In virtually every debate over the ethics of abortion, both sides have at least been able to agree on the timetable under consideration. Whatever debaters termed the status of the fetus in utero, a bright line has been drawn at birth. Though arbitrary, this distinction has gone largely, perhaps even remarkably, unquestioned (apart from the writings of Peter Singer, who on this subject has expressed what most would concede is a fringe opinion).
Yet this consensus (or was it a ceasefire?) may be eroding. In an alarming post at Mirror of Justice, Robert P. George points to a new article, appearing in this month’s Journal of Medical Ethics, with a title that incorporates what must be the euphemism of the decade: “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”
The paper’s abstract is as follows:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Our sister blog, Secondhand Smoke, also covered this story on Saturday, where Wesley J. Smith attempted to put the article in whatever perspective it can be put in:
This doesn’t mean the law will accept come to accept the premise–although it could–this is precisely how the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious started, with articles in bioethics and medical journals. The point is that such arguments are deemed respectable in bioethics, which would reject racist or homophobic advocacy out of hand.
Not much reassurance there. While there’s no evidence that “after-birth” abortions are likely to be legalized in the immediate future, should some portions of our elite class begin to accept–or even, really, entertain–this logic, how far off can wider societal debate be? Academic opposition needs to be vigorous, swift, and wide-ranging.
February 28th, 2012 | 10:39 am
Does no-one get the feeling that the two academics behind this are anti-choice and have written the paper as a feeble attempt to equate killing a healthy newborn (which undeniably has the same rights as any other human) to the termination of a fetus (which clearly does not)?
The basic premise that newborns somehow have no rights is flatly untrue. How could they possibly have shown point 1 to be true?
It’s funny to see the zealots on both sides gnashing their teeth at what seems to be academic trolling.
February 28th, 2012 | 10:45 am
Pro-lifers should absolutely welcome this development. Let the loonies make “birth is totally arbitrary” a point of argument, and we’re on our way to overwhelming victory. Infanticide will never become accepted, and if we can get it understood that one moment before birth and one moment after are morally equivalent, it’s game over for the abortion racket.
February 28th, 2012 | 10:49 am
Why is this in a journal of “medical” ethics? There’s really nothing in it premises or conclusions that has anything to do with medical issues, is there? Or are we assuming that only doctors will have the job of killing babies?
I would think, if it’s acceptable to kill babies, then everyone should have the same authorization to kill them.
I find the growing assumption that doctors (and only doctors) are in the killing business fascinating. If I starve my disabled child to death, I’m a criminal. If a doctor does it, he gets to bill the insurance company for the service. If I self-abort, I’m a criminal, if the doctor does it, she’s a hero to women’s liberation. If I give my sick aunt a poison pill to ease her out of this world, I’m guilty of homicide, while a doctor doing that in Oregon is immunized from all legal consequences.
I realize we want our killing done in the most clean, humane and aesthetically pleasing way possible, but it does seem odd that the law assumes only doctors have this skill.
I suppose it’s because we assume that doctors are trustworthy. Because they read and write articles like this one?
February 28th, 2012 | 11:03 am
I suppose I’m not hugely surprised at this; Giubilini is well-known for advocating a fairly permissive position on euthanasia, and Minerva had a post at Practical Ethics a couple of years back that seemed to suggest that she was puzzled that anyone would be offended by the idea.
February 28th, 2012 | 11:43 am
What I find interesting is that those who are pro-life because they believe that life (personhood) begins at conception have no grounds for arguing with the authors of this paper. If a person with a right to life exists from the moment of conception, there is no moral difference between an early abortion, a late-term abortion, embryo-destructive stem-cell research, infanticide, and (it seems to me) murdering an adult.
Of course, no one has actually read and responded to the paper, but the abstract reads like something from The Onion. It is difficult to believe this is not a hoax of some kind, although it appears not to be.
February 28th, 2012 | 12:16 pm
Not Fooled, Academic trolling? 25 or 30 years ago most people would have said the same thing about an article favoring same sex marriage. 10 or 15 years before that, they would have said the same about an article recommending euthanasia. 5 or 10 years before that, most people would have been outraged at the proposition that there is a “right” to abortion. Our culture has been “defining deviancy down,” as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it, since about 1968. It would surprise me not at all to see infanticide considered a “right” in the next decade or so, complete with Supreme Court decisions and ostracization of any “misogynist reactionaries” who oppose it.
BTW, it is far from clear that a fetus has no rights while a newborn does. At what point does the “fetus” attain rights? When its feet are all the way out of the mother? When it enters the birth canal? Two seconds before that? Four seconds?
Two weeks? Tell me what the “magic moment” is when the fetus becomes a “person.” Hint: It never “becomes” a person because it always already _is_ a person at an early stage of development and no less a persona than at any other stage of development, e.g. infancy, childhood, adolescence, or adulthood. That is the only way to logically avoid the “magic moment” dilemma and effectively argue a consistent case against infanticide.
February 28th, 2012 | 12:16 pm
I don’t know that Singer’s position is “fringe”, at least among philosophers. A widely cited and anthologized paper by Michael Tooley called “Abortion and Infanticide” (reprinted as “In Defense of Abortion and Infanticide”) reaches much the same conclusion as Singer, and I would guess there are plenty of moral philosophers who are generally sympathetic. In fact, I’m kind of wondering what is new in the Italian article. The abstract reads like a precis of Singer’s long standing position on the topic.
February 28th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
@NotFooled Actually if you look up one of the co-authors, Alberto Giubilini ,he has previously argued against pro lifers on the “potential life argument”. So, yeah, this is real.
And not exactly unsurprising either. Peter Singer has been saying the exact same thing for years. The logic is obvious, he would cheerfully admit.
In a weird way I’m kinda grateful to them- their argument is the inevitable culmination of the entire wretched movement. Good that it’s being shown in the light of day.
February 28th, 2012 | 12:41 pm
Not Fooled,
Newborns can’t vote. They can’t engage in free speech. They can’t form enforceable contracts. They can’t keep and bear arms. They can’t exercise freedom of worship. Newborns clearly do not have the same rights as other persons. In fact, it is undeniable that newborns do not have the rights of persons, unless you’re going to claim that newborns are able to vote, etc.
More saliently, newborns stand with regard to the rights persons have in the exact same way a fetus stands with regard. A fetus, like a newborn, can have a vested interest in property, but is unable to exercise any of its other rights. With regard to every single right, other than the right of its mother to kill it, a fetus is in the exact same position as a newborn.
February 28th, 2012 | 12:51 pm
@ Not Fooled, I researched the authors, and they are not pro-lifers in disguise. They really believe what they have written.
February 28th, 2012 | 1:19 pm
at first I suspected that the authors were really pro-life advocates. However, I can’t find anything on the web that supports that—their writing consistently supports the pro-abortion mentality. It is rare to hear straight talk from pro-choice people, but when you do it is unavoidably horrible.
Several years ago I was listening to a BBC interview with an abortion doctor. The topic was abortifacients—probably RU 486. The doctor wanted to give an overview of various abortion techniques, and prefaced his remarks with, “No matter what the technique, the first step is to kill the fetus”. The interviewer interrupted, “No, no..”, but he jumped right in with, “Oh, my yes, you must kill it—it upsets everyone when they are born alive”. He briefly chastized her for being overly fastidious, then went on in graphic detail on how he killed fetuses prior to the actual abortion, his enthusiastic voice drowning out the protests from the BBC host.
I thought it was a set up, that the BBC had been had, but then it dawned on me that he was absolutely amoral. He laid out the mechanics of abortion with the blunt honesty of the true pro-choice believer who suffers no pangs of conscience. I sometimes think about that BBC host, whose beautiful voice rose from an expression of professional disinterest to disgust and horror. I wonder what she thinks about abortion, and evil.
February 28th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
David says: “What I find interesting is that those who are pro-life because they believe that life (personhood) begins at conception have no grounds for arguing with the authors of this paper.”
- Well, they do have one little bone to pick with the authors. They’d say it’s not ok to kill any of these human beings. A minor point, perhaps, but nonetheless a slight disagreement.
February 28th, 2012 | 2:12 pm
David, it sure looks real to me: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full
It is true that once life has been so devalued, the resources needed to oppose something like infanticide are harder to find. That said, a ‘principled’ pro-choice position could, presumably, oppose infanticide. The language of the pro-choice movement is so obsessed with ‘choice’ and convenience, however, that is unclear what limits should be placed on it. We have a President who voted against a bill that would require doctors to save the lives of babies who survive botched abortions. Once a parent doesn’t want the baby, it must die. The logic has a conclusion, and it is not pretty.
February 28th, 2012 | 2:23 pm
“newborns stand with regard to the rights persons have in the exact same way a fetus stands with regard.”
A newborn has a legal right to be cared for. A third-trimester fetus has a legal right to be cared for by a specific person. This is the crucial difference. The care of a fetus can only be provided by the mother; anybody can care for a newborn.
February 28th, 2012 | 2:28 pm
“A newborn has a legal right to be cared for. A third-trimester fetus has a legal right to be cared for by a specific person. This is the crucial difference. The care of a fetus can only be provided by the mother; anybody can care for a newborn.”
It’s not quite that clearcut. Child abandonment is a crime.
February 28th, 2012 | 3:29 pm
In a sunset, what’s the “magic moment” when ‘day’ becomes ‘night’?
Sometimes, there is no sharp dividing line, even between clearly-defined concepts. It’s possible to believe that a conceptus is not a person early on, and is a person later in the term, before birth – without being able to specify exactly when the transition happens. (Which would disagree with both the typical pro-life position and the paper in question.)
February 28th, 2012 | 3:54 pm
Sure, Ray. When I next find a sunset inconvenient and seek to put a stop to what it does naturally, I shall then trouble the academic world as to the exact time of when it becomes one. Your attempt to affect a detached, objective approach only serves to show the energy you need to expend to justify the killing of a life.
February 28th, 2012 | 3:59 pm
Ray,
“In a sunset, what’s the “magic moment” when ‘day’ becomes ‘night’?”
We’ve discussed this before here, as well:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/07/06/medical-advice-column-malpractice/#comments
February 28th, 2012 | 4:12 pm
“It’s possible to believe that a conceptus is not a person early on, and is a person later in the term, before birth – without being able to specify exactly when the transition happens.”
Considering what is at stake—the life of a fellow human being—it seems that we must give the benefit of the doubt to the unborn child. I would think one would have to know, for sure, without a doubt, that abortion is not murder. I do not know how one could live with their conscience otherwise.
February 28th, 2012 | 4:13 pm
David Nickol,
“What I find interesting is that those who are pro-life because they believe that life (personhood) begins at conception have no grounds for arguing with the authors of this paper. If a person with a right to life exists from the moment of conception, there is no moral difference between an early abortion, a late-term abortion, embryo-destructive stem-cell research, infanticide, and (it seems to me) murdering an adult.
…”
I *think* I see your point – a good reminder to pay attention to foundational assumptions when defending one’s position. And to find the root of the problem.
The root of the problem is that if one answers this question: “Does a person with a right to life exists from the moment of conception” with a “no”, then the moral acceptability of the rest of the actions listed must eventually follow. To the dismay of many theists and good secular humanists alike.
February 28th, 2012 | 4:17 pm
- Well, they do have one little bone to pick with the authors. They’d say it’s not ok to kill any of these human beings. A minor point, perhaps, but nonetheless a slight disagreement.
sally rogers,
The disagreement is on the premises. Pro-lifers have always argued that there is no moral difference between abortion and infanticide. The authors of the paper (which nobody has read) seem to argue that if abortion is acceptable, then infanticide is, too. Since pro-lifers see no moral distinction between abortion and infanticide, it would be difficult for them to say, “No, infanticide can still be wrong even if abortion is not.”
I did not mean to imply that the authors and pro-lifers don’t disagree fundamentally. Certainly they do. But if people who support abortion were at all inclined to accept infanticide (which I am certain they are not), the authors of the paper would have a powerful argument that pro-lifers would have a very difficult time arguing against, because pro-lifers believe it themselves: If you accept abortion, then there is no good reason to oppose infanticide.
Those who do not believe life (personhood) begins at conception can make a moral distinction between abortion and infanticide. Those who do believe life begins at conception must hold that both abortion and infanticide are the moral equivalent of murder.
February 28th, 2012 | 4:32 pm
Matthew Archbold of the National Catholic Register says they are right:
“Here’s the thing – they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.
The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.
An ethicists job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious. The magician uses sleight of hand to pretend to make people disappear. But when ethicists do it, people disappear for real.
It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.”
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/ethicists-argue-for-post-birth-abortions/#ixzz1niMQsIKx
February 28th, 2012 | 4:44 pm
David says: Those who do not believe life (personhood) begins at conception can make a moral distinction between abortion and infanticide. Those who do believe life begins at conception must hold that both abortion and infanticide are the moral equivalent of murder.
I ask: Is this news to you?
February 28th, 2012 | 4:45 pm
The question “what is a human being” is a moral question, so ultimately there is no rational answer. If we want to, we can choose to rule out personhood for foetuses, unwanted children, coloured people, the intellectually disabled, or competing tribes or nations. And we have to live with the consequences of that choice.
There are no arguments against any of that which don’t in the end appeal to intuition or revelation.
February 28th, 2012 | 5:11 pm
I *think* I see your point . . . .
JDD,
Let me put it this way. Suppose Mr. Prolife asks Mr. Prochoice, “Does a newly conceived human being have a right to life?” Mr. Prochoice says, “No.” Then to Mr. Prolife’s way of thinking, Mr. Prochoice does not recognize anyone’s right to life, because Mr. Prolife believes it is a fact that human personhood begins at conception, and a human person has an absolute right to life. So if Mr. Prochoice doesn’t believe the newly created human being has a right to life, then he doesn’t recognize a human person’s right to life.
So Mr. Prolife will believe he doesn’t have any arguments that will convince Mr. Prochoice to oppose infanticide, since in Mr. Prolife’s opinion, Mr. Prochoice doesn’t recognize the absolute right to life of every human person. From Mr. Prolife’s point of view, Mr. Prochoice is simply being consistent if he believe in abortion and infanticide.
Peg’s quote from the National Catholic Register says the same thing I am saying. From the pro-life point of view, the authors of the paper are right . . . if you accept their premises. Pro-lifers don’t accept the premises, but they believe pro-choicers do, so they can’t argue the paper is wrong, they have to argue the authors’ premises are wrong.
February 28th, 2012 | 5:20 pm
Why do so many academics of Jewish background(excluding religious jews) promote killing the unborn,the unwanted and the elderly.
I would have thought the effects of the Nazis should have impacted their thinking for a longer period of time.
How fast they forgot!
February 28th, 2012 | 5:30 pm
The most frustrating aspect of Mr. Ingles use of an analogy like a sunrise/sunset (or a game of chess, or anything else) is that the he does not first establish that this is the way the relationship works before making the analogy. This allows him to front-load the argument by question-begging the relationship he wants it to be like without having to make the actual argument. It’s an extremely abusive use of fallacious reasoning.
In this case, the inability to determine an exact difference between night and day is analogically front-loaded into the matter of personhood through development. But why can’t it be more like a light switch where personhood begins at a definite temporal point, say conception, for example? He never tells us.
February 28th, 2012 | 5:42 pm
[...] http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/02/28/infanticide-moves-off-the-fringe/ http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/shock-ethicists-justify-infanticide-in-major-medical-journal [...]
February 28th, 2012 | 6:43 pm
@DavidNickol
“But if people who support abortion were at all inclined to accept infanticide (which I am certain they are not)”
Well you forgot President Obama, who was the only Senator in Springfield, IL who twice voted against the born-alive infant protection act, which was identical to the same legislation that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0.
Then Senator Obama said that if a baby was born alive of a failed abortion, the baby should be left to die if that’s what the doctor and the mother wanted.
February 28th, 2012 | 6:54 pm
@David Nickol,
I am not sure I have seen you present a more tortured argument. I generally breeze over your comments, but I’ve been reading these as I might a NYT Saturday crossword.
You are right that I don’t see any real difference between infanticide and killing the baby in the womb only a few minutes prior to the infanticide. Some, such as Francis Fukuyama, argue that it’s not a baby until it has a heart and brain, but that it’s always more than a clump of cells.
But if I understand you correctly (and I doubt I do), what troubles you is that if I believe life begins at conception then I have no reason to be any more upset about infanticide than a woman who uses the morning-after pill.
I guess there’s something about the particular image of tossing a crying baby into a garbage can, or seeing the doctor strangle it with his own hands to stop the baby from crying that might upset even pure pro-lifer like myself (although the same cannot be said for our President who believes such regrettable actions should be legal).
February 28th, 2012 | 6:59 pm
Why do so many academics of Jewish background(excluding religious jews) promote killing the unborn,the unwanted and the elderly.
Albert F.,
I have seen polls that show Jews are pro-choice than the population in general. I am completely unaware of any Jews promoting the killing of the (otherwise) unwanted or the elderly. This seems to be a defamatory statement to me. Do you have any information that might cite in defense of it?
February 28th, 2012 | 7:32 pm
If parents have the right to kill their infant then they clearly have the right to determine the means. In every planned parenthood clinic, we should set up a large black thing with outstretched arms over a blazing furnace. A little ceremony would be nice, not only for closure, but as a sort of joining the potential life they’re killing to the greater good. Then,just roll the little one into the blaze. It’s a win-win!
February 28th, 2012 | 7:54 pm
Julian Savulescu, Editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, defends publishing the article in question here. He tells us (and who will be surprised?), “This article has elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety.” He includes a link to the complete text of the article.
Also, Kenneth Boyd, the “handling editor” defends his decision to publish the piece here, telling us that he does not personally agree with the authors’ conclusions.
February 28th, 2012 | 8:06 pm
There’s a whole lot of words being written here to obfuscate what any longshoreman can tell you: it is a crime of the highest order to intentionally murder a new born human being.
February 28th, 2012 | 8:18 pm
“This article has elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety.” = Waaaaaah!!!
“We just want to threaten the lives and personal safety of babies by writing that it’s justified to kill them. That doesn’t mean we think it’s ok to kill us!!”
Let me just be clear, however, that I’m not in favor of killing anybody, including these people who hold life so cheaply.
February 28th, 2012 | 9:33 pm
re Obama’s abortion views, there is an abortion survivor named Gianna Jessen who upsets him from time to time (“I live to make people uncomfortable”, she says). In 2008, she was featured in an ad asking him to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama’s campaign found the ad “sleazy” and “vile”. her response was:
“Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week. All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion – as I did 31 years ago. He voted against such protection and care four times even though the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a bill identical to the one Obama opposed. In the words of his own false and misleading ad, his position is downright vile. Mr. Obama said at the recent Saddleback Forum that the question of when babies should get human rights was above his pay grade. Such vacillation and cowardice would have left me to die if his policies were in place when I was born. Thank God they were not.”
February 28th, 2012 | 10:09 pm
Infanticide was widely accepted all over the world, and in many places still is. Justin Martyr, in his Apology, admitted that Christians did not expose their babies and justified it. Do not expect that attitude to continue in the absence of its cause.
February 28th, 2012 | 10:12 pm
Or it would be a crucial difference if it weren’t entirely fictious. Whom does the law charge with a crime if the newborn’s legal right is violated by your theory? Everyone on the planet?
In reality, it charges the mother (and the father, to be sure, if she hasn’t evicted him).
February 28th, 2012 | 10:15 pm
And then you would therefore have the duty of a hunter not to shoot at a noise in the woods that might be another hunter or might be a deer: namely, that when you are not sure, your duty is to assume personhood at all doubtful times.
February 28th, 2012 | 11:27 pm
Having the article in hand, I can say that the authors define a “person” as “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her”. They make quite a lot of the liberal ‘harm principle’ to adjudicate between those who are candidates for death and those who are not. Only those who have conscious “aims” can be persons, so it seems that not only infants but probably toddlers as well can be legitimately dispatched by this logic.
Of course, the authors never attempt to defend their definitions of “person”, “harm”, “aim”, “interest”, etc. They simply assert them and then play out the logic of their premises. One might just as well, I suppose, have used terms like “eugenics,” “racial hygiene,” and “biological enemy” and play out the same terrible game.
If you’ve read Peter Singer, I suspect you’ve seen everything Guibilini and Minerva have to offer.
February 29th, 2012 | 12:52 am
Wow. It would seem the Joseph Mengele school of thought unfortunately survived the demise of the Third Reich.
Such matter-of-fact dismissal of the “personhood” of new-born babies is more reminiscent of an insect colony than humanity.
February 29th, 2012 | 3:42 am
But if I understand you correctly (and I doubt I do), what troubles you is that if I believe life begins at conception then I have no reason to be any more upset about infanticide than a woman who uses the morning-after pill.
Douglas Johnson,
No, I wouldn’t say that. You could find one kind of killing more heinous than another. Legal distinctions are even made in some states (in determining whether or not to use the death penalty) between murder and particularly heinous murder. But all those things I mentioned would be “morally equivalent” in that they would be the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.
The morning-after pill works at least most of the time by preventing ovulation. When it works that way, it is no more a way of killing than using a condom. Sometimes, maybe, it may work by changing the lining of the uterus in such a way as to prevent implantation. Nobody knows for an absolute fact if it ever does work this way. So taking the morning-after pill is not equivalent to abortion most of the time, and quite possibly it never is.
February 29th, 2012 | 5:19 am
I think anyone who would comment on the editor’s rebut should read the actual article, and realize that it had nothing to do with healthy babies, but babies who *appeared* healthy, but were then found to have problems that would be almost impossible for a family to take care of, and still be contributing and participating in society as normal people do.
The article actually argued around the emotional state of the mother, and that the grief in losing (miscarriage or abortion) a fetus before birth is not different than losing a baby immediately after birth.
Also, from the actual article states: ‘…we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”
Of course, these babies can, and will continue to often be left at the hospital and cared for by the government, and supported by the poorest parts of society.
Also, calling this infanticide evil is misleading… what do you think doctors were OFTEN doing before medical companies found profit in keeping not-quite-people alive for as long as they can.
February 29th, 2012 | 7:31 am
“A newborn has a legal right to be cared for”
Who is it going to sue when no one cares for it? An unenforceable right is l, from the perspective of the law, a right. So, fetuses still have the same rights as newborn infants. If abortion and infanticide are framed in terms of rights, there’s no reason not to allow either, probably until well past birth, at least not from any sort of positivist framework.
If anything, I think this article really demonstrates how terrible and useless “personhood” as a concept is. Nobody knows what it means. It’s a needlessly weighty philosophical concept about which educated people will disagree. Is a person a Dasein? Is it someone with aims for the future? Who cares? Being human, and not personhood, is what makes a baby, as well as a fetus, an old person, etc. something that shouldn’t be killed.
February 29th, 2012 | 8:07 am
JA –
It’s simply meant to establish the point that transitions between clearly distinct states can be murky. And then…
I’ve summarized my points and linked to this numerous times. I can’t force you to actually read what I write, though.
February 29th, 2012 | 8:09 am
John Hinshaw –
And you haven’t read what I’ve actually written. JDD has linked to some. Question: under what circumstances do I think abortion is unacceptable and should be illegal?
February 29th, 2012 | 8:12 am
peg –
Follow JDD’s link, and search for “July 8th, 2011 | 9:20 am”.
February 29th, 2012 | 8:22 am
Rob writes:
“There’s a whole lot of words being written here to obfuscate what any longshoreman can tell you: it is a crime of the highest order to intentionally murder a new born human being.”
Quite true, but the job of the elite is to pioneer a new way of looking at things so that what was self-evident and universally accepted one day is suddenly “debatable” the next.
The more evil and outlandish the pioneer, the more complex the language and the more erudite his academic pedigree (if a longshoreman wrote the same thing he might be on an FBI watch
Our morality is most easily seduced these days by the cheap veneer of intellectual approval. I saw a poll recently listing issues in order of what divides Americans the most as to whether it’s right or wrong. The poll listed ethical issues such as abortion, redefining marriage, etc. At the bottom of the list as the least controversial (i.e. wide agreement that it was wrong) was suicide. At the top of the list with an almost even split between those who said it was right and those who called it wrong was “doctor assisted suicide.”
February 29th, 2012 | 9:23 am
mark, I believe you are at best being woefully obtuse. The authors state:
“The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. . . . however weak the actual interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.”
The authors even justify killing healthy newborns rather than giving them up for adoption because of the “psychological distress” the mother might experience in abandoning her child. If “potential people” have no moral standing of any kind, they can be killed for absolutely any reason — just like our current abortion laws allow.
February 29th, 2012 | 9:32 am
[...] Insanity in medicine? [...]
February 29th, 2012 | 9:49 am
I believe we may be living in the age of clarity.
In so many areas, the choices are becoming starkly clear. It’s almost as if it’s not enough that people have culpability that might in any way be limited, those who promote evil want us to be all in.
In some ways I find it hopeful, because when we see clearly how evil a choice is then we won’t be “tricked” or deceived, even self-deceived, into choosing it. At the same time, it scares me, because I believe the gamble is that folks will see the choice, see the extreme evil, and still choose for it. And I’m not sure it’s a losing bet.
February 29th, 2012 | 10:07 am
I think it’s terribly important for folks who defend the right of innocent human beings to continue living not to distinguish between grades of that right.
An early embryo, a fetus, a newborn “healthy” infant, and a newborn with a medical condition are all different from each other in many ways, but not in their right to continue existing once they exist.
The argument that healthy infants that burden their parents through no “fault” of their own can be killed is dreadful, but “softening” it to imply that the authors are more reasonable because they are only advocating killing infants with medical conditions is even more monstrous — because the implication is then that the baby has brought the murder upon himself through his own fault. His defective status makes him less worthy of life than a nondefective. He doesn’t just not have the right to life, he has earned the right to death. In a society where illness is considered sinful and sin is considered freedom, this is an easy trap to fall into.
This conversation makes me want to grab up my family and run. . .
February 29th, 2012 | 10:15 am
Why stop there? Can we “attribut[e] to [our] own existence some (at least) basic value” in our sleep? Of course not.
February 29th, 2012 | 10:17 am
Quite true, but the job of the elite is to pioneer a new way of looking at things so that what was self-evident and universally accepted one day is suddenly “debatable” the next.
Douglas Johnson,
Like blacks should not be slaves, or women should be allowed to own property and vote, or (going back to the American revolution) people should not be governed by kings and the state should not favor one religion over another. Or like a husband does not have the right to rape his wife, or “separate but equal” is unworkable in education.
It was once self-evident and almost universally accepted by Christians that Jews killed Jesus and should be made to pay for it. It was once self-evident that the sun traveled around the earth. It was once self-evident that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones.
It is sometimes a great leap forward when an “elite” is able to convincingly argue that what has been considered self-evident and universally accepted should be called into question.
Think of those who would not look through Galileo’s telescopes, or who scoffed at Semmelweis’s pleas to wash their hands in preparation for delivering a baby after they had just delivered another. They already knew what was self-evident and universally accepted.
February 29th, 2012 | 10:39 am
Marie,
I think what you wrote was perfectly put, and thank you for posting that. I want to respond to this:
“At the same time, it scares me, because I believe the gamble is that folks will see the choice, see the extreme evil, and still choose for it. And I’m not sure it’s a losing bet.”
I think we see this all the time. I noted to a conservative politician friend of mine that we are nearly always are on the losing side of policy (gun ownership being the sole exception, I think). It prompted me to wonder to myself what’s the point of spending money, time, and grief on all this when we always lose. Then it occurred to me that winning isn’t the thing. The fight is the thing. It doesn’t matter if you’re the last woman on the planet defending marriage and fighting abortion and infanticide against a million-man army of Paris Hiltons and Peter Singers all with their guns pointing straight at you.
You fight because the only other choice is surrender and joining the other side. In Christian terms, it is not unlike the burden of the question “Who do you say that I am?”
February 29th, 2012 | 10:57 am
“Like blacks should not be slaves, or women should be allowed to own property and vote, or (going back to the American revolution) people should not be governed by kings and the state should not favor one religion over another. Or like a husband does not have the right to rape his wife, or “separate but equal” is unworkable in education.
It was once self-evident and almost universally accepted by Christians that Jews killed Jesus and should be made to pay for it. It was once self-evident that the sun traveled around the earth. It was once self-evident that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones.
It is sometimes a great leap forward when an “elite” is able to convincingly argue that what has been considered self-evident and universally accepted should be called into question. ”
These were all parochial beliefs, not universal ones.
As an example, the belief that the sun revolved around the earth was not any more automatic than the belief that it was a disk surrounded by an ocean. And, oddly enough, that belief was an elitist belief based on the revival of Greek thought, which was considered superior to all those barbarian notions.
The connection of ethnicity with slavery was parochial — in most places and times, slavery was not racially based. But the elite of Europe and America managed to make slavery not a common practical custom but a custom justified through sophomoric argument and practiced by the educated class upon the powerless class.
The restriction of property rights, gender-based or otherwise, certainly is going to be practiced by the elite, since they lose the most by changing the rules. And again, restriction of property rights into the male line was hardly universal.
I don’t know when it was considered self-evident that Jews should pay for Christ’s death. I would imagine that those who were taking the property and life of Jewish people managed to create intellectual arguments to justify those actions, just as folks who wish to take what could be considered the birthright of unborn children justify killing them using intellectual argument.
The belief that humans are humans before they are born is an self-evident based on universal human instinct, not cultural overlays. In fact, as has been pointed out, ours is not the only culture that has short circuited that instinct with sophomoric argument. Your examples meant to refute the premise in fact all go in the wrong direction.
February 29th, 2012 | 11:01 am
Mr. Johnson,
I think that’s absolutely correct, and thank you for the reminder.
February 29th, 2012 | 12:06 pm
“You fight because the only other choice is surrender and joining the other side. In Christian terms, it is not unlike the burden of the question “Who do you say that I am?”
yes, this is the The Way. We probably cannot end evil—be it abortion, poverty, prejudice or whatever form—but we must think and act as if we can.
February 29th, 2012 | 1:48 pm
The belief that humans are humans before they are born is an self-evident based on universal human instinct, not cultural overlays.
Marie,
Obviously humans are human before and after they are born. What else would they be? The question is whether a fertilized egg, a 5-day old embryo, a 12-week-old fetus, and a newborn baby are all human persons with an absolute right to life. Jewish Law, which is of course older than Christianity, does not recognize an unborn child as a fully human person with a right to life. Abortion in some cases is not merely permitted, but considered the right thing to do (to save the life of the mother).
Infanticide itself has been practiced with approval in many societies of the past. It simply is not true that there has been a “universal human instinct” that recognizes the right to life of unborn or newly born infants. Plus there have been societies (Rome, for instance) in which the father had the the power of life and death over his children even into their adulthood.
February 29th, 2012 | 3:43 pm
Mr. Nickol,
I differentiate between instinct of what is self-evident and conventional wisdom. One is internal knowledge, one external (therefore not “self-evident” but evident through explanation or other outside influence).
I remember my mother being regretful that she’d smoked when she was pregnant. I told her that was before they knew smoking was dangerous. We knew, she told me, we knew. When you smoke, it becomes self-evident that it is unhealthy. But the conventional wisdom of the time was that it was neutral or healthy,supported by the elite opinion and justified with many, many words and images.
Your contention was that the self-evident is usually or often the ignorant and elites must correct it to have a humane society. But the examples you give (including the ones above) are not of self-evident thinking, but of social constructs imposed by elites. You are making an argument opposite to the one you intend to make, is all I’m saying.
February 29th, 2012 | 6:01 pm
It’s useful to recall that the belief that women could not own property or engage in occupations was, like chattel slavery, a re-invention of the Age of Reason following the Rediscovery of Roman Law.
February 29th, 2012 | 11:00 pm
Elites did so many wonderful things. Like introduce segregation after the Reconstruction — allowed by that great Progressive Woodrow Wilson, who was too busy segregating the federal work force to interfere. (Martin Luther King Jr. was a reactionary, trying to push back to the Reconstruction.)
Or involuntary eugenic sterilization. Germans were tried at Nuremberg for implementing programs based on American ones.
March 1st, 2012 | 4:17 am
David Nickol wrote “Plus there have been societies (Rome, for instance) in which the father had the the power of life and death over his children even into their adulthood”
Many societies have regarded homicide as a wrong done to the kindred, who have the exclusive right to prosecute and who can compromise the claim by accepting compensation. This survives in Shari’a law to this day.
It was only in 82 BC that the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis et Veneficis [The Cornelian law on hit-men and poisoners] introduced public prosecutions for murder at Rome. The immunity of the paterfamilias was a survival.
Similarly, in British law, the movement was from homicide as a wrong to the kindred to an affront to the feudal lord whose protection the deceased enjoyed, to an affront to the king as chief lord – “against the peace of our lord the king, his crown and dignity,” with the accusation being made, in England, by “The jurors for our lord the king…” (the grand jury) or, in Scotland, by “His Majesty’s Advocate for His Majesty’s interest”
March 1st, 2012 | 4:38 am
There is no mystery about what a (human) person is: we all understand expressions like, “the person over there,” or “Offences against the Person.” It means a living, human body.
The “mind” or “consciousness” or “self” are not things, but hypostasized abstractions. Self-knowledge, where it exists, is knowledge of the object that one is, of the human animal that one is. More commonly, one simply has reflexive consciousness of what one is doing It cannot constitute the person, but presupposes it.
March 1st, 2012 | 9:44 am
David Nickol:
What point do you mean to make when you point out this:
“Jewish Law, which is of course older than Christianity…”
March 1st, 2012 | 11:01 am
What point do you mean to make when you point out this:
“Jewish Law, which is of course older than Christianity…”
Douglas Johnson,
My point is not to argue that because Judaism is older, it’s better. It’s just to point out that there are ancient and respected religious traditions that do not fully agree with the Christian understanding of when life/personhood/full humanity begin. Judaism and Christianity are in very substantial agreement on abortion, but there are also real differences.
March 1st, 2012 | 11:02 am
“Jewish Law, which is of course older than Christianity, does not recognize an unborn child as a fully human person with a right to life.”
David, this is not true. Throughout the Old Testament we see the personhood of the enwombed affirmed, and God’s direct formation of the child emphasized. Those who destroy the child in the womb, the Old Testament makes clear, defy God directly and destroy his works.
See the following verses for proof:
1. Isaiah 44:2
2. Isaiah 44:24,
3. Psalm 139: 13-16,
4. Psalm 22:9-10
5. Job 31:15
6. Exodus 21: 22-23
7. and Maccabees chapter 7.
March 1st, 2012 | 12:19 pm
Artaban,
No list of quotes from the Old Testament establishes what Jewish Law (Halacha) is.
Full article here.
Also see Abortion and Halacha:
It is simply a fact that Jewish Law looks upon abortion differently from, say, Catholicism. It is a fact. Almost every time I bring up this fact, someone attempts to dispute it. You are free to disagree with Jewish Law, or argue that Jews don’t understand their own scripture, or whatever you like, but it is just a fact that Jewish Law has a different view of abortion than Catholicism does, and I am not misstating Jewish Law.
March 1st, 2012 | 4:53 pm
Elites did so many wonderful things. Like introduce segregation after the Reconstruction — allowed by that great Progressive Woodrow Wilson, who was too busy segregating the federal work force to interfere. (Martin Luther King Jr. was a reactionary, trying to push back to the Reconstruction.)
Or involuntary eugenic sterilization. Germans were tried at Nuremberg for implementing programs based on American ones.
And yet, today’s progressives know all this – but don’t care.
March 1st, 2012 | 7:25 pm
It is beyond comprehension that in a country founded by one of the most elite group of intellectuals ever to converge for a single purpose, some “conservatives” believe that elite is a dirty word.
March 2nd, 2012 | 12:40 am
some “conservatives” believe that elite is a dirty word.
Elite only becomes a dirty word when it starts being used synonymously with “aristocrat”.
As in, “I have more right to decide our joint and common rules than you do, because you don’t have the right credentials.”
Or, “You should not object to us taking your rights away, because I’m very smart and graduated from a top-notch college.”
Or “I want to murder babies, but the journal I’m publishing is peer reviewed so that makes it okay!”
March 2nd, 2012 | 9:17 am
One of the most elite groups to converge for a single purpose? The Sons of Liberty, the folks at the Continental Congress, that group? Farmers, soldiers, surveyors, blacksmiths, and printers? Certainly, none of them were serfs, but how can you even compare that to other converging elite groups throughout history (let’s take the Senators that converged the assassinate Caesar; the gathering that forced the Magna Carta; the folks who plotted the French Revolution or the October Revolution)?
Elite is pejorative when it applies to folks who expect deference for who they are rather than respect for what they do. American disdain for that form of elitism is very much bound up with American admiration for people who, educated or wealthy as they were, earned their props as first among equals. It’s no contradiction.
March 6th, 2012 | 10:47 am
“Jewish Law, which is of course older than Christianity, does not recognize an unborn child as a fully human person with a right to life…
The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in halacha is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being – but not quite. In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other “person.”
…but it is just a fact that Jewish Law has a different view of abortion than Catholicism does, and I am not misstating Jewish Law.” David Nickols
David, what a tangled web you’ve woven yourself. All you have managed to do is show the great confusion, differences of opinion, and lack of consistency and truth in modern Judaism. You’ve shown one reason I’m not a Jew. There is a diversity of opinion on many, many matters in Judaism. To make a statement representing Jewish Law as monolithic, consistent, and lacking contradiction–as you did–is a gross distortion, and reflects a lack of understanding of it.
There is a Jewish saying, “Ask two rabbis their opinion and you’ll get three answers.”
I have a rabbi associate who’s said some Jews don’t consider a person alive until they take their first breath–something even most secularists would find absurd given the science in support of fetal pain, brainwaves, heartbeat, etc.
You DID misstate Jewish law when you claimed their was no right to life, as the line from Exodus (considered Torah–Law) clearly shows by applying the penalties of manslaughter to those who accidentally cause an abortion.
As for your claim, “No list of quotes from the Old Testament establishes what Jewish Law (Halacha) is… ” doesn’t that strike you as a cop-out that seeks to avoid being held to anything? Those who don’t stand for something will fall for anything.
March 6th, 2012 | 1:15 pm
[...] noted before (here and elsewhere), the ethicists who published this paper are not members of any parliament or court, [...]
March 7th, 2012 | 10:02 am
[...] Infanticide Moves Off the Fringe | First Thoughts [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact