Abortion is Funny
The Blatzkritters have been without cable television for the last few years. This has been a tremendous blessing in our home, because it has drastically reduced the amount of programming we view individually and as a family. It has also removed a heap of tele-trash that had been beaming into our living room from various cable channels.
Unfortunately, the break room at my workplace is furnished with both a television and cable programming. And because I work nights, I am exposed to the worst that cable television has to offer.
Several weeks ago, a few coworkers and I were watching The Sarah Silverman Program on Comedy Central. In this particular episode, Ms. Silverman unwittingly joins a radical anti-abortion group. As the episode progresses, Ms. Silverman begins to figure this out and decides to leave the group, because she just can’t give up having abortions. The entire episode made light of abortion and treated it as very comical. My coworkers all laughed and were ribbing me and asking if I was offended, because they know that I hate abortion. (The ribbing was good natured; I love my coworkers and we get along swimmingly.) I said that I didn’t find the episode funny, and left it at that.
A few days later, we were sitting in the computer room for our break time. I was suddenly struck with an irresistible urge to make a point. I logged on to Abort73.com and launched this video. The video is essentially a slideshow of various pictures of abortion byproducts – dead babies and pieces of dead babies. One of my coworkers shrugged it off and laughed. The other became a bit upset and asked me to turn the video off. I did not. Instead, I laughed and said, “C’mon! Abortion is funny! Remember how funny that episode of The Sarah Silverman Show was last week!”
My response was probably immature and a little inappropriate. However, it is amazing to me how upset some people will become when confronted with the reality of abortion. Philosophical and ethical arguments on the matter are all good and fine, but I believe every individual willing to allow (and make light of) this practice must first look it in the face. It is intellectually dishonest to take a position on abortion (particularly a position in favor of its allowance) without viewing with your own eyes what it actually is.
This is no laughing matter.
—————-
I’ve added the vod:pod application to this blog and added the above video (”This is Abortion”). I find the revulsion expressed toward these kinds of images both fascinating and enraging. Why do we not have these kinds of reactions against images of the Nazi Holocaust? You cannot watch any kind of visual media on WWII without being exposed to images of ovens, gas chambers and heaps of emaciated corpses. I think that’s a good thing. We should never forget what happened at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Likewise, we must face the images of abortion. Someday, I pray, our children and grandchildren with look upon these images with a similar horror.
—————-
Now playing: Jars of Clay – God Will Lift Up Your Head
via FoxyTunes
Jim,
Just imaging how God feels when one of his innocent and vulnerable creations is destroyed in that way. Speaking from my own experience wih people who support abortion, they do not want to think about the nasty truth-no visual images, grafic details.Ignorance is bliss.
People shy away from slide shows of dead babies because it’s little more than propaganda aimed at invoking an emotional response so as to cloud the reason of the viewer in order to force a knee-jerk reaction generally based in black and whites. The fact of the matter is abortion is far from black and white. Just a few questions it raises are; when does the joining of egg and sperm go from cluster of cells to a human being, what makes someone (or something) human, what grants humans person hood and therefore rights? The questions raised by this debate are incredibly important and difficult, and deserve to be answered out side of the realm of rhetoric and propaganda.
People dislike slide shows of dead babies because it makes the false assumption that because I am pro-choice I must therefore also be pro-abortion; this is simply not true. Many (I would even venture to say the majority) of pro-choicers do not like abortion, they simply believe that it is neither their, nor the government’s, right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.
Yes the Sarah Silverman Show is obscene, offensive for the sake of being offensive, and not even that funny, but why get so upset? Do you really have so little faith in you fellow man as to believe the average person watching that show really thinks abortion isn’t a serious issue? Abortion, and a myriad of other taboo subjects, is often lambasted in popular media not because it’s a funny subject, but rather because after a day of work or school or life in general most people want to forget about the pressing issues they face. The best way to do that is often through humor, taking those subjects which leave us stressed and poking fun at them.
Marcus,
“People shy away from slide shows of dead babies because it’s little more than propaganda aimed at invoking an emotional response so as to cloud the reason…”
Have you ever watched video of any other kind of surgery? C-section, heart surgery, knee repair, etc? Did these images cause an emotional response that clouded your reason? Abortion is, after all, merely a routine medical procedure to remove a mass of undifferentiated cells, right?
I don’t understand why a simple unadorned image (I would have left out the cheesy piano music – the images stand on their own) clouds the reason. These images are reality, Marcus.
“The fact of the matter is abortion is far from black and white. Just a few questions it raises are; when does the joining of egg and sperm go from cluster of cells to a human being…”
Blah, blah, blah… Don’t obfuscate the issue here, Marcus. These images are not of “cell clusters”. They are images of human faces, hands, feet, etc. (Though, I would argue – particularly from a Christian perspective – that a human life bound with all its attendant rights is created at conception.)
“People dislike slide shows of dead babies because it makes the false assumption that because I am pro-choice I must therefore also be pro-abortion; this is simply not true. Many (I would even venture to say the majority) of pro-choicers do not like abortion, they simply believe that it is neither their, nor the government’s, right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.”
Let’s take a trip back in time, Marcus. The year is 1830-ish. You and I are now arguing the African slave trade. I argue that it is an obvious moral evil and should be legally prohibited. You argue that it is a moral evil (I hope), but that you do not believe it is your place (or the government’s) to tell a slaveholder what to do with his legally acquired property. I would find that argument morally reprehensible (not to mention terribly unconvincing).
If abortion is the willful and knowing destruction of innocent human life (i.e. murder), then we are morally obligated to prohibit the practice. This really isn’t as complicated as you want it to be.
“Yes the Sarah Silverman Show is obscene, offensive for the sake of being offensive, and not even that funny, but why get so upset?”
I don’t think I expressed a great deal of animus toward Ms. Silverman or her program. I merely stated that a particular episode made light of abortion. Is that unreasonable? (In truth, I think Ms. Silverman is very funny. It is unfortunate that she feels the need to resort to the crassest of the crass so often.)
God Bless
P.S. The “it’s-not-my-place-to-tell-a-woman-what-to-do-with-her-body” argument is no less an emotive propaganda than an image of an aborted child. It sends a message to men that they have no rights in regard to their unborn children. It also muddies the reality that there are two bodies involved in an abortion, not one.
P.S.S. If you are a Christian, I would highly recommend John Piper’s sermons on abortion. They will, at the very least, give you a better understanding of the Christian pro-life position.
Another thing I think has been neglected or swept under the rug by the pro -choicers is the lasting physcological, emotional and spiritural impact it has on the women who have these procedures done. It is of course the quick fix for them physically, but I know two women who went on to be married, and have children, and still have deep regrets and guilt. One of them, a friend of my daughter’s with 3 beautiful daughters now of her own said to me, ” If only I had talked to someone who knew the value of life, I would not have done such a thing. ” She went on to say that there was in her mind always a “hole” in her family where the missing little one should be. She is definitely pro-life now, but doubts that she will ever cease to grieve over this.
There is a grief when a woman loses a child, whether it’s by abortion or miscarriage. I know because I lost 7 babies naturally, one to stillbirth and the rest in varying other stages of development, before my daughter was born, who is my only living child . There is always a wondering in your mind about what the child would have been like, so even though I had no choice in the matter when it came to my pregnancies, I knew instantly what my daughter’s friend meant when she spoke of the “hole” in her heart . I’ve still got several of them.
So, yeah, by all means show the movies to all these young gals and guys who think it’s such a casual, okay thing to use abortion as a form of birth control, and talk to them on a deep level about the value of life every chance you get. You might not only save the life of an innocent child, but keep the would-be parentds from a lifetime of guilt and regrets when they finally mature enough to realize the enormity of what they’ve done.
mbaker,
Wow. Praise God for your daughter. We had an early miscarriage between our two children. It was difficult, but I cannot imagine multiple miscarriages at later stages. I’m sure you have a unique perspective on these issues with your history.
God Bless
“Have you ever watched video of any other kind of surgery? C-section, heart surgery, knee repair, etc? Did these images cause an emotional response that clouded your reason? Abortion is, after all, merely a routine medical procedure to remove a mass of undifferentiated cells, right?”
I have watched a surgery, and it tends to make me sick to my stomach; it’s not a pleasant thing to watch. When you combine that with the incredibly controversial issue of abortion, about which people have very strong feelings, it causes people to have an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with gut reactions.
“Blah, blah, blah… Don’t obfuscate the issue here, Marcus. These images are not of “cell clusters”. They are images of human faces, hands, feet, etc. (Though, I would argue – particularly from a Christian perspective – that a human life bound with all its attendant rights is created at conception.)”
Why does life begin at conception? What is it about a zygote with two cells that puts it on the same level as you or I? What characteristics does it hold that classify it as a human being with person hood? And again, what is person hood? What is it to be human? If it is merely the possibility for life then I hope you also never use contraceptives, and if you’re going to take that line of thinking to its end you may want to start collecting any loose skin or hair to take to a lab, as every cell in you body has the potential to grow into another human being.
“Let’s take a trip back in time, Marcus. The year is 1830-ish. You and I are now arguing the African slave trade. I argue that it is an obvious moral evil and should be legally prohibited. You argue that it is a moral evil (I hope), but that you do not believe it is your place (or the government’s) to tell a slaveholder what to do with his legally acquired property. I would find that argument morally reprehensible (not to mention terribly unconvincing).”
If there was a solid, reasonable and convincing argument that other human being could be property then I would allow others there rights to do with their property what they will. But you can’t make that argument, human beings cannot be property. John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government said that ones body is by natural law, there one. He went on to say that anything produced by they bodies effort is also their property. Now as I said above, you clearly cannot own another human, which is why the question of what makes a being deserving of person hood is so important. Philosopher Peter Singers would argue (as would I) that self-awareness is essential to person hood, something that a fetus clearly does not posses, an African slave in the early 19th century on the other hand clearly does, and therefore cannot be property.
“P.S. The “it’s-not-my-place-to-tell-a-woman-what-to-do-with-her-body” argument is no less an emotive propaganda than an image of an aborted child. It sends a message to men that they have no rights in regard to their unborn children. It also muddies the reality that there are two bodies involved in an abortion, not one.”
That’s simply not true. It tells men (and other women) that they do not have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. I would hope that if the tables where turned no woman would have the right to tell a man what to do with his body either.
Marcus,
“I have watched a surgery, and it tends to make me sick to my stomach; it’s not a pleasant thing to watch. When you combine that with the incredibly controversial issue of abortion, about which people have very strong feelings, it causes people to have an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with gut reactions.”
So, it has nothing to do with the fact that it exposes the reality of another human being within the woman being butchered? It’s just yucky, because it’s bloody? That’s either really stupid or really dishonest.
As far as the issue of conception/beginning of life, I think you’re raising it to avoid having to deal with these images. Those aren’t zygotes. They’re human beings with eyes, lips, hands and feet. They are undeniably human in almost every way a newborn is, except that they are within a woman’s womb.
When does human life technically begin, Marcus? I assume you took high school biology like I did. A separate human life, distinct from the mother, is created at conception. Many of these lives are lost through very early miscarriages. This does not make them any less human. The question is not “When does human life begin?”, but “When do we (the born) ascribe to them (the unborn) value and worth, and therefore protection?”
So, Marcus, why does a human zygote NOT deserve legal protection against murder? Because it is fragile? Because it is weak? Because it depends on another for its survival? All of these can be said of newborns, the severely handicapped and many elderly. Interestingly, Peter Singer (whom you favorably quoted above) has promoted the idea of allowing a woman to terminate her offspring weeks after delivery, because an infant is not significantly more sentient than a fetus. A brave new world, eh Marcus?
“That’s simply not true. It [the “it’s-not-my-place-to-tell-a-woman-what-to-do-with-her-body” argument] tells men (and other women) that they do not have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.”
Does not the fetus have a body distinct from the mother? You are again displaying either your stupidity or dishonesty here. A pregnant woman cannot refer simply to “her body”. I don’t care if that sounds sexist. The reality is that a pregnant woman carries a human being within her that deserves as much protection as she does.
God Bless
P.S. If it seems that I am coming at you a bit harshly, it’s because I am. I like to think that I am usually a pretty diplomatic and dispassionate debater. However, this is the one issue that I see so black-and-white, and the opposition as so evil (not in their personal characters, but in their position against outlawing infanticide), that I cannot discuss it calmly. To do so would cover up the moral seriousness of the issue.
Thanks, Jim.
Marcus,
It has always been a mystery to me what double minded standards we apply to such issues as life and eath in our culture. On the one hand folks will decry the treatment of terrorists during incarceration, yet fail to protect their unborn citizens from harm. We speak of the awfulness of the holocaust as the ultimate violation of human life, yet we look silently upon the slaughter of millions of unborn babies as a right.
Sorry, for me, that can not even begin to compute.
To all,
I am very busy right now with many projects I need to complete, so won’t have time for blogging for a while. God bless all of you, and have a very happy Thanksgiving. See you later.
Jim,
You’re misrepresenting Peter SInger, he is in favor of allowing parents to end the life of a new born if it is severely deformed and/or has little to no chance of survival. I can’t really articulate his argument here but if you can read his article in the LA Times here (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20050311.htm).
You seem to think it is so easy to decide when life begins, but can you even define life? If by life you simply mean it is biologically living than should I assume you are a vegetarian as well? I think we both know that ethics and philosophy differentiate between being biologically alive and living in the sense of a self aware person.
Again, Singer would say that the best way to define person is as a self aware being with knowledge of and hope for the future. A fetus does not meet this requirement. Obviously it one day will, and thus society looks down upon abortion, but from a legal stand point no murder can take place.
This isn’t to say that SInger is right, only that this issue is clearly less black and white than you would like it to be.
Marcus,
Wow. You have a knack for talking your way around a topic without actually answering any questions.
Regarding Singer, I read quite a bit of his material in college (98-02). I am not referring to the fairly recent statement regarding disabled babies. I am glad you brought it up though, because he founds his approval of killing disabled babies (born humans) on his belief that an infant is no more sentient than a fetus, and it is not immoral to kill a fetus (according to Singer). Because he believes that infants are no more sentient than fetuses (or severely disabled adults or senile elderly), they can be killed without offending his utilitarian morality. Unfortunately, I could not find the original work, but I am certain that Singer argues, at least theoretically, that it is not immoral to kill an infant for no other reason than inconvenience to the mother. This fits his calculus of human worth – if it is OK to kill a fetus for no better reason than inconvenience, than it is OK to kill an infant for the same reason.
Just because you and Singer want to muddy the issue, it does not follow that the issue is therefore muddied.
Marcus, are you a Christian?
Jim–You might be interested in taking a look at Justice Kennedy’s description of various abortion procedures in Gonzales v. Carhartt, a recent Supreme Court abortion case. The explanation of the different procedures comes mostly in Part I-A of the opinion.
You can get the full text of the opinion at :
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
I attempted to submit a comment earlier that included some quotes from the opinion, but, for some reason, my comment was never submitted.
Marcus–
You said: “Again, Singer would say that the best way to define person is as a self aware being with knowledge of and hope for the future. A fetus does not meet this requirement. Obviously it one day will, and thus society looks down upon abortion, but from a legal stand point no murder can take place.”
The implication of your argument here is that a murder cannot take place unless the “being” that is killed is somehow “self aware.” Legally (your last sentence states “from a legal standpoint”), this is simply incorrect. The State, in defining homocide, is not held captive to philosophical arguments such as this one. The State is free to define the action of the killing of an unborn child as murder at any point after the fetus becomes viable. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The applicable legal standard is viability of the fetus and not some measure “self-awareness.”
Generally, I bemoan the fact that viability is the legal standard that the Supreme Court uses to give substantive life to its creation of a “right to privacy” with respect to reproduction. I find this standard arbitrary and artificial. However, I would much prefer viability to “self-awareness.”
Chris,
Word.
I don’t know what happened to your comment. I never received a notification of it.
“Regarding Singer, I read quite a bit of his material in college (98-02). I am not referring to the fairly recent statement regarding disabled babies. I am glad you brought it up though, because he founds his approval of killing disabled babies (born humans) on his belief that an infant is no more sentient than a fetus, and it is not immoral to kill a fetus (according to Singer). Because he believes that infants are no more sentient than fetuses (or severely disabled adults or senile elderly), they can be killed without offending his utilitarian morality. Unfortunately, I could not find the original work, but I am certain that Singer argues, at least theoretically, that it is not immoral to kill an infant for no other reason than inconvenience to the mother. This fits his calculus of human worth – if it is OK to kill a fetus for no better reason than inconvenience, than it is OK to kill an infant for the same reason.”
From what I’ve read of Singer I highly doubt he considers it ethical to kill an infant for no reason other than convenience; or at the very least would look down upon it, and and support laws preventing it.
You still haven’t answered my question, does simply being alive grant a being person hood and the rights that go with it? As I put it before, are you a vegetarian?
“Marcus, are you a Christian?”
No I am not. I was once a charismatic (I found your site through Sign of Jonah), then journeyed from conservative to mainline Christianity, only to find myself coming to a theology so liberal I found it meaningless. I realized that I needed a liberal theology because Christianity didn’t make much sense to me, in which case I minus well abandon the whole thing.
Chris,
“The implication of your argument here is that a murder cannot take place unless the “being” that is killed is somehow “self aware.” Legally (your last sentence states “from a legal standpoint”), this is simply incorrect. The State, in defining homocide, is not held captive to philosophical arguments such as this one. The State is free to define the action of the killing of an unborn child as murder at any point after the fetus becomes viable. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The applicable legal standard is viability of the fetus and not some measure “self-awareness.”"
I admit ‘legally’ was poor choice of words. I meant simply that murder is traditionally defined as the ending of another human’s life, and unless you can prove a fetus is a human (read person), then the murder argument simply doesn’t fly.
“Generally, I bemoan the fact that viability is the legal standard that the Supreme Court uses to give substantive life to its creation of a “right to privacy” with respect to reproduction. I find this standard arbitrary and artificial. However, I would much prefer viability to “self-awareness.””
I agree, viability seems like such an arbitrary line to draw, but one must be drawn somewhere. But why not self-awareness? It is certainly more substantive a criteria than viability. And if no line is drawn then I must think the Catholics have it right and we all ought to throw out any contraceptives; and why stop there, research is now showing that every cell in the body has potential for human life, and thus is really much like a fetus without a womb.
Marcus,
“…does simply being alive grant a being person hood and the rights that go with it? As I put it before, are you a vegetarian?”
I pray these arguments are not representative of the best that the pro-abortion rights movement has to offer. Good grief… Among living beings, do you not afford humans a superior worth than hamsters, trees, fish and fungi? You said, “…does simply being alive grant a being person-hood?” Person-hood. Not mollusk-hood or shrub-hood. We’re talking about persons: human beings. Nice try, though. (Or do you believe, like Ingrid Newkirk, that “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy?”)
“…murder is traditionally defined as the ending of another human’s life, and unless you can prove a fetus is a human…”
How did it become our side’s responsibility to prove that a human fetus is not a human? A human fetus is human. This is pretty basic biology. If you’re going to argue that a human being at very early stages of development (some of those stages being out of the womb even) is not a human, the onus of defense is on you.
“…research is now showing that every cell in the body has potential for human life, and thus is really much like a fetus without a womb.”
Really? How so? That’s quite the assertion. Do you really want to argue that your dead skin cells are “really much like” a fetus or a zygote? C’mon… No cell in my body exists as a separate being with unique DNA like a fetus or a zygote does. Left alone, no cell in my body will grow and develop into an independent, mature adult human.
This is really beyond silly.
Marcus–
“I admit ‘legally’ was poor choice of words. I meant simply that murder is traditionally defined as the ending of another human’s life, and unless you can prove a fetus is a human (read person), then the murder argument simply doesn’t fly.”
I agree that, historically, the fetus has not received the full measure of legal protections that are afforded to “persons.” Although, prior to constitutional constraint, many states did in fact include pre-viability abortions in their criminal codes. I disagree with any suggestion that the State is somehow constrained by your proof of personhood standard in criminalizing the killing of an unborn child. This is simply not true.
Further, while I understand that your argument (the one quoted above) is logically valid, I disagree with your premise–that a fetus is not a human life. I also agree with Jim’s comment on the burden of proof issue.
“I agree, viability seems like such an arbitrary line to draw, but one must be drawn somewhere. But why not self-awareness? It is certainly more substantive a criteria than viability. And if no line is drawn then I must think the Catholics have it right and we all ought to throw out any contraceptives; and why stop there, research is now showing that every cell in the body has potential for human life, and thus is really much like a fetus without a womb.”
To be honest, I’m not even sure what self-awareness is. I know of Descartes’’ famous statement “I think, therefore I am”, but that is about it. If self-awareness is defined as you defined it above—“. . . Singer would say that the best way to define person is as a self aware being with knowledge of and hope for the future”— I think my objections are obvious. The only reasonable conclusion from your statement here is that a person is only a person if they are “self-aware” and have knowledge and hope for the future. What kind of a standard is this, if any? Honestly, I don’t have any knowledge of the future, and I’m not sure I have much hope.
On another level, I have some serious issues with psychological constructs such as this. Part of the reason that I abandoned my graduate study in psychology was because of growing frustration with the reasearch methodologies that are utilized. Constructs such as these are theoretical—that is, they do not exist physcially, as would a lump of cells. As such, they are unreasonably difficult to measure and often tend to be more of a reflection of the expectations and research methodolgy of the experimenter than anything else. These constructs cannot be measured objectively as can, for instance, the existence, or non-existence, of matter. All this to say that I would certainly not want to make a life or death decision on the basis of a standard as evasive as “self-awareness.”
Jim,
“Among living beings, do you not afford humans a superior worth than hamsters, trees, fish and fungi?”
Exactly! So what is it about being part of the human species that grants us rights that we do not grant other species? What characteristic(s) are inherent to every human that necessitate human rights?
“How did it become our side’s responsibility to prove that a human fetus is not a human? A human fetus is human.”
I think that if you want to assert (which you have) that a fetus is a human at all levels of development, including as a single cell with no characteristics that would make it seem even remotely human (i.e physical features, emotion, higher language functions etc.) is in fact a human, the burden of proof lies heavily on you.
Remember, I am not necessarily trying to argue that a fetus is non-human at ALL levels (though maybe it is, I personally am on the fence), only that your vitriolic claims serve to make black and white an issue that is not.
“Really? How so? That’s quite the assertion. Do you really want to argue that your dead skin cells are “really much like” a fetus or a zygote?”
I must admit I jumped the gun a bit here; I was referring to research done by the South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk, in which he claimed to have implanted a basic cell into an embryonic stem cell to clone a dog. Unfortunately when I went to find the article I originally read I found he had faked much of the research.
Regardless, we do know that every cell in your body contains the all the DNA needed for like, and theoretically has the potential for life. Now I assume you are either arguing that a single cell, or a cluster of several cells even, is a human life; or that it must be protected because of it’s potential for human life. If the later position is taken then it must be considered that theoretically every cell in the body has the potential for human life.
Chris,
“I disagree with any suggestion that the State is somehow constrained by your proof of personhood standard in criminalizing the killing of an unborn child.”
I think I was unclear here, I am not making a legal argument, or using ‘murder’ in legal terms. I am simply commenting on the common rallying cry for the pro-life side, “abortion is murder”; and pointing out that murder, in a generalized sense, is considered the taking of one person’s life by another.
“I think my objections are obvious. The only reasonable conclusion from your statement here is that a person is only a person if they are “self-aware” and have knowledge and hope for the future. What kind of a standard is this, if any? Honestly, I don’t have any knowledge of the future, and I’m not sure I have much hope.”
I think you misunderstand me, or rather Singer, here. By knowledge of the future what is meant is a basic conceptual understanding of the idea that there is a future, there are things to come; and hope for that future is meant as desires and goals. I am sure that you have a basic conceptual understanding of ‘future’, and probably have some hopes for it; for a happy family, good job or whatever else it may be that you desire.
I think SInger would, as a utilitarian, argue (and I would generally agree) that persons are granted rights because of a general recognition of all sentient being’s desire to ‘pursue happiness’. One can only pursue something if it can conceptualize that there is something coming after what is now, and if it has hopes and desires for what is coming. It is in all our best interest then to protect and respect the rights of each other in order to foster and environment in which all can attempt to achieve those goals. Of course this is a very dumbed down and quick summary of why those two criteria make sense, I would suggest that, if you are interested, you Google Singer and browse some of his work. I don’t agree with all, or even much of it, but it is very interesting.
Marcus–
“I think I was unclear here, I am not making a legal argument, or using ‘murder’ in legal terms. I am simply commenting on the common rallying cry for the pro-life side, “abortion is murder”; and pointing out that murder, in a generalized sense, is considered the taking of one person’s life by another.”
This is primarily a moral issue, but, secondarily, it is a legal one. My point is not to make a legal argument, but rather to suggest that abortion can in fact be murder. Pro-life people operate under the premise that a human life is a human life, from conception to death. If this is one’s premise, then abortion is murder. Logically, their argument is as valid as yours. Practically, this issue depends not on one’s philosphical ideas about the when a human life begins, but on at what point the legal system will afford protection to the unborn.
“I think you misunderstand me, or rather Singer, here. By knowledge of the future what is meant is a basic conceptual understanding of the idea that there is a future, there are things to come; and hope for that future is meant as desires and goals. I am sure that you have a basic conceptual understanding of ‘future’, and probably have some hopes for it; for a happy family, good job or whatever else it may be that you desire.”
I didnt misunderstand you. I was being sarcastic. I apologize for that. I simply dont think that a human life need have a basic conceptual understanding of the future, or hopes for it, before it deserves to be protected. And for all practical purposes, whether a human life will be protected or not, depends not on any notion of self-awareness but on the ability that we have as a democratic society to provide such protection. This is my concern.
“I think SInger would, as a utilitarian, argue (and I would generally agree) that persons are granted rights because of a general recognition of all sentient being’s desire to ‘pursue happiness’. One can only pursue something if it can conceptualize that there is something coming after what is now, and if it has hopes and desires for what is coming. It is in all our best interest then to protect and respect the rights of each other in order to foster and environment in which all can attempt to achieve those goals. Of course this is a very dumbed down and quick summary of why those two criteria make sense, I would suggest that, if you are interested, you Google Singer and browse some of his work. I don’t agree with all, or even much of it, but it is very interesting.”
I have read some of Singers’ stuff, and I have even listened to a few of his lectures. However, I might suggest that all of this needlessly complicates and issue that I think is pretty straightforward. A human life is a human life and it deserves to be protected from beginning to end.
Chris said, “…whether a human life will be protected or not, depends not on any notion of self-awareness but on the ability that we have as a democratic society to provide such protection.”
DING, DING, DING!!!
I think this hits at the frightening heart of the matter. (I think Chris also hits at it when he alludes to the abstruseness of psychological and philosophical speculation surrounding this issue and making it unnecessarily complicated.) In a democratic/representative society, we decide when to protect different varieties of human life.
For a tragically long period of time, we did not afford black African humans with the same protections afforded to white Americans (or really with any protections at all). We did not afford female humans with the same privileges afforded to male humans.
This is an issue of strength and power. We (the born, the sentient, the strong) have decided that a human zygote (Marcus, it is both human and a zygote, no?) or fetus (with hands, feet, lips, ears, eyes, heartbeat…) will not be protected from the strong, because… Well, I think it’s because we (mostly men, ironically) want to poke our genitalia wherever we want, whenever we want, with whomever we want, and not deal with the natural consequences of these actions. Abortion is the last-ditch effort to secure this “freedom”.
Honestly, Marcus, I believe all of your above arguments are hokum designed to distract your conscience from the reality. This is why I believe these images are so important. They strip away all of the philosophizing, and expose the obvious reality of what abortion is: murder.
Marcus, speaking strictly in terms of biology/physiology, when does human life begin? You’ve dodged this for a some time now. When is a distinct human being biologically created within a woman’s womb?
Marcus, you said you are an ex-Christian. Because you once professed Christ, I think (and pray) that the following will not be too foreign for you to understand. Please, if you have time give this a read, listen or viewing (viewing is best, if you have the time and bandwidth – probably 45 minutes). I have found it to be the most profound argument against abortion I have encountered from a Christian perspective.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/47_Abortion/159_Abortion_and_the_Tree_of_the_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil/
God Bless
I couldn’t resist putting in a quick word here: On an ultra sound screen when my daughter was only a few weeks old, all that was visible to the naked eye was a heartbeat. So even when the fetus is not in what Marcus refers to as a viable form, it is still very much alive.
Jim B., take into account that a newborn or an unborn is the highest sacrifice that can be made to satan. For the child has never sinned and is therefore not under condemnation.
Abortion has been compared to the ancient Moloch worship, where the firstborn were sacrificed (literally burnt alive), so the fertility of the land and its inhabitants could be assured.
Both practices, are selfishness in the highest degree.
“Jim B., take into account that a newborn or an unborn is the highest sacrifice that can be made to satan. For the child has never sinned and is therefore not under condemnation.
Abortion has been compared to the ancient Moloch worship, where the firstborn were sacrificed (literally burnt alive), so the fertility of the land and its inhabitants could be assured.
Both practices, are selfishness in the highest degree.”
That’s ridiculous. First of all if you believe in original sin no new born in sinless, they already have the seed of sin in them. Second, abortion and human sacrifice are two radically different things. Comparing them to Satanic sacrifices makes sound superstitious and ludicrous.
Jim,
“Honestly, Marcus, I believe all of your above arguments are hokum designed to distract your conscience from the reality. This is why I believe these images are so important. They strip away all of the philosophizing, and expose the obvious reality of what abortion is: murder.”
You forget that I have been where you are, I have seen the shock images and have even used them to my advantage. It doesn’t change the questions that must be asked.
“Marcus, speaking strictly in terms of biology/physiology, when does human life begin? You’ve dodged this for a some time now. When is a distinct human being biologically created within a woman’s womb?”
I wouldn’t say I’ve dodged the question, I simply wont make claims to absolute knowledge as you do. I have ideas, but I don’t know, and cannot know for sure. Now I know you will say that life begins at conception, but again I point out that you make the distinction of human life, it’s not just life you want to protect but human life specifically; and I am unsure of when THAT begins. And to be honest I’m skeptical of anyone who claims to absolutely know when that begins.
Indulge me in a seemingly silly allegory. Would you consider a fertilized chicken egg a chicken? If you were interested in protecting “chicken life” would you be able to make the argument that an egg is really a chicken? It may seem silly but what is the difference between a chicken egg and a zygote? They will both, given time, become full grown adults of their species, yet they both seem vastly different biologically from their species in the early stages of pregnancy/incubation.
All I would ask is that you at least consider the issues raised in this debate. It is so much easier to identify things as black and white and leave it there, but reality as almost never black and white. I don’t even want to convince you to take a different opinion, only to consider that this issue may not be as clear cut as you would like it to be.
Marcus,
“First of all if you believe in original sin no new born in sinless, they already have the seed of sin in them.”
Agreed. Humans (at conception, I would argue) are imputed with original sin. In fact, some theologians have used the fact of infant mortality as a proof of original sin: the wages of sin is death, therefore…
However, I think rooivalk is on to something with regard to the correlation between Old Testament pagan child sacrifice and 21st century abortion. I wouldn’t make a direct connection, but I think there are certainly some interesting similarities.
“I wouldn’t say I’ve dodged the question ["when does human life begin, biologically/physiologically"], I simply wont make claims to absolute knowledge as you do. I have ideas, but I don’t know, and cannot know for sure.”
The question isn’t up in the air. I did not ask you a philosophical question regarding the origins of person-hood or the human soul. I asked you when, biologically, a distinct human life is created within a woman’s womb. Answer: conception. This is true in an absolute sense. A human zygote is a distinct group of cells within a woman’s womb with a distinct DNA. This is simple biology, Marcus. A zygote is not part of a woman’s body like a skin cell is.
The issue is not “when is a human created”, but “what kinds of humans will we afford legal protection and/or moral value”. You’ve done nothing here but obfuscate the real (black and white) issue. However, I thank you for your comments. I think they have made plain how calloused and vacuous the arguments for abortion (or abortion “rights”) are.
“Indulge me in a seemingly silly allegory. Would you consider a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?”
Yes. What else could it be? It is a chicken zygote (or whatever a fertilized chicken is called) – a chicken at its earliest developmental stages with a DNA distinct from its mother.
—-
So, I will posit the question anew: Why, Marcus, is a human zygote (a group of cells with distinct DNA) or fetus (an insufficiently sentient human with a heartbeat, eyes, ears, lips, hands and feet) less deserving of legal protection than a human newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric…?
And if you again fall back on your argument from sentience, I would ask you the following: Does a severely disabled, or senile, human lose its value or legal protection, because it falls beneath your requirement of sentience?
Marcus said,
“Indulge me in a seemingly silly allegory. Would you consider a fertilized chicken egg a chicken? If you were interested in protecting “chicken life” would you be able to make the argument that an egg is really a chicken? It may seem silly but what is the difference between a chicken egg and a zygote? They will both, given time, become full grown adults of their species, yet they both seem vastly different biologically from their species in the early stages of pregnancy/incubation.”
Is this not true of a cow/calf a sow/piglet or any other animal? We would never consider aborting them for they are our food supply. Yet, because the fetus, according to the pro choiceser’s are not “useful” except when they are considered a fully functioning human being, we could then go so far as to see Singer’s reasoning that if a newborn wasn’t acceptable in some way they could be done away with. It is quite a while before even a new born/ toddler/teenager is sufficiently mature to even care for themselves responsibly without the intervention of adults. Are they then, according to your definition, not fully functioning human beings because they are not able to fully support themselves outside the home?
“So, I will posit the question anew: Why, Marcus, is a human zygote (a group of cells with distinct DNA) or fetus (an insufficiently sentient human with a heartbeat, eyes, ears, lips, hands and feet) less deserving of legal protection than a human newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric…?”
And I will again ask you to define human for me in a way that includes both a zygote and a fully grown human. I don’t think you can.
“And if you again fall back on your argument from sentience, I would ask you the following: Does a severely disabled, or senile, human lose its value or legal protection, because it falls beneath your requirement of sentience?”
Well first of all a senile adult rests in a different legal category than a mentally capable adult, so it would seem even our legal system sees a difference.
Second of all a senile or handicapped adult is still self aware and sentient, they simply lack the capacity to reach the level of intelligence expected of an adult.
Marcus,
http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception
“Fertilization:
If sperm does meet and penetrate a mature egg after ovulation, it will fertilize it. When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex.”
If you refuse to deal with reality, I cannot continue this conversation.
“The fact that some people controvert a position does not in itself make that position intrinsically controversial. People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton — for someone without principles.”
- Peter Kreeft
“Fertilization:
If sperm does meet and penetrate a mature egg after ovulation, it will fertilize it. When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex.”
You defined fertilization, good for you. I asked what a human is. Every cell in you body has the DNA necessary to create a human. If you can define human in such a way that it encompasses both a zygote and you and I, I’ll be impressed.
“If you refuse to deal with reality, I cannot continue this conversation.”
And exactly what reality is it I have failed to deal with? I haven’t even asked you to change your opinion, only to consider that the logic that could bring you to that conclusion is probably a little more complex than you want to make it out to be.
So answer me this, why is it you can’t do that? Is it because its really that simple of an issue, or is it that you have already made a gut reaction based on emotion rather than logic, and are unwilling to challenge that?
“Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton — for someone without principles.”
I have to be totally honest here, this made laugh for at least five minutes straight. I mean seriously? Moral issues are never complex? That’s absolutely ridiculous! Just because slavery was once debated in this country doesn’t mean that every moral issue is so black and white (no pun intended). And who exactly argued for genocide? Show me a respected philosopher or great thinker who argued for genocide. No really, just one.
In the end I personally rely on the women’s rights issue. I simply do not believe that I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. You can say the fetus isn’t part of her body, but without her body it wouldn’t survive, and I believe she has the right to take out of, and put into, her body whatever she wants. Just as I believe you and I have the right to do the same.
Do I question my position? YES! Constantly. I wonder and weigh the pros and cons of it. I “philosophize” and “obfuscate” the issue by asking myself whether I am in the right here. And I go back and forth on the issue to be honest.
What bothered me to begin with about your post is how certain you are. Certain people scare me; Hitler was certain, the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition where certain, Stalin was certain. When people start believing they are absolutely right, and stop believing in their own fallibility it worries me. You have continually dodged my question and refuse to define for me what a human is in your eyes. I think its because the answer wouldn’t satisfy your position, maybe I’m wrong. So just answer me that, what is it to be ‘human’?
Marcus,
“You have continually dodged my question and refuse to define for me what a human is in your eyes. I think its because the answer wouldn’t satisfy your position, maybe I’m wrong. So just answer me that, what is it to be ‘human’?”
I have repeatedly answered your question, but you insist on uncertainty in the face of plain science. At fertilization or conception, a “baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex” – a DISTINCT HUMAN ENTITY WITH A DISTINCT GENETIC CODE IS CREATED WITHIN THE WOMB OF A WOMAN. I’m getting tired of repeating this. You have yet to interact with this and state why it is wrong. Again, THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT A ZYGOTE OR FETUS IS HUMAN (BIOLOGICALLY – I AM NOT RAISING THE QUESTION OF PERSON-HOOD), BUT WHETHER OR NOT (AND WHY) WE WILL CHOOSE TO AFFORD HUMANS AT THIS STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT LEGAL PROTECTIONS.
“Certain people scare me…”
Boo!
I completely agree with Chesterton. The vast majority of moral issues are quite simple. We complicate them in order to not have to face them. If a moral issue is “complicated”, then I can always excuse myself from behaving morally, because… it’s “complicated”. I’m glad you were able to laugh. Hey! I guess abortion IS funny!
Marcus,
You seem rather certain about your uncertainty in this matter. I wonder what makes your certainty more virtuous, or less inclined to tyranny, than mine?
Jim,
I just viewed your video link at the bottom of the page on abortion. How grisly and inhumane is this awful practice that is done as routinely as a tonsilectomy. I cannot understand why anyone who watches this could possibly remain pro-choice. Where is the outcry that we saw with the Michael Vick incident? Do Americans really value the life of pit bulls more than the lives of unborn humans?
Check out the opening video on Center for Bioethical Reform…
Check out: http://trinitylegalcenter.org and look for “Women’s Council on Abortion” also…
Caron