In the debate on abortion, the oft-heard phrase resounds, “I am against abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.” Over and over, “…rape, incest, life of mother.” “…rape, incest, life of mother.” These are the trifecta of exceptions to abortion.
In fact, Cindy McCain recently noted in an interview how she and Senator McCain parted ways with Gov. Palin on this very issue. The McCains believe abortion is acceptable for rape and incest whereas Gov. Palin gives no exception for rape and incest. (For this blog entry I will not address “life of the mother” and focus on the other two exceptions.)
I am curious as to how those who oppose abortion can be consistent in their method and allow these two exceptions? If you have had any interaction with me at all, you know I focus on methodology, methodology, and methodology. If you are presenting me with a claim that certain objects exhibit a trait (such as some writings are inspired by a god, or some objects are designed by an intelligent designer, or some event occurred in history) I will pester you persistently over and over as to what method you used to make those designations to differentiate from other similar writings, objects or events.
What method is used to come up with these two exceptions and ONLY these two? See, the traditional argument against abortion is that the conceived fetus is a human. And as such, is entitled to greater protection when compared to other considerations. Whereas the pro-abortion crowd points out the conceived fetus is a reproductive choice; emphasizing on the pregnant female’s situation. (And yes, I know using “fetus” instead of “baby” is a loaded term in this debate as well.)
And so we end up with both sides talking past each other; each focusing on a different emphasis. The anti-abortion group, while sympathetic to the female, firmly stands on the sanctity of human life holding precedence over the financial, social or environmental status of the mother. The anti-abortion company, while sympathetic to the potential for the fetus to develop to full human rights, indicates the fetus is part of the female’s body, and it is her choice what to do with her body.
Yet all of a sudden, the anti-abortionists, in creating these exceptions, do focus the female’s situation over the sanctity of life. A 17-year-old gets pregnant with her 17-year-old boyfriend? Sad, but she must have the baby. Simply because the circumstances of their sex were not ideal, this does not justify killing a human. Or so goes the argument. But wait—if he forced himself on her--then it is perfectly acceptable to kill the same human?
Why the change? We still have (according to the anti-abortionist) a human. We still have a set of 17-year-old parents. Because the form of insemination included sex in one instance, and rape in another—this justifies allowing the killing of a human?
Certainly we all agree rape is immoral. Question: is consensual sex between 13-year-olds immoral? It is illegal. In fact, consensual sex between a 16-year-old boy and his 15-year-old, 363-day-right-before-her-birthday, was statutory rape in Michigan. Does this exception mean if she gets pregnant on the day before her birthday she can get an abortion, but if she gets pregnant one day later, she cannot?
Why does one day create a difference? Especially if we are talking about a human life?
And incest is even odder. First of all, if it is forced incest, it would fall under “rape” and not need a separate exception. In order to qualify, we must be talking about consensual incest. The single largest concern is the health issue—mixing too familiar genes creating deformities in the child.
Yet in other deformities, which are known, abortion is not allowed. Here it is only a possibility—and it becomes acceptable? If you are pregnant with a Down’s Syndrome baby—according to this argument, you may not get an abortion. Unless you had sex with your first cousin. Then—same consent, same sex, same baby—it becomes acceptable.
Why does one day make a difference? Why does the blood relationship make a difference? Further, “incest” is a tricky word. In Michigan, there is no crime of incest—we are only prohibited from marrying certain relations—including our first cousin. But in other states, (Such as Alaska one can marry their first cousin.
Where do we find the definition of “incest” whereby one knows it qualifies as an exception to the prohibition on abortion? Is it first cousin? Second Cousin? 13th Cousin? Where do we find the distinct definition of statutory rape? (The age of consent changes state-by-state in America, and county-by-country as well.)
What has happened is that these words, “What about rape and incest?” have become political hot potatoes. They have become a catch-phrase to the point no one even thinks about the implications. How much consensual incest is occurring where abortions are an issue?
Because the anti-abortionist finds it uncomfortable to be placed in the situation of saying, “A woman, under the awful circumstances of a rape, must give birth to the rapists’ child,” vacillate and capitulate there are at least some circumstances in which the human life is no longer sacrosanct, and can be morally terminated. Incest just sounds bad, too, and has been tacked on to “rape” so many times, it has become a mantra—“except in cases of rape and incest.”
While I abhor Gov. Palin for other reasons; her belief abortion is never allowed, including situations of rape and incest is far more consistent. Once “special circumstances” allow an exception, we introduce the question—“what method do you use to determine special circumstances?”
Rape is a horrible situation. But so is having a baby at age 14 with a father whose greatest ambition at the moment is to make the Junior Varsity basketball team. So is having a baby when there is no enough food to feed the rest of the family. So is having a crack baby. Arguably, all of these situations are worse than two cousins having sex. Yet that, too, is apparently an exception.
The question that should be asked the McCains (but never will be) is this—“what method did you use to come up with rape and incest to be the only two exceptions to abortion?”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah. This is why, when I hear all the media emphasis on "not even in the case of rape or incest," all I can do is chuckle. My inner voice says, "Big deal! At least her beliefs are consistent." That is not to belittle how harmful those beliefs may be, it's just a small chuckle at how unreasonable it is to expect that everyone make an exception for those.
ReplyDeleteIf one holds that (a) human* life begins at conception, and (b) all human* life is sacred, then it seems quite immoral to me to "murder a baby" just because it would otherwise create hardship, etc.
* I have to add "human", because it's usually left out, but is really what is meant. I've actually seen arguments that relied on conflating the meaning of "life", pointing out that the cells are clearly "alive". Well, by that argument, swatting flies is murder too, and so is penicillin...
I just have to chime in as the skeptical pro-lifer. Yeah, those exceptions aren't logical, but that's just the way politics works. Is it logical for John Kerry to affirm that he is a committed Roman Catholic (which entails belief in Papal Infallibility) and likewise conclude that abortion should be legal or that women should be allowed to be priests? He's playing both sides of the fence for votes and he compromises his principles as necessary.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that abortion is wrong because killing humans is wrong. But just to clarify, this doesn't mean that only killing humans is wrong. Any species capable of cognition should be protected by the law. So in theory Vulcans would qualify as well. It's not about arbitrarily selecting the species that I'm a part of.
I've always loved these posts of yours DagoodS. I used this line of reasoning a lot when debating at TheologyWeb. And coincidentally enough, it's one I employed in a blog I posted just a few minutes ago, in which I state,
ReplyDeleteI’m trying quite hard, but I fail to see the religious right’s method for determining when a Biblical injunction should apply only to themselves, and when it should apply to society as a whole.
It's such a great point in undermining the theists position that they hold to absolute, God-given standards.
Jon: Any species capable of cognition should be protected by the law.
ReplyDeleteAh…then in the spirit of this post, I am constrained to ask. Why is it only “species capable of cognition” that should be protected by the law? What is it about “cognition” that requires protection? *wink*
I am only asking this half-facetiously. This is an area I have wrestled with, and cannot come to a good conclusion. Cows think. Did you know you can’t eat beef from a cow under stress before it dies? Because of the stress of attempting to free itself, it will release to much cow-adrenaline into the muscle tissue, making them unpalatable.
Should they be protected from McDonald’s/Steak/Burger King lovers such as myself? Or Chickens? Or delectable shrimp?
In the end, we focus on preserving our own species (regardless of cognition) over other species.
I'm afraid I can't explain it better than someone named bd-from-kg did, which I reproduced at my own blog here.
ReplyDeleteYou say we just focus on preserving our own species, but it's very easy to do a thought experiment showing that this is not what we do. Sci-fi shows like Star Trek simply take for granted that killing and enslaving other cognitive species is immoral. This is the difference between cows and humans that to my mind justifies offering protection of the law to one and not the other. Killing and eating Vulcans would be immoral in my view.
I don't think it really has anything at all to do with killing or when life begins, that's just misdirection. A lot of the anti-abortion people seem to be quite happy to employ death and violence (even against "innocent" children) in all sorts of other circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI'd guess that non-procreative sex is the real issue. That and the usual authoritarianism of course.
Jon, I understand we, as humans, hold the ability to reason in high regard. However, other animals have demonstrated the ability to problem-resolve. Is that not reasoning? Cows accurately learn when it is time to eat, where to go to be milked, which is their home. Is that not reasoning?
ReplyDeleteAgain, we believe our type of reasoning is superior—but that is species elitism.
If all cows developed mad-cow disease—do you think we would kill all cows to preserve our species? If cows became endangered—would we put them on the protected list out of concern over the cow, or over concern of the environmental impact of loss of cow species?
We have realized, through painful observation, that hunting a species to its extinction impacts US. Would we protect cows for them—or us?
If we developed artificial intelligence in a computer—would it be immoral to unplug it?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "reasoning" but I'm using the word "cognitive". A cow is not cognitive. The difference between a cow and a human in terms of cognition is apparent. Now, if you could prove to me that a different animal is cognitive, even though perhaps it didn't have language and so it wasn't able to express it, then I would agree that this animal deserves protections of the law.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there are gray areas. I'm not saying things are super simple. You ask about AI. I may not have a snappy answer for each potential scenario. But my point is, there is clearly a difference between a human and an ant. The difference is morally relevant. One deserves the protections of the law and the other doesn't. The difference is cognition.
I think if you don't admit these distinctions, then like the inconsistent pro-lifer that makes an exception for rape and incest, pro-choice logic must inevitably lead to the allowance of infanticide. I don't mean to say that pro-choicers support infanticide. I know most don't (some do). I'm sure you don't. I'm just saying that I see this as the logical endpoint. Why do infants deserve the protections of the law? They are less aware and less thoughtful than dogs and cows. Why protect infants, but not cows?
Once again, bd-from-kg is just way better at this than I am. If you are interested in this subject, consider reading this. It breaks these things down very well.
I've wondered about this myself. The other thing I've asked about is the IVF process, since embryos can be thrown away, and yet by the pro-life belief, those embryos should be afforded certain rights. Yet I'm not really aware of huge protests against that.
ReplyDelete**They have become a catch-phrase to the point no one even thinks about the implications.**
I wonder if anyone thinks about the implications due to you can only abort if raped, as well. Who gets to define what the "rape" is? How many times have we heard stories about two people who know each other, and the guy says it was consensual, and the woman says rape? Is abortion allowed on her say-so, or does the rape need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
As I understand our jurisprudence, a person has no legal obligation to help a stranger even to save the stranger’s life at minimal risk. I can see how a strong pro-lifer might use this principle to justify an exception for abortion in the case of rape. Under our society’s ideas of individual rights, a woman should not be legally compelled to support and sustain a child that has been forced upon her even if we believe it is morally desirable to do so. On the other hand, I don’t see how they justify an exception for any pregnancy resulting from any sort of consensual sex without implicitly recognizing either a more general right of a woman to make decisions about her own body or a lesser right of the fetus to treated as an individual person, or both.
ReplyDeletePrior to the late nineteenth century, the term abortion was only used to apply to pregnancy terminations that occurred after “quickening.” Prior to that point, a woman was deemed to be suffering from some sort of menstrual blockage. Under the common law, terminating a pregnancy before quickening was not a crime. If Joe Biden’s comments on Meet the Press this weekend were correct, even Thomas Aquinas believed that “ensoulment” did not take place until the woman could feel the baby move. Recalling how I felt about the early miscarriage that my wife suffered some years back, I suspect that it may be the innate moral sense of the human beings that a first term fetus is not an independent person.
Pro-lifers want to draw a bright line that designates when the baby’s rights kick in and fertilization seems to be the only place to draw it. However, I think that the statutory rape issue provides a useful analogy. We know that a ten-year-old girl is not ready to give consent to intercourse and we know that a twenty-year-old is, but we can’t say for sure where in the middle the line belongs so we are forced to draw it somewhat arbitrarily. The fertilized zygote lacks almost all of the characteristics of an independent human being while the fetus at eight and one half months has almost all of them. Just because we can’t determine the exact point to draw the line does not mean that we can’t tell the difference between the cases that are clear.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteI did look at your link. In it, bd-from-kg differentiates us from other species by our ability to reason and our preference for reasoning over non-reasoning. That is the explanation for why I used the word “reason” in responding to you.
O.K. You want to use the word “cognitive.” In order to clear up the discussion—can you define what you mean by the word “cognitive”? Thanks.
I quite agree there is a difference between a human and an ant. Curiously, there is a difference in processing information between an ant and a zygote. If we are going to use “cognitive” as our determinative for protection, we enter a significant problem when it comes to abortion. I think it is the 90th day (if I remember correctly) the brain fires the first synapse. Prior to that, the fetus cannot be cognitive.
What I fear in this methodology is a bit of post-hoc determination. We figure out humans are better at reasoning than all other species and then declare, “A-Ha! It is ‘reason’ which must be protected, hence since humans reason more, they need more protection.” Why is “reason” or “cognitive” any better differentiation than…say…”swimming and biting”?
Hop into a tank of great white sharks and exclaim you are entitled to protection because you are more “cognitive” than they are. They will explain you are not, because they are better at swimming. And biting. *grin.* (I hope you understand I don’t WANT you to jump in—I am making a point that “cognitive” in a tank of sharks doesn’t grant much protection.)
OneSmallStep,
ReplyDeleteYou raise a huge point. Per usual. How do we define “rape”? It, too, has become a toss-word in this discussion. We understand the concept of the masked mugger raping a woman in a dark alley. But what of “date-rape”? What of statutory rape? What of giving a few too many drinks to a girl to “loosen her up”?
We can quickly see a situation develop where a woman says she is raped in order to justify this exception, and the anti-abortionist making the determination they do not qualify under the anti-abortionist’s self-determination of what “rape” must be.
I'm not trying to be pedantic with the definitions. I just wanted to be sure we were understanding each other properly. Since you were applying "reasoning" to cows I wanted to clarify that this is not quite what I mean.
ReplyDeleteCognition can be defined as: the mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
Is this an arbitrarily chosen distinction meant to protect humans and no others? No. Is it no different from choosing "swimming and biting"? No. You can't demonstrate fundamental moral principles by pure logic. What you do is you proceed from shared values. There is no other way to have a moral conversation. I can't prove to you by logic that torturing little girls just to hear them scream is wrong. That's just what the word wrong is all about. Similarly I can't prove to you logically that cognition is a universally valued highly prized feature. It just is. If you don't grant fundamental moral axioms simply because they cannot be proven logically, then it is impossible to discuss moral questions in the first place, so why even talk about whether abortion ought to be legal or killing infants ought to be illegal.
What is the right thing to do when a person is in a coma but will recover if he's provided with food and water? It's obvious. What if an ant were in a coma? We all know what the answer is. Based on this we identify the shared values we have and proceed to make further moral judgments on that basis. This is how moral choices are made. What I'm saying with abortion is, don't start special pleading now. Don't start talking about how the distinctions are arbitrary and irrelevant now. Because if these things are all arbitrary, then the answer to the man in the coma is screw you. Pull the plug. It doesn't matter. If these things are all arbitrary (and I don't think they are) then not only is abortion fine, but so is infanticide, forced euthenasia, etc. Just as the pro-lifer needs to admit that there should be no exceptions for rape and incest, so the pro-choicer needs to admit that infanticide should not be illegal.
You're right that a fetus is not cognitive. Neither is an infant. It's not clear to me that a toddler is necessarily cognitive. I'm not saying only presently cognitive things deserve the protection of the law.
DagoodS,
ReplyDelete**We can quickly see a situation develop where a woman says she is raped in order to justify this exception,**
If our society reaches the point where abortion is only legal under rape/incest/mother's health, this is exactly what I see happening -- the claims of rape going up rather dramatically. That, and the claims that the pregnancy will be damaging to the mental health of the mother.
I also think you run into this problem with the mother's health argument, as well. If only a doctor can determine that, what's the criteria? What one doctor sees as a threat, another doctor might not. Would a consensus be required?
Jon,
ReplyDeleteThe reason I asked for your definition of “cognition” was for clarity. It appearsed (and I may be wrong) that you place cognition as only capable by humans. I would strongly disagree, especially under the definition you provided.
Is a bottlenose dolphin capable of “the mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.”? This article indicates they are. Or this paper discussing intelligence in primates (apes, humans, monkeys) and cetaceas (dolphins, whales, porpoises).
A cow is aware. It perceives. It makes judgments. The reason one has barbed wire—because a cow can figure out how to get out of a fence without it.
I certainly agree there is a scale of cognition. Some items (rocks) are not capable. Some biologics (plants) may not be as well. Some species exhibit little reasoning skills, but up the scale we see more and more cognition to the point we reach cetaceas, primates and humans. But to claim “cognition” only kicks in once we reach homo sapiens does not conform to either your definition, or the scientific community.
Leaving us with the same problem in the method of:
Jon: Any species capable of cognition should be protected by the law.
Chickens have the mental process or faculty of knowing. Are they entitled to protection?
Jon: You're right that a fetus is not cognitive. Neither is an infant. It's not clear to me that a toddler is necessarily cognitive. I'm not saying only presently cognitive things deserve the protection of the law.
Hmmm… but declaring things that have the potential to become cognitive deserve protection creates problems as well. What do you do with a mentally impaired child? Under the system you seem to be working, they are neither cognitive (having less cognition than a toddler) nor the potential to become cognitive. Do they no longer deserve protection under the law? Or an older person with Alzheimer’s or dementia. Again, under your system neither cognitive nor with the potential to be cognitive. Do they lose their protection as well?
If only cognitive species are entitled to protection, and only human children (and older) are cognitive—it would seem (to be consistent) you would agree with abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. If you say cognitive species and items with the “potential” to be cognitive—we would need to define “potential” and it would still leave the problem of euthanasia.
Jon: You can't demonstrate fundamental moral principles by pure logic.
True enough. However, if someone is going to provide an “exception” under their fundamental moral principle—I will look at how they created the exception, and whether they stay consistent within the method of creating that exception. If a person claims abortion is wrong because the fetus is to be protected as a human life regardless of the circumstance of the mother, and then creates an exception because of the circumstance of the mother—I am going to ask “why?” How is this anything BUT an arbitrary exception?
Jon: I can't prove to you by logic that torturing little girls just to hear them scream is wrong.
Actually you can. But simply because a scheme is “logical” does not make it correct. I agree with you logic is not the be-all-to-end-all. The Barefoot Bum, through our discussions, has convinced me that most world views, within their own framework, are logical. Even evangelical Christianity, with all its quirks, loops, flips and twists—cannot be demonstrated as logically false.
In the same way, a world view could logically prove torturing little girls to hear them scream is moral. (The Aztecs had a system that bleeding people through sacrifice to appease the Gods and make the Sun go ‘round was moral. It was logical.)
It is not such an astounding thing to have a “logical” worldview. Heaven’s Gate was logical. Look how that turned out…
Jon: Just as the pro-lifer needs to admit that there should be no exceptions for rape and incest, so the pro-choicer needs to admit that infanticide should not be illegal.
Nonsense. Only under your claimed method of “humans (beyond toddler mental maturity) are the only species with cognition, and only species capable of cognition should be protected.” If we do not subscribe to either your definition of “cognition” and/or we do not subscribe to your methodology—this is not a problem for us.
You can’t force a definition we do not agree with, coupled with a method we do not agree with, and then say, “See? You must hold to this.” Had enough of that for one life…
If we differentiate for example, between separate entities, or viability of existence on one’s own—infanticide is no longer an option. There are other methods, other than yours, as to how to determine protection for human life. Or, we could use the Bible’s and have it be “breathing.” *wink*
Jon: Similarly I can't prove to you logically that cognition is a universally valued highly prized feature. It just is.
Oh, I agree cognition is universally prized. By humans! Why? Because it is what we do best. Flying is universally prized by birds. Biting and swimming by sharks. As humans, we don’t do either of those nearly as well as other species.
Bringing us back to the methodology--why is protection of species determined by level of cognition as compared to other possible methods? What makes “cognition” the reason we must use that method?
Imagine we were to have a discussion about what is the richest country? And I was to declare, “It is country A—because it has the highest Gross National Product.” You may correctly raise the question—why is it we would use GNP to determine “richest”? What about per-capita income? Or even highest number of billionaires? Or highest mean income? Worse—what if you knew ahead of time I was favoring Country A, and started to deliberately look for a means by which it would come out as “Number One.”?
This is always my second point in methodology. First—what is the method and can we stay consistent? Second—why do we use that method as compared to others?
While I actually agree with most of your conclusions, Jon, I look for a better way to reach it than simply, “It just is.” I enjoy the back-and-forth to see if there is some non-subjective method we can use to declare, “whether I like it or not; whether it ‘feels good’ to me or not—THIS is the method we can consistently use to determine what is entitled to protection.”
In the meantime, I eat my delicious hamburgers with only a pang of guilt.
OneSmallStep,
ReplyDeleteWhile the abortion topic is a hot-button debate; the way the law works is the same tired method. We create a law, and then we create exceptions. And everyone thinks they are one of the exceptions.
Think of the simplest situation. A patch of grass with the proverbial sign: “Keep off the Grass.” For the most part, people will respect it. But what if they are in a hurry? They are late to pick up the child from school? All of a sudden, mentally, they create an “exception.” “Surely the person who put up this sign did not mean it when a child’s patience is at stake. Surely this is an exception and I no longer need to follow the dictates of the sign.”
You are absolutely correct. Divorce after divorce, when no-fault divorce did not exist, were explained away as “mental cruelty” whereas the reality was the people wanted a divorce. If exceptions are allowed for abortion—people will manufacture the reasons (regardless of what the exception would be) in order to justify the abortion.
Further, what will happen is that abortion will become a possibility for the rich only. In Michigan, those who can afford to Canada—will. In other states, doctors will charge for a determination the pregnancy endangers the mother’s health. Those who can afford such doctors will pay.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteI’m not denying that there is no bright line between cognitive and non-cognitive. This is why I’m saying that I don’t have a snappy answer to every potential scenario. But I’m not asserting that only humans are cognitive.
But to clarify further on cognition, I take reasoning and judgment to mean such things as “I want to do X, but I ought to do Y?” Does a chimpanzee do this? I understand chimpanzees from one tribe attack and kill other chimpanzees in very brutal ways (maybe we’re not so much better though)? Anyway, perhaps they do make moral judgments as we do. I actually would agree that killing chimpanzees should be absolutely illegal and result in severe penalties. Killing a human would be worse. But that claim is based upon a defensible moral principle as outlined in the links I provided earlier (thanks for reading them).
but declaring things that have the potential to become cognitive deserve protection creates problems as well. What do you do with a mentally impaired child? Under the system you seem to be working, they are neither cognitive (having less cognition than a toddler) nor the potential to become cognitive. Do they no longer deserve protection under the law?
So if anything my criterion is too restrictive. Yet fetuses still qualify. My position is that anything naturally and foreseeably capable of cognition deserves the protections of the law. This is not to say that other entities would not also deserve protections of the law.
If a person claims abortion is wrong because the fetus is to be protected as a human life regardless of the circumstance of the mother, and then creates an exception because of the circumstance of the mother—I am going to ask “why?” How is this anything BUT an arbitrary exception?
I don’t know where I said the fetus is to be protected regardless of the circumstances of the mother and also there are exceptions because of the circumstances of the mother. Did I? You’re normally right about this type of stuff, but I’m lost here.
In the same way, a world view could logically prove torturing little girls to hear them scream is moral.
No it could not. Just because something is logical does not mean it is proved. Here’s a logical, unproved argument.
1-All animals with wings can fly
2-Pigs have wings
3-Pigs can fly
Perfectly logical. And unproved. Now, in this case inductive logic can establish whether or not the premises are true. But this is not true of moral claims. How do you establish that causing unnecessary harm is wrong, or that torturing little girls just to hear them scream (not to save the world, like the Aztecs thought) is wrong? There is no way to prove fundamental moral axioms. They are simply givens. You might arrive at them from a relativistic framework (which is perhaps in a way inductive) or a Divine framework or a Platonic atheist framework. Take whatever method you prefer. Once you’ve done this you proceed and make moral judgments on this basis. This is how moral discourse occurs. We don’t have to agree on the basis for morals to have a moral conversation.
Jon: Just as the pro-lifer needs to admit that there should be no exceptions for rape and incest, so the pro-choicer needs to admit that infanticide should not be illegal.
DagoodS: Nonsense. Only under your claimed method of “humans (beyond toddler mental maturity) are the only species with cognition, and only species capable of cognition should be protected.” If we do not subscribe to either your definition of “cognition” and/or we do not subscribe to your methodology—this is not a problem for us.
Well obviously I’m not saying that infanticide is fine if you adopt my definition of cognition and my methodology. Obviously my definitions and my methodology lead to the conclusion that abortion is wrong, as is infanticide, etc. I’m saying under your methodology everything is fine, infanticide or whatever. You are arguing that in identifying cognition as a morally relevant distinction I am acting in an arbitrary way. So you feel free to ignore this distinction and support legalized abortion.
So your position seems to be that arbitrary moral distinctions can be ignored. But then you offer a glimpse of what may be part of what forms your own criteria. That is separateness and viability. But aren’t these arbitrary as well? So by your reasoning they can likewise be ignored. You could arbitrarily pick 2 years of age. Maybe 4. Why not? It’s arbitrary. In fact it seems that your criteria is contrived simply to exclude fetuses and not other humans. Cows and ants are viable and separate, yet you don’t offer them protections of the law. It certainly doesn’t appear to me to be based on some moral principle. This is a point recognized by Peter Singer which is mentioned in the link I provided, and he follows your logic to its endpoint. Infanticide is fine. In failing to go there as he does you are much like the pro-lifer that wants an exception for rape and incest.
Oh, I agree cognition is universally prized. By humans! Why? Because it is what we do best. Flying is universally prized by birds. Biting and swimming by sharks. As humans, we don’t do either of those nearly as well as other species.
Well, we’re talking about ethics. You believe abortion ought to be legal, that torturing babies for fun ought not be done, that we shouldn’t bomb peoples living in countries that have done nothing to us and are no threat to us. Ethics is kind of a human thing. So yes, we proceed based upon human values. That’s what ethics is. There is no other way to have an ethical discussion. You admit that cognition is universally prized, and valuable, and that comatose individuals should not be denied this precious gift. You believe sleeping people deserve the protection of the law. You recognize that we are not necessarily obligated to keep a person alive that has no hope of recovery. These are values that you have that you do not need to be taught. You just understand them. You make decisions based upon these values that you hold to. What I’m saying is, try to understand the fundamental reasons for these beliefs, and don’t abandon the lessons in the inconvenient case of an unwanted pregnancy. That is, if you want to be consistent. And I think you do. Because if you start going arbitrary it might work out well in one convenient case, but when other people come to power having learned that they can govern based upon arbitrary moral principles contrived in a way convenient to themselves, things don’t usually work out too well.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteThe abortion discussion is always…touchy. Anyone who ventures into the discussion with the word “ought” must make a (reverently responsible) conclusion—when does protection begin? Whether we like it or not—that conclusion is arbitrary. Some say at conception. Some say at quickening. Some say at viability. Some (*cough, cough*-- the Bible) would say at birth. And, I could see some societies may take it even beyond that to a certain age limit.
Whatever one determines, it has an arbitrary element to it. While it is convenient to make a bright-line distinction, such as conception—every scheme I have seen to provide protection at that point has an ad hoc flavoring to it. The person wants it to be conception, so they come with a method that arrives at…ta da!...conception. We come up with words such as “potential for cognition” or even the method of “cognition deserves protection” yet in the end such methods and definitions have an element of arbitrariness in themselves.
Understand, I don’t have a real concern over picking a certain point. In many moral decisions, due to the vastness of the spectrum, we pick a point which is, essentially, arbitrary and fall on it. Like statutory rape. A good concept—some children are too young to consent to sex, so even if they agree, they don’t know what they are agreeing to. So what is that age? You and I both know there are 15-year-olds who are better versed in sex than most married couples. And 17-year-olds who are not mature enough to make such decisions.
Yet in the end, we arbitrarily pick a date—age 16. (And that is in Michigan. Other states pick different dates. Apparently our children mature faster.) Really, what difference is there between 15 years, 363 days and 15 years, 364 days? None—we had to pick a date and we did.
Again, if one says “ought” in the abortion debate, they must pick a time for protection. We seem to all agree an egg is not entitled to protection. And an adult human is. Where, in-between those two, protection comes in is up for grabs.
In my blog entry, I was not as concerned about the arbitrary factor, as much as the consistency. If one is going to pick “conception” as the time of protection, than I question how they can stay consistent regarding a fertilized egg which was the result of rape or incest. If they can’t stay consistent, then I wonder, under an inconsistent method, what other forms of intercourse may or may not be an exception.
Again, I at least respect Palin for staying consistent with her choice of protection by not allowing these “politically correct” exceptions.
Jon: I don’t know where I said the fetus is to be protected regardless of the circumstances of the mother and also there are exceptions because of the circumstances of the mother. Did I? You’re normally right about this type of stuff, but I’m lost here.
Oh, my no—I do not think you said anything like this. I was talking more globally, regarding my blog entry in general. If you (or anyone else) got the impression I was stating this was your position—I apologize for my badly worded statement. I do NOT believe Jon holds to this.
Jon: But to clarify further on cognition, I take reasoning and judgment to mean such things as “I want to do X, but I ought to do Y?”
Exactly why I asked you your definition of cognitive. Neither of us was being pedantic—it helps to clarify where we stand. Now the question would remain—did we specifically define “cognition” to mean only the mental process a human exerts? Does this dangerously look like an ad hoc way to make only humans a species to protect?
If we say, “Only cognitive species are entitled to protection” and then define “cognitive” in such a way as to be solely humans, we may as well say “Only humans are entitled to protection.”
Jon: My position is that anything naturally and foreseeably capable of cognition deserves the protections of the law. This is not to say that other entities would not also deserve protections of the law.
But using “cognition” as our method in the manner you have now defined it (see how definitions make the difference?) we come up with some pretty interesting schemes, true?
Obviously a fertilized egg has the potential under the right circumstances, to become cognitive—so it would be protected. A person who is brain-dead—are they entitled to protection? If so, then another entity would be “one that used to be cognitive.”
What of a child born without the mental maturity to determine “ought”? Now we broaden our protection to “one who is in the same species, but does not have cognition.” (Making “cognition” no longer a requirement, by the way!)
If we have two methods. One is arbitrary, the other arbitrary AND inconsistent—which is better?
I think you can still use conception—I just think it has to be tightened up better than this “potential for cognition.” In fact, I think “cognition” is providing more trouble than it is worth!
I quite agree just because something is logical does not mean it is proved. What I meant by that, is using the term “logic” at all in these moral questions is not necessarily exclusionary or includinary. (new word. Made up by me!) We can come up with logical constructs (like you did) which conform to the strict rules of logic, but make no sense in reality.
Jon: I’m saying under your methodology everything is fine, infanticide or whatever. You are arguing that in identifying cognition as a morally relevant distinction I am acting in an arbitrary way. So you feel free to ignore this distinction and support legalized abortion.
Actually, I did not provide a methodology. I did not ignore your distinction—I think it becomes unworkable in attempting to stay consistent. I don’t think I have ever given my position on abortion on-line. The only reason for this blog entry was to question how those who declare protection at conception, “except in the case of rape and incest” can stay consistent with trying to protect human life on the one hand, regardless of the circumstances of the sperm meeting the egg, and then NOT protect it because of how the sperm meets the egg.
I can agree that it is unavoidable that there be some arbitrariness in the lines in the sand we must draw. Do chimpanzees qualify for protections of the law? Maybe. A strong case can be made. But if ethics means anything at all then there are certain fundamental moral axioms that are true (whether relativistically, subjectively, or whatever). For some reason these axioms lead us to certain conclusions about the comatose, the sleeping, the drunk, etc that can inform us on abortion. These axioms are not arbitrary, and seem to be inherent in us. If the pro-choice want to claim that these are arbitrary then I think this leads to many absurd conclusions about ethics that I don’t think many in the pro-choice camp realize.
ReplyDeleteObviously a fertilized egg has the potential under the right circumstances, to become cognitive—so it would be protected. A person who is brain-dead—are they entitled to protection?
No. That’s why it is permissible to pull the plug on people that do not have a chance of being cognitive in the future. My wife’s family pulled life support from her grandmother for this very reason.
What of a child born without the mental maturity to determine “ought”? Now we broaden our protection to “one who is in the same species, but does not have cognition.”
Perhaps there are good reasons for extending protection of the law to those that are not naturally and foreseeably cognitive. As I said, my criterion is a minimalist criterion. The fact that I believe the naturally and foreseeably cognitive deserve legal protection does not mean that I think only the naturally and foreseeably cognitive deserve protection. Others may as well, but a moral case would need to be made. And I think it can be made.