February 29th, 2012


abortion and infanticide

When I read something that takes what I believe and carries it to its natural conclusion (or what seems like that), I find it very upsetting – almost violent. That happened today, when I saw a moderate-conservative friend on FB commenting on an article:

Ethicists Argue in Favor of 'After-Birth Abortions' as Newborns 'Are Not Persons'

Now, there are lots of things that made me skeptical about the post. When I loaded the article it had an ad for Goldline and Glenn Beck TV. An issue that seemed mostly secular ethics was listed under "Faith." The first two columnists listed on their contributors page are Glenn Beck and Rick Santorum. And so on. But the article certainly isn't raving. If anything, it seemed remarkably matter-of-fact given the subject matter. Apparently some university-affiliated ethicists down in Australia are advocating for a legal right to what they call "after-abortion," and what the rest of us (including me) call infanticide or just plain old murder.

The thing is, there's a lot in that basic argument that's similar to some things I've argued in the past. I don't believe a zygote produced from a human sperm and a human egg is a full-fledged person. And I don't think the fetus magically acquires the traits that make us human in one fell swoop when its head passes out of the mother's womb. Its moral status the moment before it is born is more or less its status just after it's birth. But I stop way before we get to the point suggested this article suggests those Aussie ethicists take it to, so I thought I'd try to work through why. This may only end up being interesting to me. :-)

First, the false start: that a law outlawing infanticide doesn't actually say you should kill your children, but just that it should be an individual choice. I know pro-choice people (myself included) tend to talk about giving people the right to choose an abortion even when we believe it's the wrong choice. I think there's something to be said for letting people make their own choice – and making everything illegal takes away possibilities of doing the right thing for the right reason. But as Michael Sandel put it in his very well-done book Justice, this in itself is a moral position and rests on the assumption that people can reasonably disagree over whether the fetus is a person. I would never say e.g. that people should have the right to decide whether to kill their eight-year-old child. Or even their one-minute-old child.

But I do think there's a legitimate difference the Blaze author is skipping past. There are real moral differences between a newly-fertilized ovum and a fetus about to be born. I can't necessarily point to a specific day when it is a person and before it wasn't. This is one of the things that drive me crazy about the abortion debate: as if just because I can't point to a hard dividing point, that means there's no difference between the extremes. (Evolution tells us there are all kinds of intermediate states between a chimpanzee and homo sapiens, so perhaps in some case you would struggle to know whether one of the linking individuals between the two groups, but no one would mistake one for the other.)

I am willing to accept the very real possibility that a fetus is sentient or even rational at some point in its development, and so would be a person. This was actually portrayed very well in the last Twilight movie, where Edward senses Renesme's thoughts before she is born and suddenly she seems real to him and worthy of moral consideration. As it happens, I think the law is ill-equipped to handle that distinction, but I'm thinking about the issue more from a morality standpoint anyway. Even before then, there can be reasons – good reasons – why it's wrong to kill a non-human animal. It's just not murder.

There's also another distinction that the Aussie ethicists totally overlooked if they're being fairly reported. I have no hard evidence that the Blaze is taking them out of context, but do consider the source. Also, this is so basic that if they're university-affiliated philosophers I'd be very surprised, since this is a rather significant and well-known distinction. It's that simply because you have a moral right to an abortion, it doesn't mean you have a moral right to kill the fetus. You have a right to keep it from using your body, and it may be a scientific fact that without those nutrients it will die, but that doesn't give you the right to cut its throat or shoot it if somehow it survived being separated from your body. So the mother could maybe say she didn't want to care for the child after giving birth to it, and she could surrender it to the state or someone else.

I find that a bit iffy, actually, given that the mother's had nine months to decide whether she wants the child, but I can see a few exceptions – like if she had carried it to term with the express intent of giving the child up for adoption, or if there were some new circumstances she hadn't planned on (like a birth defect where she wasn't prepared to raise the child). But this idea that it might be cruel to the mother for her to know her child is out there somewhere doesn't hold up for me. Lots of things are cruel, and we usually accept that as long as they aren't intentionally cruel. Life just stinks sometimes, whether as a consequence of our own choice or something done to us. Society can do what it can to mitigate the suffering (perhaps keeping the mother's identity a secret from the child if that's what she wants, or placing the child with parents in a different part of the country to minimize the chances mother and child will meet up.

But only up to a point. Certainly not up to the point of killing another person. I don't know enough about obstetrics or early pediatrics to say for sure this child is rational or for sure this child is sentient from the very second it leaves the womb. But it's well on its way, and it at least has the potential for those traits – a nervous system, for instance. The mother never had the right to kill the fetus, but even if she did, I'd say she had less and less of a claim to that right as the fetus/child approached personhood.

By the way, National Catholic Register, when you wrote:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn't, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

You're breaking your own standard in the space of two sentences. If you're saying anything with human genetic material is a human, that is a definition of human. And when you're excluding acts like biopsying (living, genetically human) cancerous cells from your definition of murder, you're also excluding some genetically-human, living organisms from the classification of humanity. We all do philosophy; some of us are just more explicit about this fact than others.

All said, I think those ethicists are either misreported or went too far (and how). That doesn't make my position that life doesn't begin at conception wrong, though.


(no subject)

After the last substantial post on abortion I thought I'd share some RL stuff.
  1. I'm teaching the free will problem this week, which means it's time to break out Harry Potter scenarios. Namely, was Harry really different from Voldemort because of a choice he'd made? Whether or not it helps the course, I am always amused by this.
  2. In my copious free time (not) I'm rereading some Anselm to get ready for my reading list. Today I read about ten chapters of Anselm's Monologium (In translation). Basically why God had to create the world out of nothing, how this was possible, various meanings of the word nothing, and how language was supposed to be understood. Sometimes these readings are quite nice. And sometimes not, obviously, but today was a good day on that front.
  3. I need to clean up. Seriously.
  4. I managed to be around for when the UPS man came today, and he actually had packages for me - books from Amazon (for research, nothing fun) as well as a gift Staples gave me when I "bought" my new desk chair - which still hasn't arrived.
  5. Kortirion has a double-drabble up over at tolkien_weekly, for the joint prompts of "grip" and "hilt." As lovely as the drabble is (and it is), the combination struck me as giggle-worthy because of the slash possibility. Yes, I am a twelve-year-old boy some days.
Also, some things I've shared over at FB lately. Some funny, some serious, all worth a look. Especially the picture of Patrick Stewart. And here I thought there was nothing that man could do to make himself any more beautiful.Sir Patrick's description of his own experience with domestic violence 
Collapse )
Enjoy your evening, anyone who's still up...    

B2MEM bingo cards

I just thought I'd put a shout-out for the Bingo card I put together. I just mean I chose the the prompts; Dawn or one of her many minions actually designed the card. Anyway, it's various deep thoughts that could be philosophical (they often have specific meanings to philosophers), but could also be just, well, deep-thoughty.

Collapse )

There are lots of other cards as well. You can claim however many you like here. Basically every two days the B2MEM group will announce a new prompt, but it will be a Bingo letter-number combo. You can write a fic or do some other project involving the element, and it can meet several of themes for different cards if you like. You could be like the old lady who has seventeen cards laid out in front of her, along with the plastic troll she kisses for luck periodically.

The goal is to get "BINGO" obviously. Of course, the real goal is to write some cool fic and art, and read the same from other people. Best of luck to all the participants.

beta needed

I'm looking for a beta who is comfortable with the Silm. This is for BMEM, so the pieces are vignette-y and I need turnaround in around a day per piece. I mainly need someone to help me avoid embarrassing myself on Silm canon but also suggestions of when the language gets too flowery for when the characters don't feel right, and general copyediting would be much appreciated.

Is anyone interested?