Should We Encourage Three Parent Embryos?

This is a sort of follow-up to my last article. In fact, this is the topic that inspired it. There was an article written by Alex B. Berezow, a microbiologist, arguing that we should support the creation of three-parent embryos. The United Kingdom is drawing up regulations for this procedure. Now, In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is a controversial and currently immoral procedure because excess embryos are always created and destroyed. Since human life begins at fertilization, creating excess embryos and terminating them is wrong. But moral issues pertaining to IVF aside, is creating three-parent human beings wrong?

Will the Strawmen Never Cease?

This article is written in response to Josh Craddock’s recent article on the PersonhoodUSA blog. Since there is a disclaimer at the bottom, I don’t know if Craddock’s position on Erick Erickson is shared by anyone else at PersonhoodUSA, though I do know that Craddock’s views on the all-or-nothing approach are shared by PersonhoodUSA. This article will be a response to Craddock specifically, though it is applicable to the larger organization if they share his views on the matter.

A Pro-Choice Dilemma

There are basically two types of rights that you possess: those of a human being and those of a particular government(s) you belong to. These are called natural rights (or basic human rights) and legal rights. Discussion of rights often gets confused in discussions on abortion so it’s important to keep these terms straight.

A Shameful Display by Pro-Abortion Advocates

If you’re not aware, there was a very shameful display by pro-abortion advocates in Texas yesterday. Legislators were meeting to vote on SB5, which was pro-life legislation aimed at, essentially, forcing abortion clinics to clean up their act. This shameful display only showed how far pro-abortion advocates are willing to go to bully others, even lawmakers. No one would stand for it if it were pro-life advocates acting like this, but it’s okay because they were on the side of abortion. It's worth pointing out that I rarely ever get political, and I certainly don't talk about politics much on this blog. But this really ground my gears, so I need to get this out.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part IV

For part one of this series, go here. For part two, this is the place to be. And for part three, mosey on over this way.

A Fundamental Flaw Behind Abolish Human Abortion

This will be the first of two articles regarding pro-life activist group Abolish Human Abortion.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part III

For part one of this series, go here. For part two of this series, go here.

A Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion, Part II

For part one of this series, click here.

Section 1. The “extreme” pro-life view. [1]

I agree with Thomson that the view that abortion is impermissible even to save the mother’s life is an extreme pro-life view. I believe that abortions are justified if the mother’s life is in immediate jeopardy. [2] She does wonder how we are supposed to weigh the mother’s life against the unborn child’s when the mother’s life is at stake, but at that point her right to self-defense should be asserted.

Arguments Against Fetal Personhood

In my previous article on Personhood, I explained that what makes us “persons” (if you must use the term) is our inherent nature as rational, moral agents. While I tend not to focus on personhood arguments unless the topic is broached by the other person, I can only see one reason for disqualifying the preborn from personhood: in order to justify killing them. Any definition for personhood given by a pro-choice advocate works equally well to disqualify some born people from that same status (most notably, infants). But most pro-choice people would not follow their definitions to the logical conclusion and support infanticide.

On Personhood

It’s an uncontroversial fact of science that the preborn conceived of a human male and human female are human beings (biologically) from fertilization. But does this mean that just because they’re human beings we can’t kill them? There are times when it’s almost universally accepted that it’s acceptable to kill a human being, such as in self-defense. But what if they are innocent of any wrong-doing deserving of being killed? Science can show us that something is human (e.g. you, me, infants, the preborn, etc.), but it can’t show us whether it’s wrong to kill humans. That’s where philosophy steps in.

An Answer to Some Questions for Pro-Lifers

I’m writing this in response to an article written by Atheist blogger Adam Lee, called Questions for Pro-Lifers. Please read his article before reading this one, or it may not make much sense.

Philosophy in the Abortion Issue, Part I

Science can be a wonderful tool in the pro-life advocate’s arsenal. However, science can’t dictate morality, it can only inform morality. Science can tell us that something we are harming or killing is human; science can’t tell us that it’s wrong to kill that human. So while we can demonstrate scientifically that the unborn are living human organisms from fertilization, we must turn to philosophy to demonstrate whether we can or can not kill that living human organism.

Is Abortion Permissible in the Hard Cases? Part III

One of the most tragic things in life is when a woman or a child dies during pregnancy or childbirth. Thankfully, technology has advanced to the point where the death rate from a pregnancy-related complication is extremely low. Less than 1% of pregnant women die from a pregnancy-related complication or in childbirth. [1]

Is Abortion Permissible in the Hard Cases? Part II

As I have previously shown, abortions because of fetal disability or deformity cannot be morally justified. But now we’ll look at another hard case, the cases of rape and incest.

Is Abortion Permissible in the Hard Cases? Part I

Now we get to the really tough questions about abortion. Can we justify abortion in the really hard cases? Some might say that certain situations are so bad that even if we grant that the preborn are full human persons, we should still allow abortions to be legal, either for the sake of the woman or because it is assumed that a child would not want to grow up in one of these situations.

Bodily Rights Arguments

So far we’ve considered three different objections to the pro-life case: that the preborn are not humans biologically, that the preborn are human but are not persons, and that the preborn are humans biologically but are not full-fledged human beings in a morally relevant sense. That is, when someone claims the preborn are human but not persons, they agree that they are human biologically but they do not have rights as other people do (such as the right to life). When someone claims they are human biologically but not in a morally relevant sense, they accept that they belong to the species Homo Sapien but are not part of the “human community” at large. Thus, even though there is a zygote, you don’t actually come “into existence” until some later point in development (such as when you are conscious or able to survive independently of the mother).

Why Are Sex-Selective Abortions Morally Problematic?

Currently, abortion is generally legal in the United States through all nine months of pregnancy (except in about 11 states) for generally any reason. Our government recently decided to vote on whether or not to ban sex-selection abortions, but ultimately decided not to ban them.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

A few months ago, there was a woman named Bei Bei Shuai who was abandoned while pregnant by her boyfriend, who was actually married to another woman. Distraught, this woman, who was pregnant, took rat poison in an attempt to kill herself. Friends convinced her to seek help at a hospital, but it was already too late for the unborn child. She received treatment for the poison and gave birth on New Year's Eve, but the child died four days later.