tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post2658771008950483158..comments2024-03-23T04:22:18.693-07:00Comments on Pro-Life Philosophy: A Response to Five "Intuitive" Arguments for AbortionClinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-16414602901201018952013-12-19T06:25:39.894-08:002013-12-19T06:25:39.894-08:00mrhambre: "You appear to want to establish t...mrhambre: "You appear to want to establish that a child exists regardless of the fact that it hasn't been born yet, when the very fact, the fact that I've explained several times now, the fact that you keep ignoring because it doesn't have any sort of emotional significance whatsoever to you, that the fetus is still inside the woman's body is the distinction. This is relevant. This is what makes abortion different from baby-killing. "<br /><br />I agree that the fact that the fetus is inside the woman's body is morally significant. That's why I'm pro-choice in fact. I wrote a blog post if you are interested on why I think the fact that the fetus is inside the woman is morally significant enough to justify legalized abortion. <br /><br />http://restringingtheviolinist.blogspot.ca/2013/12/my-body-my-choice-explaining-bodily.html<br /><br />I think where we differ however is that you seem to be arguing (and I may be wrong so correct me if I am) that because the fetus is in the woman's body the fetus isn't human. I don't think that's true. The fetus seems to be human because it has human parents and it is alive because it is growing. You said that the fetus is like a parasite and in a way I think I agree. Parasites are similar to fetuses in three ways: they are alive, they live inside and off of another living body and they belong to a species of living thing. Where parasites differ from fetuses is that human fetuses are part of the human species while worms and other kinds of parasites are not a part of the human species. <br /><br />Of course, I don't think the fact that the fetus is a living member of the human species means that abortion is impermissible (I outline my reasons for thinking this in my blog post I linked above). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15883311386399640267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-72296653270947234682013-12-10T12:15:10.568-08:002013-12-10T12:15:10.568-08:00I'm sorry that you can't be trusted to be ...I'm sorry that you can't be trusted to be reasonable in a discussion. I haven't ignored your comments, I've addressed them head-on, and rather than respond you just ignore them and continue to assert claims of "misogyny" and "moralism." If you don't want to continue, that's fine, as I don't think it's worth my time to respond to someone who clearly doesn't read what I write.<br /><br />A child is present from fertilization. There is nothing transformative about the act of birth that suddenly bestows "childness" on an individual. And consider that the woman willingly engages in the act of sex, she waives her right to bodily integrity and tacitly consents to the child's presence in her womb. She is responsible for conceiving a child in a naturally needy condition, so she bears a responsibility for caring for that child.<br /><br />I have explained it clearly. If you continue to respond and ignore my arguments, asserting more charges of "misogyny" and the like, I will start deleting your comments. I am perfectly willing to have discussions, and to change my position if someone can show me how I'm wrong, but I'm not going to bother if you can't even tell when I'm responding to your comments.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-65722100601674209622013-12-07T07:07:13.808-08:002013-12-07T07:07:13.808-08:00"So no, the woman is not merely an environmen..."So no, the woman is not merely an environment for the fetus, and it's dishonest of you to continue to assert this, especially since I explained it to you in my last comment."<br /><br />That's what you keep saying, but it's inescapable when you come up with statements like this *in the next sentence*:<br /><br />"I fail to see a distinction between killing a child and preventing a child from being born. It seems like a distinction without a difference to me. "<br /><br />You appear to want to establish that a child exists regardless of the fact that it hasn't been born yet, when the very fact, the fact that I've explained several times now, the fact that you keep ignoring because it doesn't have any sort of emotional significance whatsoever to you, that the fetus is still inside the woman's body is the distinction. This is relevant. This is what makes abortion different from baby-killing. This is what leads us to the inescapable conclusion that you can't be bothered with having sympathy for the woman, that you think she deserves to be forced to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will, that a sexually active woman inspires nothing but contempt in you.<br /><br />I'm repeating myself here, Clinton, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. You have confirmed with your own words every claim I've made. You're indifferent to the rights of women. This is nothing but a moralistic, misogynistic crusade to make sure modern women have to bear the man's child without complaint, just like in the good old days.mrhambrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17666290523350608380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-10180204458922191192013-12-06T19:21:17.830-08:002013-12-06T19:21:17.830-08:00Yes, the woman has rights and responsibilities, bu...Yes, the woman has rights and responsibilities, but she also has a responsibility to the child that she had a hand in creating. If she didn't engage in the act of sexual intercourse, there would be no embryo occupying her womb. Moral obligations are not chosen. That's why they're called obligations. So if a woman is a rational agent and has a responsibility to care for a child she creates, then it would actually defy her nature not to hold her responsible for her actions.<br /><br />So if she should have the right to do whatever she wants to anything in her body, then let me ask you a couple of questions: Thalidomide was a drug in the 50's and 60's that was found could ease morning sickness in pregnant women. But it was later discovered that this drug was directly responsible for deforming the fetus inside the womb, so it was taken off the market once it was discovered. Suppose a woman decides that her morning sickness is too much, so she acquires some Thalidomide from the black market to take. Does she have the moral right to do this to ease her morning sickness? If yes, then suppose she wanted to take it for the purpose of deforming her fetus (I know this is unlikely, but for the purpose of the thought experiment). Does she have the moral right to do this?<br /><br />So no, the woman is not merely an environment for the fetus, and it's dishonest of you to continue to assert this, especially since I explained it to you in my last comment. <br /><br />I fail to see a distinction between killing a child and preventing a child from being born. It seems like a distinction without a difference to me. If I were to kill my neighbor on the way to work, I couldn't justify that on the grounds I wasn't killing my neighbor, I was merely preventing him from going to work. Your assertion that I'm resorting to misogyny and puritanism is more emotion rhetoric. I have supported my statements with reasonable arguments. You continually repeating the charge of emotion does not suddenly make it so.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-74511292093195867042013-12-06T06:45:10.421-08:002013-12-06T06:45:10.421-08:00“nothing changes the ontological nature of a human...“nothing changes the ontological nature of a human being as it travels down the birth canal,”<br /><br />I never said it did. I don't believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, but I believe that a fully developed fetus is a human when its mother is in active labor. The difference between you and me is that I don't claim to know exactly where the fetus acquires its humanity. That's an absolutely arbitrary, unscientific distinction. I simply leave the responsibility up to the parents whether they want a child to be born or not. If the pregnancy is aborted in the first trimester (as the vast majority are), I consider it none of my business.<br /><br />“ If the mother is a subject of rights as a human being why do you withhold those same rights from another human being?”<br /><br />Because the "other human being" hasn't been born yet. It can't be considered "another" life form at all if it's still developing inside another human being. This is another of the rhetorical tricks that are considered acceptable in this debate, but I deny that we're talking about two equivalent entities here.<br /><br />“Clinton has demonstrated no such thing in anything he has said. ”<br /><br />Oh please. If I say "It's five degrees Fahrenheit outside," I can't howl with outrage if you tell someone, "Hambre says it's cold outside. That's what my words mean. Similarly, if Clinton mentions the zygote's number of chromosomes and the rights of the "innocent" human being much more often than he acknowledges that the process of gestation is taking place inside a woman's body, he's essentially saying that the woman is unimportant. If you guys talk about aborting a pregnancy as "baby-killing," then you're demonizing sexually active women. If you guys talk about a woman as a "womb," just a "location" or an "environment" for the fetus, then you're dehumanizing the woman. You can't talk about women as places in one breath, and then deny that you're dehumanizing them in the next.<br /><br />“It is a way to dehumanise someone so that it is easier to treat them in an unequal or unjust way”<br /><br />I'll be honest, I'm much more comfortable "dehumanizing" a person who hasn't even been born yet, who is incapable of feeling pain, who is still developing inside mommy's tummy, rather than dehumanizing an adult female. I'm not comfortable making family planning choices for complete strangers, and forcing women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will. If a woman gets pregnant and wants a baby, that's great. If she doesn't, that should be her decision. Period.mrhambrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17666290523350608380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-69126912945533054012013-12-06T06:41:47.733-08:002013-12-06T06:41:47.733-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.mrhambrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17666290523350608380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-75732547136549162722013-12-06T05:34:11.661-08:002013-12-06T05:34:11.661-08:00'Clinton, my argument always was, and remains,...'Clinton, my argument always was, and remains, that the woman needs to be considered a relevant difference between a fetus and a true child. Her rights over her body have to be considered, since she is a human being with rights and responsibilities.'<br /><br />Mrhambre, no one is claiming that a women is not more developed but one should not conclude that simply because another human being is more developed that they are de facto more morally valuable. That doesn't follow logically. You equate a 'true child' with being a born child but nothing changes the ontological nature of a human being as it travels down the birth canal, the only thing that has changed is their location which is not a morally relevant category. <br /><br />You speak about rights and responsibilities, could you explain where these come from, I.E. how we discover we have them and in virtue of what? If the mother is a subject of rights as a human being why do you withhold those same rights from another human being?<br /><br />'However, you choose to focus on the development of the zygote, the blastocyst, the fetus, and completely erase the woman from the matter. According to you, she is merely an environment for the fetus.'<br /><br />Clinton has demonstrated no such thing in anything he has said. <br /><br />'You demonize sexually active women by defining terminating a pregnancy not as preventing a child from being born but killing one. You declare that, by engaging in the act of sex, the woman has relinquished her right to her bodily autonomy and any concern we should have for her. It's clear that your rhetoric about the "innocent child" is the appeal to emotion here, one that panders to misogyny and puritanism.'<br /><br />Your point is merely a semantic one, terminating a pregnancy or 'preventing a child from being born' are just euphemisms for killing an unborn human being. It is a way to dehumanise someone so that it is easier to treat them in an unequal or unjust way, that's the power of language. It's why much human injustice has used similar dehumanising ways to refer to those whom are the subjects of injustice and cruelty. Jew's have been called 'pigs', the disabled have been called 'useless eaters' and black/brown people have been called 'subhuman' etc. <br /><br /><br /><br />failedatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176322877697068624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-45202082955397723532013-12-05T15:19:16.071-08:002013-12-05T15:19:16.071-08:00"But the reality of it is that sex creates ne..."But the reality of it is that sex creates new human life. In the vast majority of cases, a woman engages in an act that is intrinsically ordered toward creation of new life. If new life arises as a result of her actions, then she tacitly waives her right to bodily autonomy because she's responsible (partly, of course, as the man is responsible for this, too) for providing for it and not killing it. Your comments that this is about "cheap moralism" and "dehumanizing sexually active women" is just emotional rhetorical nonsense, indicating to me that you're the one who is not truly interested in dialogue."<br /><br />Clinton, my argument always was, and remains, that the woman needs to be considered a relevant difference between a fetus and a true child. Her rights over her body have to be considered, since she is a human being with rights and responsibilities. <br /><br />However, you choose to focus on the development of the zygote, the blastocyst, the fetus, and completely erase the woman from the matter. According to you, she is merely an environment for the fetus.<br /><br />You demonize sexually active women by defining terminating a pregnancy not as preventing a child from being born but killing one. You declare that, by engaging in the act of sex, the woman has relinquished her right to her bodily autonomy and any concern we should have for her. It's clear that your rhetoric about the "innocent child" is the appeal to emotion here, one that panders to misogyny and puritanism.mrhambrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17666290523350608380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-71998337901671649732013-12-05T13:55:52.486-08:002013-12-05T13:55:52.486-08:00I am very much interested in dialogue, but you see...I am very much interested in dialogue, but you seem unable to support your arguments (using obviously incorrect analogies like comparing it to a parasite). I'm not repeating the same statements. In fact, I have supported my statements. The unborn is a human being from fertilization. This is supported by science. If you disagree, your argument is with science, not with me. In fact, I recently wrote an article explaining the science of human development, and showing that even pro-choice philosophers agree with the science of human development.<br /><br />So no, the unborn child is not like a parasite. A parasite is a member of a different species that lives off of its host and gives nothing back in return. It's an unnatural relationship. The mother/child relationship is the most natural relationship in the world, and the unborn child is right exactly where he/she needs to be, where every human being spends the first nine months of their life, in the womb. In fact, the relationship isn't even parasitic in nature. It's symbiotic. There is a process called microchimerism in which the mother and child exchange cells while she resides in the womb, which has been known to boost her immune system to stave off illness, and may even be helpful in preventing some cancers. Even calling a born child "fully developed" is incorrect, as once you are born your development doesn't end. There is a continuity of human existence from fertilization to natural death, and you don't actually become fully developed until sometime in your mid-20s. So it's entirely appropriate to compare an unborn human being with a born human being, and I'll never understand the pro-choice necessity to ignore basic biology and human development in order to try and convince themselves that it's okay to kill an embryo or a fetus because they're not really "one of us." Science and reason disagrees with that assessment.<br /><br />So no, I'm not ignoring the mother. In fact, I believe that if the child is not yet viable and the pregnancy is truly life threatening, then an abortion is morally permitted. But the reality of it is that sex creates new human life. In the vast majority of cases, a woman engages in an act that is intrinsically ordered toward creation of new life. If new life arises as a result of her actions, then she tacitly waives her right to bodily autonomy because she's responsible (partly, of course, as the man is responsible for this, too) for providing for it and not killing it. Your comments that this is about "cheap moralism" and "dehumanizing sexually active women" is just emotional rhetorical nonsense, indicating to me that you're the one who is not truly interested in dialogue. I have supported my statements. You have yet to give me an argument supporting your statements, even though I've asked twice now.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-82976493851552296202013-12-05T11:27:25.702-08:002013-12-05T11:27:25.702-08:00The fact that the "child" resides in the...The fact that the "child" resides in the mother is, as I said, enough to make this essentially unlike any form of life apart from parasitic life. You make it sound like the mother is just a vague environment the fetus inhabits before moving onto other locations like cribs and carseats.<br /><br />The woman is a rational agent who needs to be considered in this matter. You're ignoring her, and the fact that the "child" hasn't even been born yet, to make a wholly unwarranted comparison between a fully-developed child and a fetus still undergoing gestation.<br /><br />You say that the unborn are "innocent" human beings, which makes me think that this is about cheap moralism and dehumanizing sexually active women. Your disingenuity in repeating the same statements in lieu of dealing with the points I've made tells me you're probably not interested in dialogue.mrhambrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17666290523350608380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-23342576818099497552013-12-05T10:04:15.533-08:002013-12-05T10:04:15.533-08:00I don't see why simply being inside the mother...I don't see why simply being inside the mother has any bearing on whether or not she should have the right to kill him. Why does the fact that the child resides inside the mother give her the right to take his life?<br /><br />I think that the child developing inside the mother is *a* difference, but I don't think the difference is extreme enough to justify taking the life of the human fetus that's in there. My position is that it is wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. Since the unborn from fertilization are innocent human beings, then it is wrong to take their life through abortion. I don't see why being inside the mother makes a morally relevant difference in the question of whether or not she can take your life. That's why I'm asking you, since you take that position.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-78376662120226786592013-12-04T13:47:08.657-08:002013-12-04T13:47:08.657-08:00Because if the fetus is still inside the woman, sh...Because if the fetus is still inside the woman, she should have a say in the matter, shouldn't she? Doesn't the fact that the "unborn" are developing inside a woman's body make them essentially different than the "already-born"? If not, why not?mrhambrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17666290523350608380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-59018782387060771892013-12-04T13:43:33.751-08:002013-12-04T13:43:33.751-08:00Well, unborn ones are. :)
But why does the fact t...Well, unborn ones are. :)<br /><br />But why does the fact that unborn children are still in the mother's uterus mean that they are not equal to us?Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com