1) Even if the argument were true, it would be ridiculous

Even if the charge that pro-lifers are only focused on birth were true, it would be a ridiculous argument. Imagine that you saw a woman save a drowning child. Are you really going to object, “Well, are you going to pay for his college education?”

She’s done an amazing thing, saving the life of a stranger. Criticizing her for not doing other good things is absurd. So sure, ensuring that children can’t be legally murdered for the first nine months of their lives isn’t the only moral issue, but it’s a darn good start. And if the choices are “I’ll protect you for the first nine months of your life, but then you’re on your own” and “I think it should be legal to kill you for the first nine months of your life,” that’s an easy choice.

2) The argument is logically fallacious

Again, assume for a moment that pro-lifers really don’t care about what happens after birth. Would that make killing an unborn child defensible? Of course not. It’s a logical fallacy (an ad hominem attack, more specifically) to answer pro-life arguments by saying that you think pro-lifers are nasty people.

3) The argument is unspeakably melodramatic

Think about what this objection is really saying. Usually, it’s that pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life because they don’t support this or that social program. That amounts to saying “you won’t give me money for this program? Do you just wish I was dead?” It’s closer to a teenage emotional meltdown than an actual political stance.

After all, in most of the cases we’re talking about, life and death are just not on the line. Wanting the education of your neighbor is a good thing. But not caring about your neighbor’s education or not caring if your neighbor gets murdered aren’t even in the same ballpark. So even if it were true that pro-lifers were just apathetic to your quality of life after birth, the argument still would be melodramatic and emotionally manipulative.

4) The argument is hypocritical

To the person making the argument that if pro-lifers won’t fund x program, they must want people to die: right now, on Kickstarter, there are people trying to crowdsource money to pay for cancer treatments.

Whether or not you’ve personally contributed to any (much less all) of these people, surely we can agree that you could do more. You could find a way to give a few dollars more, even if it means working a bit more or spending less on yourself. But you haven’t. Does that mean that you want those poor people to die? I certainly hope not. More likely, it means that you recognize in your own life that there’s a difference between not paying for someone else’s medical care and not wanting that person to live.

5) The argument is more than a little condescending

Bear in mind that the argument generally consists of telling people that, unless they’re willing to support this or that social program, they aren’t truly pro-life.

But it’s not like pro-lifers are somehow exempted from poverty, disease, and old age. It’s condescending to say to these people (in effect), “I know what’s best for you, and if you disagree, it can only be because you wish you and everyone like you was dead.”

6) The argument is demonstrably false

As I said, even if the arguments about pro-lifers not caring about what happens after birth were true, it would be a bad argument. But the argument just isn’t true. This whole “pro-lifers don’t care about anything after birth” is a gross slander of a huge group of people, and appears to be rooted in exactly no empirical data.

If you look at the actual data, a very different story emerges. I know of no comprehensive data comparing the giving rates of pro-lifers v. pro-choicers, since most places don’t ask about that when you give. But we can get some strong clues by looking at Republican v. Democratic giving, and at red state v. blue state giving. (Now, I realize that not all pro-lifers are fiscal conservatives or Republicans; but that’s the underlying assumption of this argument. But even that assumption was true, the argument would be false.)

So here’s what we do know. Of the top seventeen most generous states for charitable contributions, all seventeen of them voted for Romney in the 2012 election [while true, this fact is slightly misleading, in that D.C. would have made it on that list if it were a state]. And of the seven least charitable states, all seven of them voted for Obama. (You can see the data for yourself)

And that’s just one measure. Huffington Post, hardly a bastion of moral conservatism, points out that Republicans (54%) are more likely than Democrats (45%) to donate money to charity, and far more likely to personally volunteer for a cause (33% to 24%). They’ve also assembled charts showing that people living in “red states” volunteer more than those living in “blue states.”

So it’s not just a matter of writing a check: the sort of people who are most likely to be pro-life are also the sort of people who are most likely to personally lend a hand. And anyone actually familiar with the pro-life movement already knows this. Pro-lifers are frequently the first to sacrifice personally: adopting kids, counseling women in crisis, helping struggling families out of their own pocketbooks. And if you actually were to listen to the speakers at the March for Life, you’d discover that this is exactly what the pro-life movement, as a movement, encourages.

So the argument gets it entirely backwards. It’s precisely the sanctimonious “you don’t care about people after they’re born” crowd who are least likely to help born or unborn people in any demonstrable way.

7) The real debate is about the means, not the ends

While they may not be as likely to personally help out, it’s nevertheless true that most liberals, like most conservatives, care about the elderly, the infirm, the poor, and the disabled. Are there selfish people who don’t care about others, or are content to use disadvantaged peoples as political props? Of course, and that’s true on both sides of the abortion debate and on both sides of the political divide. But for the most part, there’s genuine concern for human life on both sides. If you can’t recognize that, you’ve let partisanship totally cloud your ability to understand or empathize with people who disagree with you.

Vice President Mike Pence, in his remarks at the March for Life, said

“You know, life is winning in America. And today is a celebration of that progress that we have made in this cause. You know I’ve long believed that a society can be judged by how we care for its most vulnerable, the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn.”

That’s a beautiful articulation of both the pro-life movement and political liberalism at their best: advocacy on behalf of those too disadvantaged to advocate for themselves. (One might add “immigrants” to the list of those for whom society needs to care, but the statement is still powerful as it stands.)

So the question isn’t “should old people be allowed to live?” — unless we’re debating euthanasia, in which pro-lifers are once again the ones on the side of life. The question isn’t even really “is it my responsibility for ensuring that you have a good quality of life?” Usually, the question is “how best do we ensure that the most vulnerable among us are protected?”

And the answers to that problem are often tricky. Social Security does a lot of good, but there are legitimate reasons to believe that our spending is unsustainable. Virtually everyone recognizes that healthcare is important, and that there are major flaws in our healthcare system, but most of the proposed solutions are expensive, untested, and complicated. Education is important, but pouring more money into public education doesn’t always correlate to demonstrate improvements. To demand, “you must support my particular plan or else you want people to dieeeeee” is ridiculous.

This is why the quotation from Sr. Chittister above is fatuous: she openly assumes that if “you don’t want any tax money to go there,” then you don’t want children to be fed, clothed, etc. This assumes a particular solution to these problems (taxpayer-funded governmental programs), and with it a political ideology. It evinces a grave lack of charity towards those who don’t share her views on the size and scope of federal authority.

Pro-choicers tend to be more liberal, and tend to be more trusting of the government as a solution to these problems. Pro-lifers tend (although there are numerous exceptions) to be less trusting of the government to fix these things — which may be part of the reason that they show more of a proclivity towards volunteering and working towards solutions on their own. But that’s a question about how trusting we should be of big government, or how much we think throwing tax money at a problem solves it, not of how much we love our neighbor.

That’s not to say that the fiscally conservative answer is the right one to any of these questions. It’s only to say that these are the sorts of issue that we should be able to disagree upon civilly, without accusing the other side of not caring about human life. Virtually all of us that we would like (amongst other things) a well-educated, healthy society in which the most vulnerable are taken care of. We just don’t always agree upon how best to get there.

So instead of saying “pro-lifers only care about babies until they’re born,” a more accurate statement might be something like, “although pro-lifers disproportionately give more of their time and money, I don’t see eye-to-eye with many of them on the solutions to certain social ills.”

But that argument would require nuance, and to view your political opponent as human, and as basically decent.

why do you pick on the on this one obscure issue, that just happens, if you are a man, to be the one that requires nothing from you personally? — unenlightened

So in other words...........if I support life when it comes to abortion why don't I also agree on socialist issues? Is that what you are arguing?

My argument is not for socialist.....my argument is that all human beings regardless of Age, Environment/location,Size, Level of Development, or Degree of Dependency, is entitled to the same fundamental human rights to life,

I am not a socialist......and socialism has nothing to do with this argument.

↪LostThomist I never said personhood "begins at birth". I said personhood, at minimum, requires certain pre-natal developments, which occur after 20 weeks including fetal viability, and a developed CNS enabling consciousness and nociception. The vast majority (98%) of abortions occur prior to 20 weeks. Explain to me how a non-viable, pre-conscious fetus is structurally comparable to a post-natal child. If consciousness, viability, etc. are "arbitrary", then why doesn't personhood extend to all other forms of life, from earthworms to roses? — Maw

So then you are arguing for level of development.

Take care again: By this rule you are to be ended by the first man you meet whose development and self-awareness is superior to your own.

no..........it is NOT fallacious. Your claim that personhood begins at birth is no more arbitrary than me claiming that persohood begins at 18 years old.

Fertilization may be a necessary condition for personhood, but it is not a sufficient condition. It's is potential, but not actual. — Maw

No more than an infant being potentially an adult or a 16 year old kid being a potential adult

So by that logic you are arguing for infanticide and overall genocide of anyone under 18.

Can I make a poll for this abortion debate, just so we have the statistics of the people in the forum? — René Descartes

sounds good. I would love to see that.

what do you mean "in tone?

It is a serious game, not to the point where it is not fun to play.....but serious enough that it is realistic

I am LostThomist. I studied philosophy and hold my Bachelors in Philosophy

Thanks. Its great to be here.

well I contend your "claim" that abortion is a right

You are appealing to the authority of the law to determine what is moral........but there are laws that were and are immoral.

your argument is invalid and fallacious

then what is your argument?

You did not answer my question. You answered by saying both answers taht contradict each other.

I will try again.


If you are in a coma from which you may awake......would it be moral for me to kill you?

True.....and I agree with how you distinguished the death penalty and murder in genera..........

But you again missed my point. My point was that simply saying it is morally acceptable because it is legal is a fallacious appeal to authority. The same is true tor trying to excuse abortion simply because it is currently legal.

What's that got to do with it? No one's talking about murder. — Pseudonym

Murder: The killing of another human being with intent

Abortion: The killing of a fetus

Fetus: A developing human

There is a moral duty not to murder it once alive.
— Thorongil

Murder is an unlawful killing. Given the legality of abortion, abortion isn't murder. — Michael

Appeal to authority. That is a logical fallacy.

Then by the same logic, the holocaust was also ok because it was lawfully passed by the recognized German Parliament, Slavery was only because it was legal along with segregation.

Why are there no philosophers and no threads arguing that when a homeless person freezes to death while there are warm places locked up all around him, that is murder; that refusing your spare bedroom to a refugee is murder. — unenlightened

That is a false dichotomy.

Comparing "me giving money to someone who is homeless or poor" to abortion is basically making the following argument.........

In order to be consistent, you have to agree to give free crap to these other people

The problem is that comparing "giving people free crap" to "NOT KILLING A HUMAN BEING IN COLD BLOOD" is logically fallacious.

Again, assume for a moment that pro-lifers really don’t care about what happens after birth. Would that make killing an unborn child defensible? Of course not. It’s a logical fallacy (an ad hominem attack, more specifically) to answer pro-life arguments by saying that you think pro-lifers are nasty people



In short..........your argument boils down to melodramatically shouting....."UNLESS YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!" when someone doesn't agree with forcing me to pay for other people's stuff.

You still have some work to do if you want to offer a complete argument against abortion, form a utilitarian perspective — Pseudonym

Utilitarians are morally decrepit......NEXT!

An added note, but it would seem justifiable to kill the baby if it threatened the life of the mother, although I chuckle that it may be just as justifiable to kill the mother to save the baby in such a case. As for pre-week 24 abortions, I suspect that any time a man has sex with a women who is on the pill, they are likely accomplices to abortions they may not even be aware of. — Sydasis

That is a FALSE dichotomy. Abortion (like the definition of 'murder' requires intention). Miscarriage, stillbirth or biological failure to implant in the uterus by natural causes is not the same thing. That is a retarded argument to make.

After week 24, my understanding is that since a fetus *could* live independently of the mother's womb, hence the womb is then both considered technically alive and a person with rights. The mother can not do harm to the unborn child at this point unless it threatens the rights (life) of the mother. Although removing the baby at this point may not lead to the child's successful birth, lets consider the classical Schrodinger's cat experiment. We do not know if the cat inside the poisoned trapped box is alive or dead until we open the box, but until we do, the cat must be considered both alive and dead. If alive, it must be treated with rights. — Sydasis

Schrodinger's baby?............Give me a break

After week 24, my understanding is that since a fetus *could* live independently of the mother's womb, hence the womb is then both considered technically alive and a person with rights. — Sydasis

Ah then you are arguing D is SLED for Degree of Dependency

You mean that the pre-born are not as viable because they are still dependent on the mother and the womb and therefore have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care even still. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person whose independence is higher than your own.

The unborn is dependent upon the mother’s body for nutrition and a proper environment. It’s hard to see, though, how depending upon another person disqualifies you from being a person. Newborns and toddlers still depend upon their parents to provide nutrition and a safe environment. Indeed, some third-world countries require children to be breast fed because formula is not available. Can a mother kill her newborn son because he depends on her body for nutrition? Or, imagine you alone witnessed a toddler fall into a swimming pool. Would you be justified in declaring him not valuable simply because he depended on you for his survival? Of course not! Since the unborn depends on his mother in the same way, it’s not reasonable to disqualify his value either. Notice that although toddler and teens differ from each other in the four SLED categories, we don’t disqualify toddlers from personhood. Since born and unborn humans differ in exactly the same ways, we can’t disqualify the unborn from personhood either. You could do the same for (First Breath) by asking the person if I could kill him/her when he/she is holding his/her breath........or mental ability to think/be aware by asking the person if I can kill him/her when he/she is not thinking or asleep. In each instance, I can take their definition and apply it to a born human being thus showing the weakness of the argument (or lack thereof).

You may have your own moral ideas formed by your religion, but these are relatively modern by human standards — Pseudonym

So you don't believe in objective standards of morality? If that is true.....then why should I not go down to a store and shoot it up because I want to?

If someone was in terminal pain but could not speak to express their wishes, would killing them be immoral? — Pseudonym

YES if they did not ask you to do it

If someone was in a complete vegetative state from which they were unlikely to revive, would turning off the life support be immoral? — Pseudonym

YES unless that was their expressly written wish to do so

As long as you make a clean job of it and finish me off, I would have no complaint to make. In working out whether you feel it is morally permissible however, you would need to take account of the feelings of those that have come to care about me. Even though I am not nearly as widely beloved as Taylor Smith or Beyoncé Noakes, I expect there would be enough people that would be quite upset about it that you would decide that the morally preferable path is to not stab me. — andrewk

Well now you have said both.............no double talk.....yes or no?

Anyway - The accidental vs. substantial change distinction is Aristotle, right? So, it's not metaphysics, it't Aristotle's metaphysics. It's not true. It's not logical. It's just your way of looking at things. — T Clark

Actually.......that is Thomas Aquinas who was building on Aristotle to create "Metaphysics".

And, as I said, in my opinion eight cells is not a tree. — T Clark

You completely missed the point.

To simply compare any 8 cells with the 8 cells in a developing human is an illogical comparison because any 8 skin cells cannot develop into a whole human body.

What you call your "scientific claim" is nothing more than a restatement of the common claim that life begins at conception. It's a definition, not a fact. It's your definition, not mine.

Ok........so you deny my scientific claim (much like denying the earth is round)

But no matter......I also showed using metaphysics that human life (putting aside the question of personhood) begins at conception.

Are you going to also deny metaphysics?

That leaves you with no platform to stand on other than claiming that my reality is different than your reality.....a claim that is neither philosophical, scientific or based on objective facts.

Well, no. It's not undeniable. I don't consider 8 cells human life. — T Clark

EXCEPT......as I point out.......there is a difference between 8 random cells and the 8 cells not long after conception. Such a comparison is ignoring the epistemological difference between the parts and the whole.

There is an epistemological difference between a human baby in the womb and a finger that I lost in a workshop accident.

Even if John lose that finger to a buzz-saw, John still retain my John-ness.....likewise just because the finger was a part of john does not make the finger a whole person.

Or

Just because I take a branch from a tree, does not mean that the branch becomes a tree

Likewise, just because I took away one branch from the tree, does not mean that the tree looses its tree-ness

Welcome to the forum. In order to hang around here, especially if you plan to support unpopular ideas, it's best if you prepare to be treated un-civilly. Actually, prepare to be treated un-civilly no matter what ideas you support. — T Clark

Bullshit. I treated him with professional respect and I expect the same........in fact the forum rules as they are written expect the same.

3) Even Singer's argument does not explain my question of how there could possibly be a "partly person" with only partial rights.

Either there the baby in the womb is a person with rights or he/she is not. To say that somehow it would be moral to kill the baby in the womb because of lesser intelligence or intellect or awareness would (by the same logic) excuse the murder of the mentally handicapped, physically handicapped or anyone of lesser intelligence than the speaker.

Singer lacks any true argument other than to argue that some humans are morally superior to other and thus deserve to live over them.

*cue to short man with a small black mustache raising his arm out straight and slightly raised in front of him*

Right. I don't use it as a case for making abortion legal. I'm assuming the "you" here is meant generally and is not directed at me. — Thorongil

Sorry yes.....I wrote this all out before hand (in fact I have been working on this for years).......The "You" is not talking to you personally but rather talking to my imaginary opponent who disagrees with me.

↪LostThomist Hello. Well done for acknowledging that it is possible to believe that human life begins at conception but personhood does not. That is the position of some of the more sophisticated philosophers that argue about the permissibility of abortion, such as Peter Singer.

Unfortunately, you did not address the arguments made by Singer and others that we cannot reasonably call an embryo a person. Their argument is essentially that it is a much less significant harm to kill an organism that has no well-developed consciousness, self-awareness, sense of purpose or of the future, than one that does. The section labelled 'LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT' could have addressed this, but did not do so. The only part that comes close to it is the bit about the super-intelligent aliens killing us. But that would not apply if the threshold for personhood were to be set at some absolute minimum level rather than at a level that is relative to the sophistication of the being that is thinking of doing the killing. I believe the usual utilitarian arguments for permissibility of abortion are based on setting absolute minimum levels for personhood, not relative levels.

But having said that, I do not necessarily disagree that, if super-intelligent aliens were to come to Earth, it would be fair enough for them to kill and eat us. It seems only fair, given how ready humans are to kill and eat other mammals just because they are not as sophisticated as we are. — andrewk

1) I would hardly call Singer a philosopher much less sophisticated.

2)

You do not mean development exactly? -You mean that born human persons have an intellect and a consciousness that is higher than the pre-born and therefore you have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care yet again. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person who has an intellect and a consciousness that is higher than your own.

So if you are in a coma from which you may awake........can I stab you?

And it's traditional to introduce oneself before launching into an endless moralizing tirade. — Akanthinos

1) Hello. I am Lost Thomist

2) That is rather condescending yourself and insulting to a work of philosophical thought for which I have worked hard to create. I demand an apology.

"Read other works of the philosophers"...? Are you often this condescending. — Akanthinos

Not my intention..........My point being that every other philosophical work is long, requires things to be defined and is seldom brief.............especially Heidegger.

You can cut down the pedant's speech. Philosophy doesn't require that we speak through a chicken's anus (now I doubt this idiom is going to translate). — Akanthinos

Then I would be accused of not defining my terms properly.

I would rather take the former accusation than the latter.

That's just a fact. It's not like conception is any more magical than any of the other points which you argue against.

I'd say that none of them magically make a human being -- that there simply is no point along the chain of events that magically makes a human being human. — Moliere

I use the word "magically" somewhat sarcastically........but what I mean by that is that...........the other places to use as the starting point for life would make it seem like a baby just popped into existence, whereas with conception you can see how it came about and thus proves itself more valid as an explanation.

Differentiating "hand waving" as an explanation for things from being able to show the causality

And, furthermore, you beg the question here by saying conception is the substantial change that happens where human life begins, even within your metaphysical argument. — Moliere

Ok............I will give that to you. I mostly used that example because I could not think of another good example of substantial change. If I used another example other than the one I was trying to prove, it would tighten up the argument.