In an interview with NRO‘s Kathryn Jean Lopez, philosopher Christopher Kaczor uses a sci-fi analogy to defend a pro-life position:
LOPEZ: What the heck does the Star Trek transporter have to do with the ethics of abortion?
KACZOR: In this debate [over abortion], many colorful and striking images and analogies are used — talking kittens, kidnapping space aliens, waking up hooked up to a violinist. For the most part, I avoid these bizarre analogies, but you’ve mentioned one bizarre analogy that I did not resist. My point was fairly simple that if you and I were fused into one — say via a machine like a Star Trek transporter gone amuck — that would not mean that you and I aren’t still individual, independent persons. So too, if human embryos fuse in utero, this does not mean that there weren’t two independent, individual embryos prior to fusion.
October 25th, 2011 | 1:57 pm
I hope I won’t sideline the main point of this article, but Star Trek has, in fact, dealt at least once with a transporter malfunction that fuses two characters into one. The crew did continue to regard them as two separate persons and considered it imperative to separate them.
There are other ST episodes that I thought seemed strikingly (and unexpectedly) pro-life. Most particularly, a “Voyager” story in which the captain refuses to kill a Borg fetus—apparently out of respect for life. That Borg grows up to give unique and vital aid to the crew.
October 25th, 2011 | 2:14 pm
Of course, the fact that it doesn’t take a machine run amok to do it – that it can happen quite naturally if two blastulas come into physical contact at the right point in development – points to something ontologically different between embryos and fully-developed post-parturition types.
What impresses me more is the fact that blastulas can be pretty much indefinitely divided and produce as many adults as you like. Also not the case for grown-ups.
October 25th, 2011 | 2:22 pm
From the article –
That’s a very definite and respectable point, and a reason to think about abortion very carefully and err on the side of caution.
On the other hand, if awareness is what separates a person from a thing (which is also a respectable position) – and if a brain is necessary for awareness (at least, in humans; which also has a not-inconsiderable amount of supportive evidence) – then that does have some implications relevant to abortion…
And, of course, anyone can agree that the very best way to prevent abortion is to prevent people from getting pregnant unwillingly in the first place. And abstinence is a highly effective means to that end.
October 25th, 2011 | 7:39 pm
“On the other hand, if awareness is what separates a person from a thing (which is also a respectable position) – and if a brain is necessary for awareness (at least, in humans; which also has a not-inconsiderable amount of supportive evidence) – then that does have some implications relevant to abortion…”
If. :)
If, on the other hand, being a person has to do with having a certain nature, not necessarily with having certain functional abilities, then other implications obtain.
The best discussion of this I’ve ever seen was on Firstthings.com: Richard Stith’s article about the difference between “construction” and “development.” Pro-lifers really should look up that argument and memorize it.
October 26th, 2011 | 10:02 am
I would recommend Walter M. Miller’s, Jr.’s short story “Conditionally Human.” It provides a fresh perspective and a new starting point for CCD or RCIA discussions on abortion.
October 26th, 2011 | 10:47 am
Craig, I guess you mean this article.
Stith fails to note things like stages of development. He says “We would say that the first little sprout we saw come out of the ground five years ago is the same plant as the pear tree we now see… The pear tree was already a pear tree even when it still needed frequent watering and fertilizer, even in the years before it began bearing fruit.”
And that’s right… to an extent. But you can’t eat the fruit off a seedling. There are differences between seedlings and mature, fruit-bearing trees, and those differences can be significant. (The process of bearing fruit can only be carried out by a developed tree.)
Especially if, as he acknowledges, people have different ideas about what’s essentially human. He mischaracterizes the idea as “human personhood is only an epiphenomenon rather than a nature” but that’s because he doesn’t seem to grasp the idea of ‘natures’ as processes rather than (necessarily static) Aristotelean forms.
(I’d also be curious if he thinks a pear seed is a pear tree?)
October 26th, 2011 | 2:16 pm
If, on the other hand, being a person has to do with having a certain nature, not necessarily with having certain functional abilities, then other implications obtain.
The problem with defining a human being according to some functional ability is that it is arbitrary.
If you can take away someone’s human nature based on the presence or absence of a trait, which trait? Why that trait? Why not some other trait instead, or as well?
Either human life is sacred, or it’s not. If even ONE exception exists, based on some arbitrary definition that says THAT human flesh isn’t really “human” because it lacks X, then we fail to achieve that sanctity – and thus we remain, in definition, a people who can justify man’s inhumanity to man, rather than a people who reject man’s inhumanity to man.
As long as there are people who hate, people who fear, or people who want to make the world perfect, there will always be people who can and exploit any loopholes to redefine atrocities away. The only way to be safe from this is to build arguments with real integrity, which means no arbitrary exceptions can be allowed.
October 26th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
Dear Ray: Yes, that is the article.
Well (to respond to your final question), no, a pear seed is not the same as a pear tree. But once the seed has sprouted, it IS of the same nature as a pear tree; it is a pear tree at the earliest stage of development of a pear tree, even though it cannot yet bear fruit.
October 26th, 2011 | 2:53 pm
But Ray, none of that matters if we stop worrying about “who qualifies as a person” and just protect *all humans,* without exception. The fact that a blastula could, potentially, become infinitely more humans doesn’t change the fact that right at this moment, it already *is* a human.
The whole problem goes away, and we avoid creating the other one of deciding that “we get to decide” who’s really a person among human beings.
October 26th, 2011 | 2:58 pm
“(I’d also be curious if he thinks a pear seed is a pear tree?)”
A pear seed is not a pear tree. But it is, biologically, “pear.” It is not a twig of a pear tree, or a pear tree leaf — it is a separate living individual of the pear species. It has all the “pearness” it will ever need to be a “pear,” and it will never be anything other than a pear.
So we don’t need to worry about whether things are “seeds” or “trees” as long as we know they’re all “pears.” Just like we needn’t waste our time worrying about whether this human is or will be a person and when, as opposed to that person over there that we can see with our own eyes is a person — they’re both humans, so they both get human rights. The only alternative is to legitimize the principle that some humans get to decide which other humans are humans, which may even be worse than abortion itself.
October 26th, 2011 | 4:20 pm
“So we don’t need to worry about whether things are “seeds” or “trees” as long as we know they’re all “pears.” ”
Dear pentamom: I’m in general agreement with what you are driving at. However, I want to point out that this position could fall into a common pro-choice straw man, the “Every sperm is sacred” ploy (to quote Monty Python). Not every egg or sperm is a human–only when they unite to form a zygote. (That’s why I was arguing that not every pear “seed” is a “pear tree,” but it is when it sprouts.) But we are in agreement that every zygote is a human being and deserves protection.
October 27th, 2011 | 9:10 am
Blake –
Because awareness is the defining difference between a ‘subject’ and an ‘object’. A rock has no subjectivity, something aware has subjectivity.
One can damage a rock. One cannot hurt a rock, or anything else that is not aware.
October 27th, 2011 | 9:30 am
pentamom –
The question of “what makes a person” is an important one, and people are going to think about it. Some of the answers found are inevitably going to impact other areas. I’m for protecting all humans, but I think we disagree – in some respects – about what it means to be human.
I grasp your concern, and share it. If I had to guess, I’d say that a developing fetus at 20 weeks probably isn’t aware. However, by that point it’s no longer possible to conclusively demonstrate it isn’t, so I oppose abortion for non-medical reasons after that point, just on the off chance.
Ah, but that’s the rub. It hasn’t become ‘a’ human yet. Once it’s specialized to the point that division or fusion are no longer possible, then you can at least make a sensible claim that it’s become an individual.
But c.f. my answer to Blake. A human has awareness. You cannot hurt something that doesn’t have awareness. (Of course, we spun our wheels on this stuff before.)
October 27th, 2011 | 9:41 am
Craig Payne –
Once an embryo has developed enough to have enough specialized cell lines that it’s no longer capable of division or fusion, it’s a human at the earliest stage of development, even though it cannot yet support awareness.
But I’ve already pointed out how critical awareness is…
October 27th, 2011 | 10:37 am
Dear Ray: You wrote, “But I’ve already pointed out how critical awareness is…” Yes, but I am arguing that “nature” is the point, and more important than awareness or any other ability.
Regarding the problem of “division or fusion,” Aquinas has an interesting principle: something like the following: the number of things (physical things) corresponds to the number of bodies. The same is true of growing things: their number is equal to the number of growing bodies.
So, pre-twinning, a zygote/blastula/embryo is one thing, and (I am arguing) one human being worthy of protection. If twinning occurs, now there are two human beings, and so on. But that’s the only significance of the early potential for twinning, as far as I can see. Some basically pro-life philosophers, such as Anthony Kenny, disagree on this point, assigning ontological significance to the fact that one being could become two. But I just don’t see the significance Kenny (and, I think, you?) are giving to this quality.
October 27th, 2011 | 3:26 pm
Craig Payne –
Well, you’re asserting that, yes. :) But I have to ask, “Why?”
I mean, as I’ve pointed out, something unaware can’t be hurt. And the difference between ‘hurt’ and ‘damage’ isn’t just part of our intuitions, it’s part of our legal code. If the neighbor kid knocks a baseball through your window, they may be liable to pay for a new window. If the neighbor kid tortures your cat, they’ll be treated for mental health problems.
Which would make you feel worse? Accidentally knocking over your neighbor’s mailbox as you back out of their driveway, or accidentally running over their dog and breaking its spine?
The difference between something aware and something without awareness sure seems fundamental & ontological to me. Why is ‘nature’ even more important than that?
October 27th, 2011 | 5:39 pm
Dear Ray: The reason I think of “nature” as more important is that awareness is dependent upon nature, but not vice versa; one’s nature is not dependent upon the quality of awareness. Nature makes us what we are from the beginning; awareness is a quality we develop as we mature.
Of course, running over the dog is worse than running over the mailbox. But let’s try a different thought: When I ran over the dog, I also bumped into my neighbor’s pregnant wife and caused her to have a miscarriage. The embryo didn’t feel anything, but the dog did. Which is worse?
October 28th, 2011 | 9:57 am
Blake –
Why that trait? Why not some other trait instead, or as well?
Because awareness is the defining difference between a ‘subject’ and an ‘object’. A rock has no subjectivity, something aware has subjectivity.
One can damage a rock. One cannot hurt a rock, or anything else that is not aware.
So now, in addition to being arbitrary, you’ve also added assumptions (to try to make what is arbitrary sound less so).
That makes things worse, not better.
You don’t know when “awareness” starts. You may have a faith-based belief in the teachings of scientific humanism – but that belief is neither more nor less provable/demonstrable than the Christian or any other teachings on when, how, and why life begins.
October 28th, 2011 | 10:12 am
Dear Ray: The reason I think of “nature” as more important is that awareness is dependent upon nature, but not vice versa; one’s nature is not dependent upon the quality of awareness.
The humanists want “awareness” to be a benchmark for two reasons:
1) it opens the door not only to abortion but to involuntary euthanasia
2) it legitimizes their faith-based belief in their theory of consciousness (which they are trying to pass off as if it were “proven” – the way the scientific method is constructed, it is possible to confuse the genuinely “proven” with the ‘not yet disproven’ speculative*).
The thing is, scientists themselves know and admit in their writings that consciousness is difficult and untestable. There is no way to know when a thing is “aware” – other than, of course, to use logic constrained by what science takes as “true”* (as opposed to just plain logic, which does not take anything on faith.)
*according to the rules of today’s Science Priesthood, a speculation may be treated as proven fact, provided the speculation is built according to the rules and assumptions of the scientific method – and of course has not yet been disproved.
The problem here is that the scientific method was designed to seek truth – the rule that a hypothesis is true until disproven was never originally meant to be taken as literally true outside of the scientific method itself (because it’s lame: obviously there’s no reason to suppose something is true just because it hasn’t yet been disproven – science spends its own reputation a little bit every time it uses its credibility to promote this bit of absurdity).
The idea was, you would start with an assumption as a point from which to begin gathering knowledge.
Science today has begun using its clout to start asserting ideological positions that can’t be proven – like the nature of consciousness – and to do so, instead of using “hypothesis is true until disproven” as a starting point for testing, it uses that rule as a way to bully people into believing that something purely speculative – the proposed nature of consciousness – is somehow “scientific fact”.
To use the assumptions of the scientific method in such a way stops being “science” – the neutral means of gaining knowledge about the material world – and starts being “science, the religion”, or scientific humanism (which unlike the scientific method pretends to be capable of answering questions about everything there is, instead of just the known-to-be-material world).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact