ (as understood in dualistic theories) and “mere living body” are “constructs neither of which refers to the unified self who had set out to explain his or her own reality; both of them purport to refer to realities other than that unified self but somehow, inexplicably, related to it. In short, ‘person/body dualisms’ purport to be theories of something, but cannot, in the end, identify something of which to be the theory.
From these arguments one rationally concludes that the body, far from being a nonpersonal and indeed sub-personal instrument at the direction and disposal of the conscious and desiring ‘self,’ is irreducibly part of the personal reality of the human being. It is properly understood, therefore, as fully sharing in the dignity — the intrinsic worth — of the person and deserving the respect due to persons precisely as such.”
— Kate Marie · May 19, 09:30 PM · #
No, I think it’s important and fair to expect people to scale their certainty with the availability and quality of evidence undergirding the certainty. I would expect you’d be nodding right along with Sullivan and Obama had they been addressing Muslims who were screaming for the head of someone who dared to draw a cartoon of Mohammed.
That said, yes, I agree that we on the “pro-choice” side could stand to do some honest reckoning of the degree to which we respect the “pro-life” position. I include myself in this although I’ve never spent much energy trying to convince “pro-lifers” that I respect their position. I don’t. Details matter, there are nuances, and bad cases make bad law, yadda yadda yadda, but cutting through all the crap, I’m not kidding about being “pro-choice” and not being “pro-life.”
Whether it’s red-faced shrieking about “killing babies” or “blasphemous” representations of Mohammed, I simply don’t find the shrieking believable. I don’t find that degree of passion justifiable on reasonable grounds, and so, yes, I cop to the charge: concerning the anti-abortion position, I think it’s more phony than not when it reaches the point of screaming and throwing the word “murderer” around, let alone planting bombs and shooting guns.
I think people should say what they mean and mean what they say, and we should all hitch up our big-boy and big-boy diapers and accept that life includes people with whom we will always disagree. And yes, I apply this to Obama and Sullivan too, who are frequent violators of this (as I judge them).
— Dale · May 19, 09:50 PM · #
Shorter Katemarie— because god says so.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 12:04 AM · #
KM re Robert George in The Clash of Orthodoxies:
A body without a higher brain, which is what a fetus is up until weeks 18-20 is missing at least a 1/3 of the “dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit” that guy was talking about. Without the higher brain, the whole thing falls apart.
Beyond that, that was just a bunch of unfounded 3rd century type blather. “Philosophical arguments have undermined any theory that purports to demonstrate that a human being is, in fact, two distinct realities, namely, a ‘person’ and a (sub-personal) body.”
If you are going to talk about how brains and bodies work in concert you probably should investigate how brains and bodies actually work, rather than rely on philosophical demonstrations.
— cw · May 20, 12:30 AM · #
Shorter Matoko and cw: “I don’t understand what I just read.”
— Kate Marie · May 20, 12:39 AM · #
I understand perfectly.
“Because god says so” is just not persuasive for me.
Shall we play again?
— matoko_chan · May 20, 12:44 AM · #
WHy don’t you tell us what we were supposed to get from that.
— cw · May 20, 12:47 AM · #
Why don’t you just quote some Bible verses at us, like Rummy did for GW.
That should convince us.
haha
Cartesian duality is so Dark Ages.
Booooooooorrrrrrriiiinnnng……..shorday!
— matoko_chan · May 20, 12:53 AM · #
Well clearly they don’t need to be exclusive, do they?
As to this:
Well obviously it doesn’t literally fall apart; more to the point, I don’t see what there is in George’s argument that commits him to saying otherwise. And Matoko’s right about Cartesian duality, of course – but once again that quote from George is premised on a rejection of precisely that. If the body isn’t an instrument at the disposal of the Cartesian self, then it’s not an instrument at the disposal of the “higher brain”, either; hence if George is right to assume that “X is irreducibly part of the personal reality of Y” entails that “X fully shares in Y’s personal dignity”, then his argument would seem still to go through. It’s not knock-down by any means, but there’s obviously a lot more to it than “God says so”.
— John Schwenkler · May 20, 01:08 AM · #
Perhaps Cartesian dualism is Dark Ages, Matoko (though I don’t subscribe to your brand of intellectual glibness), but it’s exactly what George is arguing against in that quotation. George is accusing the pro-choice advocates who insist on a distinction between body and personhood of being — to use your phrase — “Dark Ages.”
And, cw, it has nothing to do with how the “brain and the body work in concert.” It’s about how “personhood” and the body are logically inseparble.
George’s arguments do not rely on any sort of “revelation” except the belief/premise that bodily life is intrinsically good.
— Kate Marie · May 20, 01:12 AM · #
Oops, I see John beat me to the point about George’s rejection of Cartesian dualism.
— Kate Marie · May 20, 01:14 AM · #
P.S. I don’t know what “irreducibly part of” means – George probably ought to be saying “essentially”. And Cartesian dualism obviously isn’t “so Dark Ages”, since it was initiated by … Descartes.
— John Schwenkler · May 20, 01:47 AM · #
“Why don’t you just quote some Bible verses at us, like Rummy did for GW.
That should convince us.
haha
Cartesian duality is so Dark Ages.
Booooooooorrrrrrriiiinnnng……..shorday!”
Yes, you’ve been vastly more eloquent and persuasive than that, M_C. We’re all much wiser now, and properly chastised. Or should I say something like “chaaaaaaaastised”? :)
— David · May 20, 01:53 AM · #
Yawn.
I’m just autotuning Katemarie in my head, sowwy.
Anything to fight teh bore.
Katemarie, John and Alan are simply arguing ensoulement as near as I can tell….ignorant superstitious primitives.
A diploid oocyte is a differentiated cell clump. Not a “body”.
Nothing more, nothing less.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 02:06 AM · #
Oh, and George too.
Ensoulement……..argument by superstition, lol.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 02:11 AM · #
Sorry matoko, but that quote from George doesn’t mention ensoulment at all. Tune out all you want; it sure doesn’t reflect well on your sapience.
— John Schwenkler · May 20, 02:18 AM · #
Erik: Following the thoughtful distinction drawn by PEG in a comment shortly after mine, I’ll happily amend my sentence thus: “Those of us who see most abortions as homicide are compelled to give our attention to that outrage first, before turning to less important (though not unimportant) issues like speaking nicely.”
A question, then. I’ve never accused anyone of committing homicide to his face, and I admit that doing so sounds, hypothetically, like a real conversation stopper. Nevertheless I can imagine dialogue happening between two people of good will, esp. if they were able to meet in person, and if they were both interested in attending to that less-important-but-still-important conversational element of civility. As some of the preceding comments show, online debates can quickly turn into the swapping of insults re: intelligence. But such virulence is not common in my analog experience.
— Seth C. Holler · May 20, 02:31 AM · #
Alan,
I haven’t read Christian Smith. How does he square with this?
file:///Users/jdj/Documents/Articles/charitable%20donations—left%20v%20right.webarchive
— Doug · May 20, 02:36 AM · #
“a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit “
ensoulement.
QED FAIL
— matoko_chan · May 20, 02:59 AM · #
To me that was just the kind of long winded abstract BS that is just a waste of everyones time.
He says that “bodily life is intrinsically good” becasue the body and consciousness are somehow a “unit.” And since body and consciousness are a unit, a body without consciousness should be granted personhood…. Becasue why? I mean the whole unit thing gone. It’s just a body now. We should grant the meat part personhood becasue it once had consciousness or it potentially could have consciousness? Sort of grandfather it in?
At least he recognized the issue but I think he recoiled at the implication to his prefered outcome and then tried to find a way around his realization. The whole thing is just a mess. It’s just a wad of unsupported metephysical assertions wrapped around an self-canceling argument. The second to the last paragraph could easily be—should be, must be—satire. It’s like the George Bush of theologians wrote this. Kate Marie, you are smarter than this fraud. Your way better off relying on you own personal wits.
— cw · May 20, 03:02 AM · #
I’m quite confident, matoko, that George doesn’t mean anything Cartesian by that; and he certainly doesn’t think that the “spirit” is something that enters the body at some point during its existence, which is what talk of “ensoulment” usually means. But whatever – objection duly noted.
CW: Robby George is by no means one of my faves, but I think you’re giving him short shrift.
Well, it’s a living body, at the very least, which of course means that referring to it as the “meat part” is wrong-headed. (Though note that we often show a fair amount of respect to the bodies of the dead.) But the idea, as I read it, is that the relationship between consciousness and the living human body – and note that there are lots of professional philosophers, many “secularists” among them, who’d think that that paragraph you peg as satire actually gets things quite right about the body and the person – means that the dignity that comes with being a conscious human also comes with being a living but unconscious one. Put somewhat differently, the point might be that human consciousness doesn’t make one’s life worth preserving, but simply allows that person to recognize this when it’s already so. You can disagree, but this hardly seems “self-canceling”.
It may, however, be “long winded abstract BS”, but then again so’s most philosophy. The question is whether what it says is true.
— John Schwenkler · May 20, 03:21 AM · #
and he certainly doesn’t think that the “spirit” is something that enters the body at some point during its existence, which is what talk of “ensoulment” usually means.
Oh relly? How can you tell?
Well John…….. how did the “spirit” get there?
Did it evolve, was it inserted, was it an emergent property, was it there at the beginning, was it part of the oocyte or the spermatozooan, did it burst into being when the fertilization membrane lifted off at impact?
The reason I get so crabby, is that you and Dr. Jacobs have enough substrate to recognize this, but somehow just can’t bring yourself to spit it out.
Just say it….I do believe in souls, I do believe in souls, I do believe in souls!
— matoko_chan · May 20, 03:32 AM · #
Because he’s a Catholic, matoko, and that’s not what Catholics believe. Moreover, the line about “spirit” was entirely irrelevant to the substance of the argument; it was probably placed there just to drive people like you batty.
— John Schwenkler · May 20, 03:43 AM · #
When you put words and sentences together they mean something. What that guy said was, to me, self-cancelling. He implied that “bodily life is intrinsically good” and so therefore “the life of an early embryo or a severely retarded child or a comatose person has value and dignity.”
OK, but why is bodily life “intrinsically good?” It turns out it’s becasue of “the Judeo-Christian view of the human person as a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit.” Or “X is irreducibly part of the personal reality of Y” entails that “X fully shares in Y’s personal dignity”
Except that when we are talking about first trimester fetuses and people in a vegitative state who are suppsoed to have this “value and dignity” (which has to mean personhood or there’s no point to this whole argument) the y part is missing. There is no longer a unity of “mind, body and spirit.” The rational for granting value and dignity is gone.
The argument cancels itself.
It is a perfectly legitimate argument to say that one personally believes all human life is sacred. You can also legitimatly say that the loss of a potential life outwieghs any hardship the mother will face due to being forced to bear a child. But you can’t say Y sans X gets personhood because Y is irriducibly part of X.
I had at least 3 professors who were literal frauds in my college career. They all tried to dazzle students with this type abstract, afactual language.
— cw · May 20, 03:47 AM · #
Oh jeezus h keeyrist inna handcart John I WAS catholic.
Catholics believe in ensoulement at “conception” otherwise known as fertilization.
Just admit it.
Thass all you got.
Like we say Out Here in the West, show ‘em or fold ‘em.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 04:07 AM · #
Fine, matoko – I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that “ensoulment” is usually used to express the idea that the soul gets slipped into the body sometime later along the line, and in any case the term does suggest a duality of soul and living body that traditionally has not been the Catholic view. But whatever – I’m not here to argue theology, and as I said the use of the “s”-word was inessential to the argument in question.
As to that argument, one more pass. I don’t think, cw, that the argument actually rests on the assumption that the fetus is a person. Rather, the idea is that even if it’s just a living (human) body, it’s nevertheless the kind of (or: an “irreducible part of a”, though as I’ve said I find that language puzzling) thing that can, in certain circumstances, be a person. Since Cartesianism is false, the arrival (or departure) of consciousness/mindedness/personhood/whatever doesn’t mean the arrival of a new being on the scene, but just the acquisition (or loss) of some capacities by a being that’s already there. And so the dignity/rights/value/etc. that accrue to that being when it does have those capacities are, the thought runs, also present even when it doesn’t; a human being is due respect not because of the kinds of things he or she’s presently able to accomplish, but because of the kind of thing he or she is.
But hey – I’m sure you disagree, and that’s fine. I’ve got a plane to catch early tomorrow morning, so I suppose this is all for me. But I’m sort of glad that this discussion recovered from that spat of silliness, by the way.
— John Schwenkler · May 20, 04:54 AM · #
The ensoulment question is, as Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out in a September, 2008, post at The Corner, a “dodge.” Commenting on both then-Senator Obama’s and then-Senator Biden’s rather muddled positions on abortion, Ponnuru says:
“But, contra Biden’s implication, the Catholic church’s position on abortion is not based on a teaching about ensoulment; it is based on the view that all living human beings deserve not to be deliberately killed. So he [Biden] does not ‘accept the teachings of his church’ in the matter.
And for both of them the ensoulment question is a dodge. People disagree about whether 40-year-olds have souls. We don’t leave 40-year-olds unprotected against homicide in order to avoid imposing our theological views on each other.“
— Kate Marie · May 20, 04:59 AM · #
Sorry about the double posting.
— Kate Marie · May 20, 05:05 AM · #
But people do not disagree that 40 year olds are sentient, sensate, and have adequate neocortical substrate to support thoght and cognitive activity. Apples and oranges, but what can one expect from a mad shaman? So your position, like Ponnuru’s, is the dodge…the superstition vs the science. The only way a diploid oocyte can be a “person” is by arguendo superstio.
Just admit that your argument, like the Church’s, is based on theology.
Because god says so.
That is all you have.
Stop trying to cloak your theology in reason and logic and admit for what it is.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 11:39 AM · #
This is exactly the same as SSM. Just as there is NO valid secular reason to oppose SSM, there is NO valid secular reason to oppose first-trimester abortion.
Just call it what it is.
Religious belief.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 12:15 PM · #
If there’s a valid secular reason to oppose the deliberate killing of a living human being, there’s a valid secular reason to oppose first-trimester abortion.
No matter how much you stamp your foot and insist your definition of “human being” just IS the correct one, I must insist that there is no definitive scientific reason to define “human being” as you have done. Kick and scream all you want, Matoko, but your position about where to draw the line between what’s a human being and what’s not partakes just as much of theology as anyone else’s.
Aren’t chimpanzees, for instance, sentient and sensate, and don’t they have adequate neocortical activity to support thought? Are they persons? What about newborn infants with anencephaly? Are they not persons?
If the choice is between “because God says so” and “because Matoko says so,” I’ll take the former every time. But the fact is that you can provide me with no definitive scientific definition of a human person, in which the great god Science has definitively pronounced what constitutes a human person and when personhood begins. So stop trying to cloak your own theological whims in reason and logic and admit them for what they are.
— Kate Marie · May 20, 01:56 PM · #
Baloney.
Why can’t you just admit your faith, Katemarie?
Are you ashamed?
Why can’t you just say “I believe this scrap of insensate protoplasm is a human life because its my religion?”
And…if you really do believe that diploid oocytes and blastulae are “human life”, why aren’t you screaming blue murder against fertitlity therapy and the genocide of those helpless innocent embryos in terminal cryostasis? Why aren’t you voluteering as a host womb to save some of those “human lives”?
— matoko_chan · May 20, 03:08 PM · #
Put yer womb where your mouth is. Host womb! Host womb! Host womb!
— cw · May 20, 04:36 PM · #
That’s the name of my new band. Host Womb.
— cw · May 20, 04:37 PM · #
Or maybe Womb Bomb.
— cw · May 20, 04:38 PM · #
Somehow that reminds me of the Bob the Builder episode entitled “I Love Caulk.”
— cw · May 20, 04:40 PM · #
My wife can’t get enough caulk. That’s why I married her.
— Tony Comstock · May 20, 05:15 PM · #
Fair enough. And I recognize the law’s interest in preventing the destruction of legal instruments to evade their consequences, whether that results in demonstratable knowing harm to anybody or not.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that from a legal perspective: abortion is legal, and traditionally always has been in America, with the exception of a 60-year period in the middle of the 20th century.
— Chet · May 20, 05:35 PM · #
Ah, what a surprise. You didn’t answer my questions.
— Kate Marie · May 20, 05:55 PM · #
You’ve never answered any of mine. I rather quickly perceived that you’re simply not worth talking to.
— Chet · May 20, 05:59 PM · #
Actually, I should have made clear that I was responding to Our Lady of Substantial Substrate, Chet.
By the way — “Rather quickly?” I’d say you spent quite a while on your brilliant attempts to prove that harm doesn’t exist without the experience of harm.
LOL!
— Kate Marie · May 20, 06:08 PM · #
Katemarie, every question I answer you scramble into another one.
I fisk George on ensoulement and you leap to 40 year old men. I explain that and you jump to chimps.
You are dishonest in argument.
You are not worth talking to.
One more time, if you really believe in human-life-at-conception, why don’t you protest the icy holocaust of terminal cryogenesis? Why don’t you volunteer to save a few with your own personal uterus?
Whited sepulchre.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 06:21 PM · #
George’s argument relies not one whit on ensoulment, Matoko. I would think the fact that you seem to have completely misread his stance toward Cartesian dualism might give you some pause about your infallibility.
If I’m not worth talking to, by the way, you’re perfectly welcome to stop talking.
— Kate Marie · May 20, 06:30 PM · #
spirit=soul in Georges windy bloviating.
I think you should have to answer just one question Katemarie, on the behalf of the human-at-conception religious mouthbreathers like yourself.
Why is terminal cryogenesis ok while RU-286 isn’t?
Just think of the millions of little human lives spending a few years in an icy prison before being ruthlessly decanted and flushed.
Where is your compassion!! Your empathy!!!!
hahaha
you don’t really believe in life-at-conception.
faker.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 06:59 PM · #
When did I ever say terminal cryogenesis was okay?
However you choose to interpret George’s reference to a “unity of body, mind, and spirit,” his argument against Cartesian duality does not rely on ensoulment. You can substract the term “spirit” from George’s phrase and make the same argument. The fact that George believes in souls has very little to do with his argument against the deliberate killing of a human being — any more than the fact of his belief in souls would prevent him from arguing for the protection of adult human beings.
Try again, Matoko.
— Kate Marie · May 20, 08:12 PM · #
Too bad neither you nor John put the time in. We could have talked about something interesting.
— Chet · May 20, 08:54 PM · #
_You can substract the term “spirit” from George’s phrase and make the same argument. _
Why didn’t he do that then?
Because he can’t. His whole argument deconstructs because without nervous tissue there is no “mind”.
Put your money where your mouth is, poseur, volunteer to be a host womb.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 08:59 PM · #
And quit trying to tell other women what to do with theirs on the basis of your ignorant superstion.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 09:01 PM · #
I find it very interesting how your comments quickly devolve into coarse sloganeering, Matoko. Perhaps you, as a self-proclaimed astute observer of human nature, could put your substrate to work on the process by which that happens.
George doesn’t have to subtract the phrase “spirit” from his description because, as I have said repeatedly, his argument doesn’t rely on it. Anyone who wishes to can subtract the term and the argument remains the same. Your insistence that his personal beliefs undermine his argument is just silly.
Now you can answer my question. Is a newborn infant with anencephaly a person?
Here’s another one. When, according to the Scripture of Our Lady of Substantial Substrate, does “embodiment” occur?
— Kate Marie · May 20, 09:45 PM · #
What is wrong with you? Do you have a learning disability or something?
George doesn’t have to subtract the phrase “spirit” from his description because, as I have said repeatedly, his argument doesn’t rely on it.
A mind/body/spirit unit without either sufficient nervous tissue to have a mind or a soul/spirit is just meat.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 09:54 PM · #
and of course an anencephalic newborn is a person.
It is a freakin’ citizen with constitutional rights, just like those little messican anchor babies you so despise.
— matoko_chan · May 20, 10:39 PM · #
“just like those little messican anchor babies you so despise.”
Ummmmmm . . . huh?
— Kate Marie · May 20, 10:48 PM · #
“He’s trying his very best, given his convictions about abortion.”
Given the convictions that anyone who has his convictions holds, the last thing he is probably doing is trying his best.
Rather, he is trying his worst. He is at his worst – as all such people are – when he is holding such so-called ‘convictions’.
My vote is that we stop treating people like Obama as if they really are good and reasonable people. They are neither. It would be okay to treat them with respect if they were not so diabolical in thought and action. But they are. There are 50m manglked corpses of former babies who evidence that.
These people need to be defeated, not written about with even a smattering of respect.
— Michael Mac · May 21, 03:08 AM · #
if they were not so diabolical in thought and action. But they are. There are 50m manglked corpses of former babies who evidence that.
See? That there. Cognitive dissonance.
Michael Mac, are YOU working to stop the icy holocast of all those embryos in terminal cryostasis?
How bout ‘chu volunteer your wife or girlfriend as a host womb?
How bout ‘chu ADOPT a snowflake embryo?
See? poseurs and fakers all the way down.
/spit
— matoko_chan · May 21, 11:52 AM · #
Matoko,
Despite all of the intellectual preening you do on this blog, you insist on the most vulgar and irrational non sequiturs. Why is that, do you think? Does this chain of ideas really go through your mind: “Hmmmmm, Kate Marie is opposed to abortion; ergo, she is a xenophobic racist a**hole who despises ‘messican anchor babies’”? Really?
I suppose that’s what comes of being a “Machievellian pragmatist” who also believes that individual freedom trumps not-freedom every time. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.
— Kate Marie · May 21, 02:50 PM · #
matoko – you have some marginally interesting things to say on many threads throughout TAS. You’re clearly well-read. But I think you’ve spent a lot more time finding ways to insult religious “mouthbreathers” than developing your own thoughts.
Picking on religious folk (like myself) is low-hanging fruit – surely you have something better to do with your time. You cannot reconcile scientific discovery with the “Dark Age” truths that withstand the test of time, sneering, and contempt. We get that.
I realize you have no telos, but please put that considerable potential of yours to better use than insulting theists.
— Dustin · May 21, 07:40 PM · #
I am a practicing Sufi.
I should have only eros, but my nafs interfere, and my aspergers also.
I will take it under advisement, Dustin.
— matoko_chan · May 21, 08:05 PM · #
The point I was attempting to make to Dr. Jacobs, is that Obama’s offer is the ONLY shot the pro-lifers have at reducing abortions, and if they are sincere in that goal (which I personally doubt) they should jump on it, whether they think Obama is making a good faith effort or not.
You see, my side has no need to compromise….yours does.
Roe v Wade is not going anywhere for at least 8 years.
I tend to lose my temper over instransigent stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.
I blame the aspergers.
;)
— matoko_chan · May 21, 08:22 PM · #