Is Apple's Argument Against Abortion Consistent with Other Ethical Stances?

[loseyourname]

Let's face it. Pro-lifers just aren't as smart as pro-choicers. They just can't see the nuances and subtleties of weighing up more than one set of rights at a time.

Oh please, do you have an argument to present or are you just going to patronize us? What you've presented so far is an argument for veganism, not for abortion. Here is a nice post I made earlier this year, that addresses all of these 'subtle nuances' that we pro-lifers are too stupid to understand. Maybe you can point out where my idiocy has prevented me from seeing what is so obvious to you genius pro-choicers. No one else really ever addressed what I posted, so it would be appreciated:

This is a variation of the Violonist Argument made by Judith Jarvis Thompson. An overview of the argument and lecture notes can be found http://www.people.umass.edu/uril/phil164/lecture4.htm :

• The Famous Violinist
  “You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you *– we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” (pp. 154-155)
  What is the analogy that Thompson has in mind?
  What premise of the argument is Thompson objecting to?
  What argument can we extract from this example?
  The Famous Violinist Argument:
  1. If Premise 4 of the Anti-Abortion Argument is true, then it is morally wrong for you to unplug yourself from the famous violinist.
  2. It is not morally wrong for you to unplug yourself from the famous violinist.
  3. Therefore, Premise 4 of the the Anti-Abortion Argument is not true.

A brief refutation of her argument can be found http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/unstrign.htm :

• The key question in any slippery slope appeal is whether the two situations are truly similar in a morally relevant way. If not, then the illustration is guilty of a logical slippery slope fallacy. The analogy fails and the argument falls apart.
  Are there important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping? Yes, many.
• Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman's own daughter or son--like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship.
  A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother's womb is the baby's natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he's not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.
• Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being's life through poisoning or dismemberment.

The above is a small sample of the disparallels drawn to invalidate Thompson's analogy. I urge anyone reading this post to read the full text of both pages. The refutation is fairly raw and has some flaws, but he does make some cogent points that I do believe invalidate the analogy that Thompson attempts to draw. We actually discussed this very argument in a Contemporary Ethics class that I had a few semesters back and I do have some points I can add myself later, but I'll be fairly busy all weekend and may or may not have the time.

A few more points from the page:

• Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh's thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child.
  The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh's view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.
• Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless. This is why the courts prosecute negligent parents. They have consistently ruled, for example, that fathers have an obligation to support their children even if they are unplanned and unwanted.

Moonbear partially addressed this in her own words, though I feel her counterargument to parental obligation is fairly weak (something that, again, I will address when I have the time). Briefly:

• If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before it is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he's born? Remember, Thompson concedes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. If her argument works to justify abortion, it works just as well to justify killing any dependent child. After all, a two-year-old makes a much greater demand on a woman than a developing unborn.

Moonbear states that, once a child is born, the parents have the legal option of transferring their obligation toward it to another caretaker, thus absolving themselves of the burden they have placed upon themselves. Although this is true, I think that we can immediately draw a very strong prima facie disparallel between the transferring of legal obligation and killing. In fact, even if we should grant that the killing of the unborn is no different ethically from the tranferring of legal obligation toward the born, several questions are then raised. They are covered by the Lecture Notes that contain the Thompson argument:

• Question: Does this mean that all abortions should be performed by Cesarean section in order to give the fetus the chance of survival? Does it mean that when technology advances to such a state that a fertilized egg can be grown into a human outside the mother’s womb, then even early term abortions – in the sense of destroying the fertilized egg - are morally impermissible? What would Thompson say?

Just some things for the forum to chew on while I waste my weekend reading about the birth of nationalism and writing about Thomas Hobbes.

*I would like to add that I urge anyone to again consider the arguments put forth and not to add in any ad hominem attacks toward me or my sources. I have linked to a Christian web page, but I am not Christian myself (I am not religious at all), nor are the arguments presented Christian arguments. In fact, even if they were, that would not de facto disqualify them as arguments worth looking into.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Buy the conceptus has committed no crime, it is not attacking anyone, it is not at war with anyone, it is not invading anyone, ect.

No, I'm sorry, you cannot make a pro-life argument based on the notion of a fundamental right for an unborn child to live and then pick and choose from the adult population who has that right. It's inconsistent. If all humans have the right to live, then all humans have the right to live. You can't dismiss special cases of pregnancy (such as the mother-to-be was a rape victim) and then introduce special cases of adult behaviour (such as the person is an invading soldier).

The argument put forward is that this right is fundamental and so must be observed in all cases including unborn foetuses. It does not allow special cases, since it does not address why abortion, as a special case itself, and special cases of abortion, should be covered by or exempt from that right. The reasons it does not do this are twofold: 1) it is a less emotionally powerful argument; 2) it is a trickier, perhaps impossible, point to argue.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I didn't have time to finish my rant yesterday, but I'm not going to continue a point-by-point debunking of the article and instead make a counter-argument against certain broad notions.

I agree with James R's point above, and was one that I was going to make but had to split. One of the fundamental ideas in the argument is that humans have a fundamental right that other animals do not. It takes the point of view that humans are special and have some special place in the world. Last night on the news there was a piece on a breed of monkeys that had been taught trade. They were given coins which they used to buy food. There was an uprising in the monkey community when it transpired some were given more than others. Certain monkeys began forging coins (badly). It's hard to watch that and believe in the pervading religious view that humans are special.

So what am I saying? That we should afford the same rights to animals that we do to humans? All go vegetarian? No. What I'm saying is that these fundamental human rights are an illusion. The rights a human has are those observed and protected by society, be they traditional social mores or actual national or international legislature. The "rights" invoked in the article in the manner they are invoked are merely the by-product of religious belief, synonymous with "God-given rights". So he really is preaching to the choir. The only people who will accept that humans have special fundmental rights by virtue of their existence rather than their place in society are religious nuts, and religious nuts happen to be the most eager pro-lifers. I cannot take any pro-life argument seriously that invokes such notions, but I do believe that they believe that argument and that they don't believe it is a matter of religion. This is because there are aspects common to all religions that, to religious people, seem fundamental truths rather than beliefs. In fact, that is the exact why this particular 'truth' is presented by the author.

Another point brought up by Russ essentially pointed out that pro-choicers and pro-lifers are basically arguing over a cut-off point. Pro-choicers say a human is a human at the point of birth (this is where your age is measured from). Pro-lifers say a human is a human from the point of conception. But what is conception? The fertilisation of an egg by a sperm. Egg + sperm = human? So I will argue that a human is a human when the egg and sperm are created. It's an absurd argument. The egg is part of the woman's body. The sperm are part of the man's. You can't dictate these things.

Which brings me to what, I believe, is the strongest argument for abortion: the foetus is not a separate entity; it is part of the mother's body. You may chant "life is life" all you like, but until that umbilical cord is cut, the mother and child are one body. So anti-abortion law is legislating against specific parts of the female body, and that's just one totalitarian step too far.

Related to that, this article is written by a man, and as far as I am concerned since no man will ever get pregnant due to being raped, have to carry the child for 9 months, give birth to it, risking death, and either have to raise it or give it away, he can seriously get fvcked. His opinion is of no consequence. If we live in a society where men can dictate to women on issues they have no clue about based on principals convenient to them and them alone, then we live in a backward society. I believe most if not all pro-choicers are with me when I say men have no jurisdiction over a woman's womb.

As a final point, in the manner of the article, I state the following three possible truths:

1. The abortion issue is black and white and pro-lifers are right.
2. The abortion issue is black and white and pro-choicers are right.
3. The abortion issue is not black and white and there are arguments either way.

If (1) can be shown to be true, abortion should be illegal. If (2) can be shown to be true, abortion should be legally allowed. If neither (1) nor (2) can be shown to be true then the issue is not so black and white and (3) must be true. Also if (3) can be directly shown to be true, it is true. If (3) is true, then the person best placed to make a judgement, i.e. the mother, will decide. Since, if abortion is illegal, she cannot choose to have an abortion, abortion must be legalised. The fact that this argument goes on and on suggests to me the issue is not black and white to society as a whole, even if it seems black and white to me.

 

[russ_watters]

I do not. Ignoring the differenc between civil and human rights.

Could you define those terms please.

Currently, the right to Life is given to all humans of all ages, except the undeveloped baby.

That is not true! "Everyone agrees" that Terri Schaivo was a human, yet she did not have the right to continued medical care. "Everyone agrees" that condemned criminals are humans, yet they do not have a right to life. "Everyone agrees" that soldiers are humans, yet they do not have a right to life independent of the wishes of their CO.

So, in a slightly different way than I said before:
The 1 month old baby is the exact same being that was in the mother's womb 10 months ago right after conception. Therefore the burden of proof is on "pro-choice" perspective to prove that the undeveloped conceptus does not deserve the right to life until a specific point in time/development.

Once again, that's a premise that people who are pro choice do not agree wtih. You can't say "I assume XXX to be true, therefore so must you". That is not a valid way to argue. That's why these arguments tend to go nowhere - people's entire points are based stricly on assumptions.

To put it in your context. Every Citizen is said, under our constitution, to deserve the right to vote. However we violate this because persons under 18 are not seen as smart enough, so are restricted until a time as they are mature enough to handle the responsibility.

The same is said for marriage, smoking, drinking, ect.

ehh, it isn't just psychological development, it is physical as well. But otherwise, I agree. Regardless, you seem to be agreeing with me that differences in developmental stage matter when determining rights.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I'm sorry, you cannot make a pro-life argument based on the notion of a fundamental right for an unborn child to live and then pick and choose from the adult population who has that right.

That's what annoys me most about such arguments - not just about the abortion debate (we see it in the Politics forum all the time). Many people start with broad generalizations, then when the exceptions are pointed out, they simply say 'well, yeah, those are exceptions, but this isn't'. What kind of argument is that?!?

 

[Smurf]

Could you define those terms please. That is not true! "Everyone agrees" that Terri Schaivo was a human, yet she did not have the right to continued medical care. "Everyone agrees" that condemned criminals are humans, yet they do not have a right to life. "Everyone agrees" that soldiers are humans, yet they do not have a right to life independent of the wishes of their CO. Once again, that's a premise that people who are pro choice do not agree wtih.

And we have reasons for ALL of them. The soldier's reason is that he's defending his country (and he's not actually being killed, his life is being risked). The criminal's life is being taken because he's a threat to society (as far as I'm aware the US is the only western country that still has it). Terri Shiavo was killed because (i think, i didn't follow) she allegedly wanted to be let go (also, it wasn't 'killing' her, it was letting her die).

In all those cases it's very much their own fault that they are being killed too. The soldier voluntarily signed up, the criminal commited a crime, and Terri Shiavo wrote it in her will. The unborn baby is "innocent" so to speak.

The reason for abortion is that a woman doesn't want to take 9 months out of her precious life to take responsibility for her actions so she takes away the next 75 years of her babies life. That is wholly inadequate.

The argument put forward is that this right is fundamental and so must be observed in all cases including unborn foetuses. It does not allow special cases, since it does not address why abortion, as a special case itself, and special cases of abortion, should be covered by or exempt from that right. The reasons it does not do this are twofold: 1) it is a less emotionally powerful argument; 2) it is a trickier, perhaps impossible, point to argue.

The argument is actually very simple. We assume all humans have the right to life. Fundamentally. The only alternative is that we assume the right to life is an "achieved" right in which case there is absolutely nothing wrong with infanticide or murdering someone who hasn't met our conditions for being "alive". Which is just stupid.

We make exceptions only when we have damn good reasons to do it. In the case of abortions these reasons seem to be very lacking. (I'm still asking for one if you can provide it, btw)

 

[russ_watters]

And we have reasons for ALL of them.

Yes, of course there are reasons for all of them - including reasons for the fetus not having the right to life! The point of providing the exceptions is not to argue each of the exceptions, but to show that there are exceptions to what you first argued was an absolute. So say it with me: 'the right to life is not absolute.'

The argument is actually very simple. We assume all humans have the right to life. Fundamentally.

Yes, I know. "all humans" except, except, except, except, except... How many exceptions does it take before you will acknowledge that your "all" is not an "all"?

edit: that is an understandable slippery-slope that you're worried about: acknowledging some exceptions forces you to think of a reason not to acknowledge others. But claiming that 'there are exceptions but there are no exceptions' is doublethink (holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time and accepting both to be true: Orwell, 1984). You really need to deal with the fact that there are exceptions and build an argument for why this should not be one of them.

The unborn baby is "innocent" so to speak.

Yes, but similar to Terri Schaivo, the fetus cannot survive without outside intervention. She was "innocent" as well.

The reason for abortion is that a woman doesn't want to take 9 months out of her precious life to take responsibility for her actions so she takes away the next 75 years of her babies life. That is wholly inadequate.

That's part of the problem here: you have a preconception about the mother's motivation that is affecting your viewpoint. Setting aside that you surely know that there is more than one motivation that can be had, the motivation of the mother is not relevant to whether or not the fetus has rights, and you shouldn't bring it up because no one is arguing it. That's a strawman.

The only alternative is that we assume the right to life is an "achieved" right in which case there is absolutely nothing wrong with infanticide or murdering someone who hasn't met our conditions for being "alive".

Which is just stupid.

That's another strawman - and a slippery-slope argument. Murder is by definition, the killing of someone who has achieved a right to life, so that's an invalid example. And just because our conditions for "achieving" a right to life (I like the way you put that) are not met by a 3-week old embryo does not mean that they are not met by a 3-week old infant. The criteria for distinguishing between fetus and baby could remain exactly as it is today: birth. I actually wouldn't draw the line there, but where I'd draw it isn't really relevant here - just the fact that I would draw such a line. In any case, I agree with your characterization of that argument.

We make exceptions only when we have damn good reasons to do it. In the case of abortions these reasons seem to be very lacking.

Yes - but you need to acknowledge that determining whether those reasons are acceptable is the entire point of the argument. Just saying 'no' every time another exception is pointed out is not a reasonable argument.

I'm still asking for one if you can provide it, btw [a reason for the exception]

You already know - you provided it! All rights, including the right to life, are conferred at different developmental stages, because prior to reaching a certain stage, one is simply not worthy of those particular rights. You probably consider it to be nonsensical to give a 2-week old infant the right to vote. For the same reason, I consider it nonsensical to give a 2-second old zygote the right to live.

edit: by the way, have you considered the irony of an anarchist arguing for something to be illegal?

 

[Smurf]

edit: by the way, have you considered the irony of an anarchist arguing for something to be illegal?

Have I been arguing that? I thought I was arguing that it was morally wrong to have an abortion. Perhapse I got off track, but that's what I meant to do.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

That's what annoys me most about such arguments - not just about the abortion debate (we see it in the Politics forum all the time). Many people start with broad generalizations, then when the exceptions are pointed out, they simply say 'well, yeah, those are exceptions, but this isn't'. What kind of argument is that?!?

More often than not, one stated without being thought through. In this case, I 'd say the argument is deliberately written such that it depends on the reader not questioning what 'seems' so obvious. Which is even more annoying, I think.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The argument is actually very simple. We assume all humans have the right to life. Fundamentally. The only alternative is that we assume the right to life is an "achieved" right in which case there is absolutely nothing wrong with infanticide or murdering someone who hasn't met our conditions for being "alive". Which is just stupid.

It is stupid. It is stupid to state that this is the "only alternative". Those two are not exhaustive. In fact, you have missed the alternative that best fits real life: the right to life is something granted by default and removed by necessity by those who grant it - i.e. not a fundamental right.

We make exceptions only when we have damn good reasons to do it. In the case of abortions these reasons seem to be very lacking. (I'm still asking for one if you can provide it, btw)

Then it is not a fundamental right. How can, say, the state remove it if it is? As for abortions not having a good reason, that is entirely your opinion. I've given the reasons why I believe abortion should be legal, and they are IMO good reasons. You disagree, that's fine. See truth (3) in my last but one post. It is not a black and white issue, so we should err on the side of individual choice. And that choice will never have to be made by you, so you should ask yourself who you think you are to tell someone who will have to make that choice that they are right or wrong.

 

[James R]

loseyourname:

Oh please, do you have an argument to present or are you just going to patronize us? What you've presented so far is an argument for veganism, not for abortion.

Actually, I don't think I've presented an argument for abortion in this thread. What I have done is to suggest that pro-life arguments against abortion are inadequate.

Here is a nice post I made earlier this year, that addresses all of these 'subtle nuances' that we pro-lifers are too stupid to understand. Maybe you can point out where my idiocy has prevented me from seeing what is so obvious to you genius pro-choicers. No one else really ever addressed what I posted, so it would be appreciated [snip]

I've seen the violinist argument before, and I do not necessarily agree it is a good argument for the pro-choice side. If you are interested in perceived flaws and the possible resolution of those difficulties from a pro-choice perspective, you could do worse than to read Peter Singer's articles on that particular example. To repeat his arguments here would take a little more time and effort than I wish to devote to this thread right now, so I'm not going to do it.

Do you have any of your own pro-life arguments, or do you just want to swap references with each other?

 

[Ki Man]

everybody who supported slavery was free
everybody who supports abbortion was born

 

[Smurf]

is that off a bumper sticker?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, at least we're being up front, now about the argument-from-bumper-sticker.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

[Adopts scouse accent] "Don't start all that again!"

 

[moving finger]

The argument is perfectly valid, but either premiss may be attacked. An opponent could argue either:

1. A fetus is not human, or not "fully human".

or

2. Not all humans have a right to life, or the same right to life.

Personally, I think (1) is silly. A fetus is genetically human, and nobody can really argue that, provided you define "human" as "having a complete set of human genes".

An embryo immediately after the moment of conception "has the right genes" - but does that make it human at that point? I could argue that it does not.

(2) is a perfectly valid argument, though. Most pro-lifers are not vegetarian. Why not? Why are they happy to eat a cow, but regard a human child as sacrosanct? It seems to me that many regard human life as inherently special, and accord special rights to humans just because humans are members of the species Homo sapiens. Cows do not have a special right to life, because they are of a different species. There appears to me to be no good ethical reason to make this distinction, but maybe you can think of one...

There is a good ethical reason to respect the right to life of all other human beings - if one did not do so, where would one draw the line? Would it be acceptable for me to walk into your home, kill you and eat you? No of course it would not.

The question that remains then is whether, given the above, it is then ethical for humans to kill other animals. And vegetarians have a point here.

MF

 

[James R]

An embryo immediately after the moment of conception "has the right genes" - but does that make it human at that point? I could argue that it does not.

Why not? You must be using a somewhat convoluted definition of "human being".

There is a good ethical reason to respect the right to life of all other human beings - if one did not do so, where would one draw the line? Would it be acceptable for me to walk into your home, kill you and eat you? No of course it would not.

This is the "do unto others as you would have done unto you" argument for morality, which is at least a starting point.

Why is it ok to eat animals, but not humans, in your opinion? Actually, don't bother answering if you don't want to. It's really a diversion from the current topic of conversation. The point here is that many pro-lifers are actually morally inconsistent, in that they shout about how there is a general "right to life", while at the same time they chow down on a hamburger, showing that in fact they only believe in a right to life in very specific circumstances.

 

[moving finger]

Why not? You must be using a somewhat convoluted definition of "human being".

I could argue the same of your definition

Why is it ok to eat animals, but not humans, in your opinion? Actually, don't bother answering if you don't want to.

I'd love to answer. I have not suggested that it is ok to eat animals. I specifically said in my post “The question that remains then is whether, given the above, it is then ethical for humans to kill other animals. And vegetarians have a point here.”

It's really a diversion from the current topic of conversation.

OK, but I was simply replying to your own argument in the same thread.

The point here is that many pro-lifers are actually morally inconsistent, in that they shout about how there is a general "right to life", while at the same time they chow down on a hamburger, showing that in fact they only believe in a right to life in very specific circumstances.

You may have a very valid point here

MF