Today we begin our 8-week reading of Embryo: A Defense of Human Life by George and Tollefsen. Every Tuesday, a new chapter. Author Christopher Tollefsen will be monitoring the comments and answering questions.
In Chapter One, the authors lay out the blueprint for their argument. After appealing to Embryology’s definition of the human zygote as a new human organism, after arriving at that position through a series of questions philosophically asking the kind of thing the human embryo is, the following central questions are asked:
“But does this mean that the human embryo is a human person worthy of full moral respect? Must the early embryo never be used as mere means for the benefit of others simply because it is a human being? The answer that this book proposes and defends with philosophical arguments through the course of the next several chapters is ‘Yes.'”
The authors distinguish between and define the following:
Embryo Science: Tells us two important things. 1. What they are. 2. When they begin. Human embryos are human beings at a very early developmental stage and come into being at conception.
Embryo Technology: The ability of researchers to do things with or to embryos. The ability to make embryos though IVF or cloning. The ability to experiment on them or preserve them indefinitely in cryopreservation.
Embryo Ethics: Both of the above are incapable of providing moral guidance in how we ought to treat human embryos. Are the manipulations of technology morally right? That is the function of embryo ethics.
A discussion of the fundamentals of IVF and its related technologies, including history ensues and leads seamlessly into a discussion of cloning.
The authors raise two points ofeten overlooked in the Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) debate:
1. The promises of embryo-destructive research are speculative, exaggerated and unrealistic, with the perils being swept under the rug.
2. Alternatives such as Adult Stem Cells (ASC’s) are now being pursued. ASC’s have a proven track record of success. ASC’s do not carry the baggage of ESC’s.
Religion and Reason.
Those who approach the embryo from a scientific and philosophical perspective and conclude that embryo-destructive research is wrong are often accused of irrational religious motive, when nothing further from the truth is at work.
The authors reject the issue of “soul” or appeal to religious authority in their work:
“But our position in this book is that claims based in religious traditions or revelation are simply not necessary (and probably are not even sufficient) to arrive at coorect understandings of embryo science, technology, and ethics.
“That is to say that we can know from science what the embryo is, just as we know from embryo technology what can be done to and with it. But we can know from philosophically informed reasoning what it is morally permissible to do to human embryos, and how it is morally permissible to treat them. Human embryo ethics is, in this regard, no different from the ethics of our treatment of minorities or dependents. Human beings are capable through reason, that it is morally wrong and unjust to discriminate against someone because he is of a different race or has a different ethnic heritage. And we are capable of understanding that it is wrong and unjust to discriminate against someone because of his or her age, size, stage of development, location, or condition of dependency.”
The Course of the Argument
Embryonic human beings deserve full moral respect. To deny this is to deny one of a few claims:
1. Denial that the early human embryo is a human being. More on this in chapter 2.
2. Denial that persons are to be identified with the biological entities that are human beings.
3. Denial that all human beings deserve full moral respect. Must attain some features beyond merely being human.
Your Thoughts??
Coming Home 
Dr. Nadal,
It is very good to pursue and reclaim the dignity of the human person as an embryo from a non-faith based approach. I have long since accepted this reality from the basis of the Incarnation of our Lord. However, this will not help to convince those whose faith is weak or non-existent. It is good to have a well reasoned and philosophical approach to argue for the dignity of the human embryo.
Thank you for bring this to our attention! May God continue to aid you in your work for the pro-life movement.
I read this book back when it came out in early 2008, and I’m excited to read it again. I think the first chapter is very good, as it clearly lays out the framework for the questions that will be addressed throughout the rest of the book. Important distinctions are made, and the analogy of “killing retarded people for their organs” clearly illustrates why most pro-hESCR replies to our arguments do not even address the issue, let alone rebut the objection. This, of course, is the same problem with a good 90% (my estimate) of pro-choice arguments, as Beckwith points out in Defending Life. Good stuff so far.
Hi Mr. Tollefson. I’ve been looking forward to some direct discussion. You’re book is reasonably and rationally presented, although I don’t share your conclusions. You presented a syllogism of four points, and asserted that to deny your conclusions, one must deny at least one of the four points. I’m not sure what #4 is, but I fully agree with #2 and #3 and disagree with #1. All the empirical data cited is beyond question, but it does not support the point. I would look for a complete organism before I recognize a human being.
“I would look for a complete organism before I recognize a human being.”
then you aren’t looking very hard.
Because the complete organism is there at conception.
And it is able to direct it’s own development.
Define “complete”. Perhaps you mean fully developed?
I have a second question for you SJ (although I know you never answer me).
If a baby is born without legs, or missing a lung, is this an incomplete human being? Is this person then, not a human being?
What about baby born without kidneys? Is this baby also not a human being and therefore it is ok to simply place it aside to let it die or use it for spare parts?
What about a person born without genitalia?
What about a person born without eyes?
If you consider these human beings, why?
I’m very interested to hear the answers to your questions, MC. Very good.
SJ, your comment displays a fundamental lack of understanding of what an organism is. Something either is, or is not an organism, there are no levels of completion. An organism is a living system capable of response to stimuli, growth and development, reproduction, and maintenance of homeostasis.
Geek Lady,
SJ and I have been around and around on this one to the point where he flatly denies the teaching in embryology texts that a zygote is a whole and complete organism for that stage of development.
That’s because he is firmly committed to abortion, especially in the case of Down Syndrome babies. He will not allow himself to be persuaded by the facts of science, lest he be regarded by his friends at Alexandria as a leper.
Being rooted firmly in the pro-abort soil, he will not allow the science of Embryology to assuage him of his mistaken concept of what constitutes an organism. Confirmed in his denial, he then accuses me of reading a pro-life agenda into the science.
SJ is an example of the kind of student who has difficulty in the social and biological sciences, who cannot accept empirical data because objective reality doesn’t square with their assumptions.
“SJ is an example of the kind of student who has difficulty in the social and biological sciences, who cannot accept empirical data because objective reality doesn’t square with their assumptions.”
and still no answers to my questions….:(
I can only assume you have none.
Question for Christopher Tollefsen, Gerard Nadal, or others:
In your opinion, is legal personhood for the unborn a good idea? See for example:
http://www.personhoodusa.com/
http://www.personhood.ca/
It seems natural to support this, but I wonder if there are unintended legal consequences that we should worry about.
Thanks in advance.
Hi all,
I am on the road this week, and so haven’t been able to check Gerry’s very helpful discussion as often as I’d like. A couple of quick points.
SJ, I think there are two senses of “complete,” and one is of relevance, and the other not here. Obviously the embryo is developing, and there is a sense in which one could say it is moving towards completion, in the sense that a house is first not complete, and then complete. The embryo does not have certain features that, say, the infant has.
However this is misleading in one way, and one-sided in another. It is misleading in this sense: unlike a car, a house, or any other artifact, which is completed in the sense of finished, there is a way in which the life of an organism is one of constant change and development. When is a human being “complete” in the sense of “finished”? I’m not sure that it ever is, and looking for that point seems like a fruitless task.
It is partial in this sense: the artifact is complete only when it is a whole, and this comes at the end of a process of putting together — when all the parts have been brought together into a unity by the maker, the artifact is complete — a whole.
But an organism is a whole at the point at which *it* and not some external maker is internally unified and responsible for its further development, including the growth and development of its parts. In this sense there is rather obviously a “complete” human being very early — most plausibly I think, at the zygotic stage, and this is testified to by every embryological textbook known to me.
So, by complete do we mean “completed” or do we mean “whole, and executive of its own development and functioning”? We mean the latter. And there is an obvious way — familiar to anyone who looks at the life history of an organism — that something that is complete in this sense can still develop.
Dan, I think a lot of progress can be made by talking simply about human beings — whether we are human beings, when human beings begin to exist, and whether all human beings are owed fundamental moral respect.
But if it is true that all human beings are owed fundamental forms of respect, and that such respect precludes being killed for convenience, science, or medicine, *and* it is a fundamental purpose of the state to protect all human beings within its borders from violations of fundamental respect, then we need some way of designating, legally, those beings that the state needs to protect, and designating them as “persons” seems like a god way to go.
So in the long run, as a matter of law, yes, I think the legal notion of personhood should be extended to the unborn. I think that is a reasonable goal for the pro-life movement; but a reasonable nearer term means to that is to focus on the questions about human beings, because I think the case is very convincing there.
Best,
CT
Hi Dan.
I am a big supporter of personhood, and it seems to me that many of the initial problems with it have been straightened out. For example, back in 2008, Dianne Irving wrote a big criticism of personhood
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_126colorado.html
She is very pro-life, but points out many unintended problems with it that would undermine the cause. Well, Bob Enyart and other personhood people took note of this article, and have profusely thanked her for pointing out their errors, and have made the necessary changes. So that is definitely a step in the right direction, and at this point, I don’t know of any problems with it. God love you.
CT and Bobby: thanks for your responses.
I wasn’t aware of the earlier personhood proposals, but it seems that the current proposals have addressed the problem mentioned by Bobby.
The kind of thing I actually had in mind was more along the lines of what it means to extend “full legal protection” to the unborn. We want the law to recognize and defend natural rights such as the right to not be deliberately harmed. However, “persons” under the law acquire a whole bunch of other rights that do not necessarily make sense for an embryo to have, such as the right to inherit property. Also, would the census have to count embryos? And so on. I also think we have to be careful not to get ourselves into a situation where a woman who has a miscarriage could be questioned for unhealthy behavior, what food she ate, etc. Perhaps all of these things could be adequately addressed, but that might require the rewriting of huge amounts of legislation.
So, the question is whether legal personhood is the best way to achieve the desired goal of recognizing and defending natural rights, or whether some other way is better.
I wonder if there are any legal scholars out there who would be willing to give their opinion on this subject.
SJ,
Sorry, CT = Dr. Tollefsen. best,
CT
“But an organism is a whole at the point at which *it* and not some external maker is internally unified and responsible for its further development, including the growth and development of its parts.”
This is a great definition! Very clear thinking.
“However, “persons” under the law acquire a whole bunch of other rights that do not necessarily make sense for an embryo to have, such as the right to inherit property.”
I see nothing wrong with an embryo being able to inherit property. If the baby dies then the next person in line to inherit would be the one.
Babies were killed all the time to prevent them from inheriting estates etc.
I don’t think you can make a case for charging women who miscarry. For one thing, you have to establish in a court of law, that the behavior was the cause of the death of the baby. This will be very difficult to prove in many cases (if the woman doesn’t eat properly for example, it is HER body that usually suffers). Secondly you have to prove intent – another difficult thing to do.
Sorry to post twice, but I just noticed that CT is in fact Dr. Tollefson. Hope to be back soon.
SJ,
I deleted your comments to Dr. Tollefsen because you misrepresented what I have said. Don’t attempt an inaccurate paraphrase. Dig through the posts and quote me directly. I never said a zygote has organ systems.
You are not going to advance your pro-abort agenda here by the same machinations of lying through distortions that work effectively in other quarters.
You have proven yourself untrustworthy in this regard. From now on, you are required to quote directly from posts or comments I and others here have written, complete with reference to the post title, date, and time of posting. If that’s too much for you, then stick to commenting on what you think. Dr. Tollefsen and I know one another, and the biology that I have stated is the same as written in his book.
I’m out of patience with you and your lies. One more and I’ll ask you to please stay away permanently. There is no virtue in your sojourn here from Alexandria if you are incapable of the fundamental honesty required for civil discourse.
Hi Dr. G
It’s sad that you had to delete SJ’s comment but unfortunately he never answered very pertinent questions re his statements.
This constant posting of comments that border on silly and then the refusal to explain his reasoning (likely because there is no reasonable argument) is distracting and shows a blatant intellectual pigheadness.
Of course, this sort of thinking was and remains necessary in order to entrench abortion in western culture.
The link I sent you Dr. G has an excellent discussion on how the refusal to accept the science of a new person created at the BEGINNING of fertilization cascades down and affects
1. philosophy
2. theology
and eventually
3. morality.
This science has been in existence for many many years.
SJ is a perfect example of how a refusal to accept provable facts has corrupted on a personal level, his philosophy, theology and morality. 😦
Gerard, I asked you once already to specify
a) one sentence which you deem to be a lie or misrepresentation
b) how that sentence should be rewritten to be truthful
c) an explanation of the distinction
I have generally quoted you verbatim when I refer to anything you have said. That’s why I use quotation marks.
If you cannot explain your objections with this specificity, your accusations will have little to no integrity.
P.S. On an unrelated topic, you might actually enjoy this:
http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/arthur-clarkes-god/
Further detail:
https://gerardnadal.com/2010/01/08/abortion-apologetics-its-more-than-cells-and-tissue/
Contains the sentence:
“Organism. This is the whole and complete animal, made up of all the organ systems functioning as a coordinated whole.” The words in quotation marks are a cut and paste.
Now, if you say you do NOT claim that this statement applies to the human zygote, which I infer is what you mean by “I never said a zygote has organ systems,” I’ll take that as a given.
Until an ORGANISM, as you defined it in your primer 2010/01/08 exists, I don’t see a HUMAN BEING present. Therefore, as I already explained once
(2010/03/02/pro-life-academy-embryogenesis)
I deny Dr. Tollefson’s first premise.
You have stated, as far as I know, that a zygote IS a human being. Did I misunderstand that?
Being mindful of the appeal to authority, even so it is interesting that both Peter Singer and David Boonin have no problem with a zygote being a Homo Sapien. But after all, the science is clear cut on this.
But you will find in philosophy in general Human being used in both ways as either a member of the species Homo Sapiens or as another way to say human person.
Gerard could you clarify something to me? It was put to me that not even the Pope thinks a zygote is a person, is that true?
PS for what its worth I’m a progressive strong atheist
SJ regarding your link, the twinning argument is only appealing to a technicality which can be easily corrected
All we have to say that the overwhelming majority of Homo Sapiens begin life at conception, but a small percentage begin life after the conception of the parent individual with a type of asexual cloning reproduction that leads to twinning.
SJ,
This was your very last post here . I have said over and over that the Zygote is a whole and complete organism in form and function for that stage of development. The same for every subsequent stage.
I’m not wasting another moment chasing down your lies, including those of omission and quoting lines out of context.
I’m quite through with your mendacity. Your career of thread derailments here has come to an end.
Good Bye
Simon JM,
The position of the Church is that life begins at conception and that nascent human life enjoys full moral worth, which is personhood by way of operational definition.
As for your atheism, thanks for the context for future discussion.
What we’re doing here is quoting the scientific evidence of the human identity of the organism. From that biological reality, we then make the philosophical and ethical arguments regarding the moral and legal status of human organisms.
From what I’ve read it is pretty well only uninformed lay Pro-Choicers that argue that a human zygote isn’t a Homo Sapeins, though there does seem to be some argument about when a individual human life begins.
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162 seems a good overview.
Dr. Tollefsen regarding completeness or lack of, I’ve been working on my own Systems account of Human Identity and it occurred to me that since like other biological organisms we self assemble we are by definition already complete and ourselves.
It would be great to get the an opportunity to discuss this with you.
“From what I’ve read it is pretty well only uninformed lay Pro-Choicers that argue that a human zygote isn’t a Homo Sapeins”
I think this adequately explains SJ’s position.
“Lay” in this case means woefully ignorant.
Please, take the time to learn and understand the science.
It’s not bogus. Science has understood that a human being/person exists at the beginning of fertilization for almost 125 years. Check out Wilhem His’ Human Embryology.
Any human being can understand this.
Editorial note from censor librorum: Please refrain from opining on people’s potential involvement with abortion in the past. Thanks.
SimonJM,
I think that’s *almost* right — however, I think “develop” is better than “assemble.” Something seems (to me) to be assembled when it is put together out of pre-existing parts (not yet assembled, as many an unfortunate parent realizes on Christmas Eve). But there are no pre-existing parts to the embryo in the sense of discrete units that will subsequently contribute to the working of the whole, since the gametes go out of existence at fertilization.
But since the embryo obviously does not contain certain parts that it will later have, it is clear that it develops, and, I think, biologically evident that it develops itself.
As a general principle it seems correct that for organisms, the whole precedes a number of its parts, viewed from the standpoint of developmental maturity. For an artifact, the parts precede the existence of the whole.
Best,
CT
CT
You are right to an extent.
Look at it this way, like other similar organisms, we could be considered both Self Assembling and Self Developing/Building complex adaptive systems, who in their initial early phase self assemble from the fixed resources at conception, and then self develop when we start to get outside resources from our mother.
Either way it is a complete individual and already itself. In a similar vein, a self assembling car is a self assembling car at all stages of its self assembly.
Furthermore, my basic thesis is if one is to assign a Teleological/Ontological classifier i.e. a personhood capacity –even if this capacity is latent or developmental- it is definitionally as a Self Assembling Self Developing/Building system already itself at all stages of its self assembly and self development, therefore making it a Self Assembling Self Developing/Building Person. One need no wait for the personhood capacity to arise or actuate to justify its ontological classifier.
Tooley’s Actulisation vs Capacity question/problem is a false dilemma.
If this isn’t the case it makes the concepts of self assembly and self development nonsensical, and requires that we fundamentally reclassify all machines with important dual teleological capacities –where one is latent and needs structural reconfiguration- like some amphibious cars.
Again I think this is a novel approach- if not the only correct way to approach this- and would like to discuss this further with you.
PS to clarify I would think technically a self developer only self develops and doesn’t self assemble at the earliest stage of development, it would be configured to go straight to development from outside resources.
Though the term may be flexible enough to accommodate this as well.
On the othre hand one could imagine it could also just be reconfiguring itself, could this be the case with the fertilised egg or is it self-assembling before it get outside resources?
Editorial note from censor librorum: Please refrain from opining on people’s potential involvement with abortion in the past. Thanks.
of course. 🙂
However, it is my experience that people who hold certain views on the status of the unborn child and who unequivocally favor abortion usually have had some prior involvement. I find this to be quite true of men commenting on prolife/Cahtolic blogs. With women it is not necessarily so – often they have experienced deep hurt in their relationships with men and contraception and abortion are seen as means to exert control in a relationship (if they even believe in such things anymore).
CT how to argue with a person who accepts the science, accepts the humanity (that is the unborn child is a human being), but simply believes that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus’ right to live?
Even appeals to compassion – “”this state only exists for 9 months – seems to have little effect.
Usually the person then launches into an argument comparing the embryo to a parasite (something I consider quite disgusting).
I wonder?
I doubt anyone here is going to question the science so my 2cents on bodily autonomy.
It depends on the circumstance, if it is rape then the female is totally innocent and has since overall we don’t allow society to force blood or organ donations against someones will we shouldn’t for rape victims. So I disagree with the Catholic position on this one esp in cases of self defence regarding the rape victims life.
On the other hand you cannot use negative consequences to abrogate responsibility for harming or making dependent those worthy of equal moral consideration.
Simon,
Re: rape. Please take a look at this post.
https://gerardnadal.com/2010/03/11/conceived-in-rape-god-is-my-father/
Gerard when you and all Catholics step up and will donate organs and blood to save the life of strangers whether you want to or not, then fine, but until then you are asking others to do give up their bodily autonomy rights without doing the same.
Put another way you are asking for more rights than these victims. What is good for them should be good for all.
& BTW from your point of view, the strangers that you won’t give organs and blood to save their lives are also the children of God.
You cannot have it both ways.
SimonJM,
Did I miss something here? What does organ and blood donation have to do with what we have been discussing?
Gerard,
I don’t know how familiar you are with the philosophy on the subject Thompson’s Violinist etc but David Boonin -among others- will point out that if you breakdown who and what rights are involved, it will come down to the right to life of a moral entity overriding the bodily autonomy of another moral entity.
Now another moral precept is that moral entities don’t owe -due to bodily autonomy- or have a duty, to override their bodily autonomy, -including donating blood and organs which is the same class of things, like pregnancy, that impinges on bodily autonomy – to strangers or even their own relatives.
This is a supererogatory class of moral actions. It’s great if you decide to give up your bodily autonomy to save a life by donating blood or organs, but your aren’t morally required to do so.
Now you are morally responsible and obliged in general to help or compensate someone who you harmed or made dependent. For a foetus the only compensation for being made dependent is to remain in the womb until another party can look after it.
But a rape victim, -unlike someone who gets pregnant from consensual sex- is not morally responsible for putting another moral being in harm’s way or in state of dependency, so they don’t owe any compensation or responsibility for the foetus.
To ask the rape victim to have the pregnancy is overriding her right of bodily autonomy for another moral being, when she had no culpable responsibility whatsoever.
Now everyone -all things being equal- should have exactly the same rights, but since you aren’t saying you can be forced to give up your bodily autonomy for a stranger or relative to save their life, you cannot ethically ask a rape victim to forego her rights of bodily autonomy.
BTW no you cannot be made pregnant, but you could also in principle have your bodily autonomy overridden and have a organ donated against your will, putting you fundamentally in the same situation you want to force on the rape victim.
PS I was reply to Mary Catherine bodily autonomy post.
Hi SimonJM.
“Gerard when you and all Catholics step up and will donate organs and blood to save the life of strangers whether you want to or not, then fine, but until then you are asking others to do give up their bodily autonomy rights without doing the same.”
The difference in the situation between abortion and being forced to donate an organ is in the mode of the action. In an abortion, you are directly and willfully killing an innocent human being as a means or an end. When I refuse to give up a kidney for donation, I am not the efficient cause of the person who dies, unlike in the abortion case. What kills the person in the kidney analogy is his sickness/disease. What kills the person (fetus) in abortion is abortion itself, the direct action that one takes is killing.
“I don’t know how familiar you are with the philosophy on the subject Thompson’s Violinist etc but David Boonin -among others- will point out that if you breakdown who and what rights are involved, it will come down to the right to life of a moral entity overriding the bodily autonomy of another moral entity.”
Indeed I am familiar with them, and I recommend Frank Beckwith’s excellent book “Defending Life” where he looks at the arguments of Boonin, Thompson, and Eileen McDongue (sp?) and points out the fundamental flaws in their analogies.
Now you mention bodily autonomy and one’s right to bodily ownership. But I’m not sure how one can hold to bodily ownership argument for abortion in the case of rape but not otherwise. For it is often argued that sex does not imply consent to pregnancy, and if you had been taking birth control you had made your wishes clear that you did not want a parasite in you etc etc. And I’ve read your 2:36 am post carefully to try and pull out the distinction, but I still don’t see how having complete and total control over your body means that you can directly and willfully kill an innocent human being if you are NOT responsible for them but that your bodily ownership does NOT allow you to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being if you ARE responsible for them. It seems that in this paradigm responsibility is the greatest good, above a right to life. Why use the idea of responsibility as a framework for my ethic? Wouldn’t it be better to start with the human person? God love you.
I hate to bombard you, Simon, but I just wanted to mention one thought experiment that may better illustrate why I think the kidney analogy in the case of rape is flawed.
Consider the case of a woman Sarah who is raped. Although she finds out that she is not pregnant, based on the kidney-rape analogy she feels that abortion would have been justified in her situation and indeed, she would have had an abortion had she been pregnant. However, 9 months later she delivers a baby. None of the signs of pregnancy were showing (her periods were always extremely sporadic, if they even happened) and she had no idea (this seems to happen frequently, if you believe the Discovery Channel show “I didn’t know I was pregnant!”… so I think this idea is not too far fetched) So here is Sarah who was raped and who had her bodily autonomy being violated for 9 months by this baby, but didn’t know it. Shouldn’t she have the right to punish the child? Send him to prison? For consider the “analogous” kidney situation.
Suppose Greg sedates Sarah so that she falls asleep, unconscious at exactly the time she would normally fall asleep. Then Greg, ever the skilled surgeon, is able to remove her kidney with the smallest of incisions and Sarah is none the wiser. Sarah wakes up and doesn’t find out. Meanwhile, Greg “donates” the kidney to Alex who desperately needs it for survival. After it has been donated, Sarah finds out that her bodily autonomy is violated and Greg is caught. Wouldn’t Greg go to jail? Shouldn’t he be punished? Of course! So why shouldn’t the child, who violates the mother’s autonomy, also be punished?
This brings up another problem. IN the Greg, Alex, Sarah situation, anyone who is looking at it from the outside would objectively say that Sarah’s bodily autonomy was violated. In a court of law, Greg would be found guilty. But, without knowing Sarah’s subjective feelings in the first rape scenario, was what the baby did okay? In other words, without knowing HOW Sarah would have FELT about being pregnant, did the baby violate Sarah’s bodily autonomy? It’s COMPLETELY subjective to Sarah’s feelings! When my mother was pregnant with me, was that good or bad? Who knows! In the framework of this bodily ownership, there is no OBJECTIVITY to pregnancy. It’s neither a good nor a bad- it’s reality is subjective, totally dependent on the feelings of the woman. This, I believe, is an absurdity because pregnancy is such a fundamental, natural part of our being. It isn’t like ice cream where you can do without it. Our species’ need for survival is fundamentally based on pregnancy, and thus it should be viewed as a prima facie good, rather than subjective to the feelings of the individual.
Okay, hope that makes some sense. Talk to you later, Simon.
Dear SimonJM,
I too do not wish to jump on your argument regarding required organ/blood donation of those who would also require a rape/incest victim to give birth. However, you are in essence equating a human life with human organs and blood. They, of course cannot be equated.
On the surface it would seem a great injustice to require the victim of rape/incest to give birth to the child she did not choose to bring into this world. Your outrage (if I may use so strong a word) is I think misdirected. Perhaps you should hold those of us who wish to preserve human life to a greater moral standard rather than requiring organ/blood donations. That of support of these victims (emotionally, spiritually and financially) to the extent that they can choose life rather than death.
Bobby,
I just want to comment on a couple of things you said.
“The difference in the situation between abortion and being forced to donate an organ is in the mode of the action. In an abortion, you are directly and willfully killing an innocent human being as a means or an end. When I refuse to give up a kidney for donation, I am not the efficient cause of the person who dies, unlike in the abortion case. What kills the person in the kidney analogy is his sickness/disease. What kills the person (fetus) in abortion is abortion itself, the direct action that one takes is killing.”
I agree. Direct and willful killing makes abortion wrong, even in cases of rape or otherwise impaired consent. However, if the embryo or fetus could be “unplugged” & removed without direct and willfull killing, the situation would become analogous to Thompson’s violinist example.
Something analogous often happens in practice in cases of rape, when hormonal “contraceptives” are administered immediately after the rape; these can act in a number of ways, one of which is to prevent the implantation of any embryo that forms. In that case, the embryo is prevented from “plugging” itself in in the first place.
Although it would be a great kindness for a woman in this situation to allow the embryo to implant, I suggest that society should not obligate her to do so.
“For it is often argued that sex does not imply consent to pregnancy”
I assume you mean “consenual” sex. For this argument to work, one would have to deny that pregnancy is a natural outcome of sex. Many people do in fact deny this, but I think they are wrong. No contraceptive completely breaks the connection between sex and procreation. The fact that the argument is being made at all is proof enough of that!
Therefore, when pregnancy arises from consenual sex, the obligation of both parents extends well beyond the obligation to avoid direct and willful killing. They have an obligation to nurture their child(ren) from the moment of fertilization onward.
“Consider the case of a woman Sarah who is raped… Shouldn’t she have the right to punish the child? Send him to prison?”
Well, no. The person who is analogous to the evil surgeon Greg in your kidney example would be the rapist, not the child. And, yes, the rapist should be punished.
Hi Dan. Thanks for the replies.
“However, if the embryo or fetus could be “unplugged” & removed without direct and willfull killing, the situation would become analogous to Thompson’s violinist example.”
Yes indeed, I agree.
“Although it would be a great kindness for a woman in this situation to allow the embryo to implant, I suggest that society should not obligate her to do so.”
Now I DO agree that in the cases of rape, a woman may take a contraceptive which would prevent a zygote from forming. But if she takes a contraceptive which thinks the uterine wall lining allowing a blastocyst to fail to implant (and this is her INTENT), then I do have a problem with this because the drugs she took no longer prevented conception, but killed the already formed embryo, a human being. Now I don’t know a whole lot about the medicine, but it is my understanding that the jury is far from out on the abortifacient effect of Plan B, so it seems to me that that might be okay, especially because some numbers suggest that it would “use” the thinning-mechanism so rarely that I think one could make an argument using the principle of double effect.
Also, I agree with what you say about pregnancy being a natural outcome of sex, but I do often find any argument (with pro-choicers) along those lines fruitless, and try and make whether or not sex and pregnancy are linked a moot point.
“Well, no. The person who is analogous to the evil surgeon Greg in your kidney example would be the rapist, not the child. And, yes, the rapist should be punished.”
In the most natural sense, yes, Greg mirrors the rapist. However, the woman’s bodily integrity is being violated when she is pregnant as a result rape, correct? (according to the view I was arguing against) The question is then WHO is violating her bodily autonomy? The fetus violates the bodily autonomy of the woman when she does not wish to be pregnant. BOTH the fetus AND the rapist violate the bodily autonomy, and hence, I argue that if if this bodily autonomy argument is sound, BOTH should be punished.
So what I want to be gotten out of the analogy is two situations where someone’s bodily autonomy is violated without their knowing. In the first scenario, her bodily autonomy is violated once, while in the second it is violated twice, but I don’t think that should affect the analogy at all.
Nice talking with you, Dan. God love you.
Hi Bobby
“The difference in the situation between abortion and being forced to donate an organ is in the mode of the action. In an abortion, you are directly and willfully killing an innocent human being as a means or an end. When I refuse to give up a kidney for donation, I am not the efficient cause of the person who dies,……”
First we must admit that pregnancy and the issues it presents have a uniqueness that often entails thought experiments and the examination of the underlying principles to pry apart the ethical issues. Now we could argue over Double Effect or Christine Overall’s work, but for the sake of argument, yes you kill a innocent human being. But to my mind in principle –Thompson’s Violinist- and even in practicality with autonomy overall –we could dump a new born on anyone and say you must care for it or it will die- the underlying principle remains, that unless we are going to allow our own autonomy –bodily or otherwise- to be overridden for the sake of another life, you cannot ask it of a rape victim or anyone else for that matter.
“Indeed I am familiar with them, and I recommend Frank Beckwith’s excellent book “Defending Life” where he looks at the arguments of Boonin, Thompson, and Eileen McDongue (sp?) and points out the fundamental flaws in their analogies. “
I’ve read some of Frank’s worth and I’m greatly I’m impressed with some of it; I’ve also corresponded with David Boonin and argued -& to my mind countered- most of his arguments. Having said that there is much to David’ work that is still valid. There is a debate online that would be worth going over.
“Now you mention bodily autonomy and one’s right to bodily ownership. But I’m not sure how one can hold to bodily ownership argument for abortion in the case of rape but not otherwise. For it is often argued that sex does not imply consent to pregnancy, and if you had been taking birth control you had made your wishes clear that you did not want a parasite in you etc etc. “
That argument is blatantly flawed and easily countered, after all when we speed we had no intent to crash and cause the death of innocent bystanders- even if one engaged in various precautions to avoid involving anyone else- yet we are still held accountable .(BTW I can easily counter the food poisoning counter)
“And I’ve read your 2:36 am post carefully to try and pull out the distinction, but I still don’t see how having complete and total control over your body means that you can directly and willfully kill an innocent human being if you are NOT responsible for them,but that your bodily ownership does NOT allow you to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being if you ARE responsible for them.”
A basic moral precept is that a moral agent cannot willfully harm or put another moral being in a state of dependency directly, or knowingly partake in any action that is reasonably casually related, without punishment and or compensation to the affected party.
For the woman who consented to sex she is willfully causally connected to the dependency of another moral being –I know others will claim it isn’t but that’s another argument- since the only compensation is continued use of her body.
For a rape victim the only party that is morally responsible for the dependency of the foetus is the male. It is exactly the same principle in the Thompson Violinist analogy, she is a innocent party. Therefore her bodily autonomy holds and I repeat unless the whole community allows its autonomy -bodily or otherwise- to be overridden you cannot ask her to do it.
“It seems that in this paradigm responsibility is the greatest good, above a right to life.”
Moral responsibility and the right of autonomy are very basic moral precepts and the thing is, you also hold this view.
Otherwise if as you argue the right to life trumps the right of autonomy, then the consequences that would flow would be I could force you to look after this orphan whether you want to or not, or take a organ and say even if you didn’t cause the disease –just like the rape victim didn’t cause the dependency of the foetus- the fact of the matter is unless you give your organ this child of God will die, and since life trumps autonomy it must be so.
(Also I’ll invoke Double Effect and Overall’s work if we want to maintain one cannot directly take an innocent life )
Why use the idea of responsibility as a framework for my ethic? Wouldn’t it be better to start with the human person?
The above deals with that.
I’m closing the comments on this thread and asking that we move the party over to the thread for chapter two.
That keeps it all streamlined.
See you over there!!