Jivin J’s Life Links 1-11-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- MercatorNet covers the release of Abby Johnson’s book unPlanned.
- At Public Discourse, Christopher Kaczor reviews a supposedly objective book about the abortion debate entitled The Fetal Position by Chris Meyers and finds its selection of pro-life arguments to be less than objective:
- Unfortunately, [the book] fails in its stated goal because it caricatures the most common defenses of the pro-life view. Rather than address the philosophical arguments that all human beings prior to birth should be protected by law and welcomed in life, Meyers misconstrues the mainstream pro-life position as if it were based on a theological belief in the soul….
Finally, Meyers’ book has an uneven quality. Some sections reflect on sophisticated philosophical positions such as various conceptions of the human soul and the implications of these positions for the moral status of unborn human life. Other parts of [the book] extensively critique sophomoric defenses of the pro-life view presented by Meyers’ students, such as that forbidding abortion is the just punishment for women who have engaged in illicit sexual behavior. A rational approach to this debate must engage the best arguments on the opposing side, not caricatures. The contemporary discussion would have been enriched by an accessible, reasonable survey of the various positions in the abortion debate, but this book does not provide that service.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Rather than address the philosophical arguments that all human beings prior to birth should be protected by law and welcomed in life, Meyers misconstrues the mainstream pro-life position as if it were based on a theological belief in the soul….
Looks like pretty much the same thing to me, i.e. saying the unborn “should be protected because they are human beings/have a soul,” are both reflective of the philosophy of the speaker.
After a great talk with Dr. Nadal I feel excited now to read Abby’s book. I read part of it on lifenews (I think) and it was very very interesting. I am always interested in understanding pro-choice people. Thats why I ask so many questions of women who abort. I am trying to understand as an outsider what an abortion experience is like or how pro-choice people think. A lot of pro-choice people are normal, compassionate individuals with families with the same information and life experiences as me and yet they end with a totally different ideology than me and that fascinates me. How does a normal, mentally capable, compassionate human being end up with the idea that killing other defenseless human beings is okay?
Anyhow, will be ordering Abby’s book soon and hoping to gain more insights about how clinic workers think.
Looks like pretty much the same thing to me, i.e. saying the unborn “should be protected because they are human beings/have a soul,” are both reflective of the philosophy of the speaker.
This really only demonstrates that you don’t properly understand the comments being made. Regardless of whether you believe in them or not, the existence or lack-of-same of a soul is impossible to determine. The value of an unprovable object is impossible to quantify. And the action you should take based on the existence of a theoretical object is not something that can be completely ascertained.
Humanity or lack-of-same, on the other hand, is an easy determination to make. Everyone agrees human beings, in general, do have rights. The only quibbles to be made afterwards are which rights a person has and why they have them.
In fact, the only reason anyone would say humanity is a philosophical qualification is because they’ve tossed science out of the discussion, usually because they’re trying to weasel around some scientific reality or other.
I can’t speak for other denominations, but the Catholic point of view on the legality of abortion has very little to do with our theological belief in the soul and everything to do with modern Biology showing us that a new human life begins at fertilization. Instead of our laws being based on this modern Biology, which is actually 150 years old, our laws are instead based on ancient outdated science and philosophy. Some pro-abortion Catholics will even hide behind St. Thomas Aquinas in order to justify themselves, despite the fact that Aquinas had no idea when human life began. How could he? The microscope wasn’t invented until many years after his death.
Science is being ignored by those who claim to be scientific, and those who demand that our laws be based on modern science are condemned as religious lunatics. That’s the truly sad irony of the abortion debate.
John, 10:03 – great post. Well said.
Looks like pretty much the same thing to me, i.e. saying the unborn “should be protected because they are human beings/have a soul,” are both reflective of the philosophy of the speaker.
Only in the way that saying that all persons should be protected because they are human beings is “the same” as saying that all persons should be protected because they have a soul.
Doug, our current laws protect all humans from being killed except in the case of abortion, euthanasia, and some particularly heinous criminals. While I personally am opposed to all of these, let’s focus for a moment on abortion. What, to your mind, justifies the killing of this human over the killing of a 2-year-old? Certainly a 12-week-developed human in utero is not as advanced or competent as a 2-year-old, but neither is a 2-year-old as advanced or competent as a 12-year-old. Is it, therefore, more acceptable to kill a 2-year-old than a 12-year-old? Why is this logic then applied to the pre-born?
(Doug): “Looks like pretty much the same thing to me, i.e. saying the unborn “should be protected because they are human beings/have a soul,” are both reflective of the philosophy of the speaker.”
(Alice): This really only demonstrates that you don’t properly understand the comments being made. Regardless of whether you believe in them or not, the existence or lack-of-same of a soul is impossible to determine. The value of an unprovable object is impossible to quantify. And the action you should take based on the existence of a theoretical object is not something that can be completely ascertained.
Humanity or lack-of-same, on the other hand, is an easy determination to make. Everyone agrees human beings, in general, do have rights. The only quibbles to be made afterwards are which rights a person has and why they have them.
In fact, the only reason anyone would say humanity is a philosophical qualification is because they’ve tossed science out of the discussion, usually because they’re trying to weasel around some scientific reality or other.”
_____
Hi Alice. I think I indeed do understand the comments. Now, I do agree with you on the soul, and on the value of an unprovable object – in fact, Preach It, Sister! : D
Also agreed on “human being,” as in human organism. Yet when we use such a broad definition of human being, then we have removed it from the necessary attribution of rights. And personhood is not the same as merely being a “human being.” In general societies have not treated the killing of the unborn as they do the born, and do not attribute personhood to the unborn, at least not full personhood with the rights we ascribe to it.
“Humanity” need not just be a philosophical qualification, since if we say that it’s nothing more than the state of being a human being, then that’s quite scientific.
(MaryRose): “saying that all persons should be protected because they are human beings is “the same” as saying that all persons should be protected because they have a soul.”
Agreed, MaryRose. That “should” is a value judgment based on “X” whether it’s the presence of “human being” or the belief in the presence of a soul.
—–
“Doug, our current laws protect all humans from being killed except in the case of abortion, euthanasia, and some particularly heinous criminals. While I personally am opposed to all of these, let’s focus for a moment on abortion. What, to your mind, justifies the killing of this human over the killing of a 2-year-old? Certainly a 12-week-developed human in utero is not as advanced or competent as a 2-year-old, but neither is a 2-year-old as advanced or competent as a 12-year-old. Is it, therefore, more acceptable to kill a 2-year-old than a 12-year-old? Why is this logic then applied to the pre-born?”
Don’t forget about wartime, and it need not be some really heinous criminals. It might be some fairly kindly but bumbling criminals that blunder into the house of Wild-Eyed Joe the Gun Nut, and they get blasted.
I don’t see that logic (competence, etc.) being applied to the 12 year old or the 2 year old. The Birth Standard is massively prevalent, and while I may have read somewhere of some society way back in time that held it was okay to kill born babies up to some age, I can’t remember the details if in fact it was so.
The pre-born are inside the body of a person, and while I’m not saying that’s the end-all of the argument nor that it *has* to make any difference, it does make a difference, in practice and in the eyes of many, myself included. We attribute rights, personhood, citizenship, etc. at birth. Again, not saying it has to be that way in any external sense.
I’m not personally for elective abortion in the 3rd trimester, either – to me it makes sense that if the interest of the woman is to end the pregnancy, then it can be achieved by delivery, rather than by abortion. The Roe decision noted something similar, and thus I would say that at the present time, there is a limited amount of rights attributed to the baby at viability.
To me, having mental awareness, the capacity to suffer, having personality, etc., matter, versus not having them. Now, some of that may be appearing earlier than 26 weeks, so if it were up to me to draw the line, I’d probably go with 22 weeks or around there. I see quite a difference between a fetus that can survive outside the womb, that is sensate, has mental awareness, and is substantially similar to the full-term born baby (where we attribute full rights) and the blastocyst, for example, though both are “human beings” in a broad sense of the term.
Also agreed on “human being,” as in human organism. Yet when we use such a broad definition of human being, then we have removed it from the necessary attribution of rights.
Why?
Doug,
I suppose I should have clarified “premeditated.”
My point was that the Birth Standard is illogical. If we aren’t applying the logic of the Birth Standard to other ages, we shouldn’t be applying it to the preborn.
As for the rights of the mother to her bodily anonymity, we have a legally & socially accepted hierarchy of rights, wherein more basic rights of one can supercede less besic rights of another. In the case of abortion, the right to life of the preborn should logically speaking supercede the right to bodily anonymity of the mother.
As far as your cutoff, are you familiar with Amilla Taylor? She was born at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age (we know the exact age because she was conceived via in-virto fertilization. In other words, before the cut-off which you seem to consider generous. Would you say that she was less of a person before her birth? Had her parents decided at 1 hour after her birth that she was too much of a burden on them, would you have supported their right to have her terminated at that stage? It would still be within your age cutoff.
Honestly, your criteria for personhood seems subjective and arbitrary at best. It seems to me that the only ethically sound age at which to confer legal personhood right would be at conception.
“Also agreed on “human being,” as in human organism. Yet when we use such a broad definition of human being, then we have removed it from the necessary attribution of rights.”
Xalisae: “Why?”
Because prior to birth (in general), while the broad usage of “human being” applies, rights are not attributed.
Because prior to birth (in general), while the broad usage of “human being” applies, rights are not attributed.
Why not?
“My point was that the Birth Standard is illogical. If we aren’t applying the logic of the Birth Standard to other ages, we shouldn’t be applying it to the preborn.”
MaryRose, the Birth Standard is really just “in” or “out.” I’m not saying it *has* to apply, but it’s been this way in societies “forever” as far as I know. That the baby is inside the body of a person (who has rights, without doubt) prior to birth, has made a difference, I’m sure.
_____
“As for the rights of the mother to her bodily anonymity, we have a legally & socially accepted hierarchy of rights, wherein more basic rights of one can supercede less basic rights of another. In the case of abortion, the right to life of the preborn should logically speaking supercede the right to bodily anonymity of the mother.”
This presupposes that right-to-life has been attributed to the baby, though, and that is not the case.
_____
“As far as your cutoff, are you familiar with Amilla Taylor? She was born at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age (we know the exact age because she was conceived via in-virto fertilization. In other words, before the cut-off which you seem to consider generous. Would you say that she was less of a person before her birth? Had her parents decided at 1 hour after her birth that she was too much of a burden on them, would you have supported their right to have her terminated at that stage? It would still be within your age cutoff.”
Certainly – I was giving my opinion and thus it’s definitely subjective. No, I had not heard of Amillia Taylor, but I see “youngest preemie ever” (that survived). I’m not saying that 22 weeks is “generous.” There is a continuum of development, and any single point in time will have situations where the “gray area” of personhood (as I see it) will apply. For Amillia, I do think she was less of a person before birth, less than she is now. No, the moving out of the womb did not change things much as far as the way I look at it, though of course it does for society and the Birth Standard.
The flipside is that I also think early abortions are better than late. Why would a woman wait past, say, 6 weeks gestation, to 22 weeks, to have an abortion? Well, perhaps it’s a young teen girl who couldn’t bring herself to tell anybody she’s pregnant, and/or she was in denial, didn’t want to face the fact herself. Considerations like this also factor into me picking 22 weeks. Yet now that you’ve mentioned Amillia, if viability is earlier, then I do take that into account too.
X, I’m not saying that it’s impossible that rights could be attibuted before birth, just noting the way things are now. I also think that the restrictions on late-term abortion mean some degree of rights from society on the baby’s part then – we are saying it then has an interest. If so, since the pregnancy can then be ended via delivery, rather than via abortion, I think both the interest of the baby and of the woman can then be accomodated. (With the acknowledgement that premature birth brings a whole host of problems with it.)
Doug,
I said “should logically supercede” not “does supercede”. My point was that the preborn’s right to life should, if we are to behave in an ethically sound manner, supercede any right to bodily autonomy (I’m a bit tired so you’ll have to forgive my slip before with the word anonymity lol) that the mother might claim. Obviously, this is not the situation legally-speaking, but I was applying other legal precedent to the case of abortion.
So what would your cutoff be? Viability? Somewhere before viability?
While modern science allows us to save the life of a newborn earlier and earlier, should abortion be prohibited at a younger and younger age?
Your argument about the Birth Standard baffles me. Are you arguing that it is, or is not, acceptable to confer personhood rights at birth? Does it occur to you that birth has little to do with actual developmental age? Does it matter to you that birth, although wondrous, is a relatively arbitrary time, legally speaking, to confer rights?
Also agreed on “human being,” as in human organism. Yet when we use such a broad definition of human being, then we have removed it from the necessary attribution of rights. And personhood is not the same as merely being a “human being.” In general societies have not treated the killing of the unborn as they do the born, and do not attribute personhood to the unborn, at least not full personhood with the rights we ascribe to it.
You’re making a lot of assumptions here. “Personhood is not the same as merely being a ‘human being.'” “When we use such a broad definition of human being, then we have removed it from the necessary attribution of rights.” Who says that? Why should we listen?
And, most importantly, why should we not treat every single human organism as a person? You assume there is a reason we should not, but you have not stated what that reason is. I would like to point out that this is a very dangerous assumption, which has led, in the the past, to enormous atrocities and rights-violations on many, many, many occasions. The only solution has always been to decide to treat all humans, regardless of their different characteristics. But now you say that this divying up of humanity is not actually bad.
Why?
(Alice): “You’re making a lot of assumptions here. “Personhood is not the same as merely being a ‘human being.’” “When we use such a broad definition of human being, then we have removed it from the necessary attribution of rights.” Who says that? Why should we listen?”
At birth, we deem that personhood is there, i.e. whether citizens of our country or not, we say they have certain rights. When we say “human being” and mean nothing more than “living human organism,” then we have taken it beyond the group where we say that rights are present. This is not making any pronouncement on the right/wrong/good/bad of it, just noting how things really are now.
_____
“And, most importantly, why should we not treat every single human organism as a person? You assume there is a reason we should not, but you have not stated what that reason is. I would like to point out that this is a very dangerous assumption, which has led, in the the past, to enormous atrocities and rights-violations on many, many, many occasions. The only solution has always been to decide to treat all humans, regardless of their different characteristics. But now you say that this divying up of humanity is not actually bad. Why?”
Because when you include human organisms that are inside the body of a person, it’s quite a different thing than when that’s not the situation. If “Joe Blow” was inside me right now, I’d say, “Joe, we gotta talk about this deal….” Regardless of our position on abortion, the fact is that there’s a pregnant woman or girl to be considered, and that sets it apart from situations where pregnancy is not involved.
“Your argument about the Birth Standard baffles me. Are you arguing that it is, or is not, acceptable to confer personhood rights at birth? Does it occur to you that birth has little to do with actual developmental age? Does it matter to you that birth, although wondrous, is a relatively arbitrary time, legally speaking, to confer rights?”
MaryRose, I do think that viability matters. If the interest of the woman and the baby are at odds, delivery can satisfy them both. I know this is not a “perfect” solution since there are often severe problems with premature births.
Personally, I see personhood coming prior to most births. The baby is then mentally aware, has emotions, etc. To an extent I agree that the Birth Standard is arbitrary, although the “in” or “out” part of it is clear.