Not counting the comments in this old thread over the last two days, I have written exactly zero on the subject of reproductive rights. In my life. Guess I just figured other people had it covered. What a spineless coward I’ve been. Time to get out there and knock some heads! As I’m an RR noob, please forgive me if I come out swinging on an argument that has only been definitively kiboshed about a zillion times, namely the whole “life begins at conception” thing.
I won’t rehash what’s gone on so far in the thread, but suffice it to say that my right hand has been busy, and thus All Your Uteri Are Belong To Us (“us” being me and my gametes).
In one corner: me and Antigone (who kindly reminded me as to the difference between a gamete and a zygote).
In the other corner: Neil, a biblical literalist who in the last week has not only blogged a response to Lisa’s nearly year-old post, but also noted how gay pride parades are God-mockery and helpfully pointed out that Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett just might now be in hell (pretty classy, Neil!); and Theobromophile, a regular at Neil’s site. Neil’s blog seems to get decent traffic, so we may get some other new visitors too, but what the heck, I’m in the mood to add a few more kleenex to the pile.
The fight: Can the “rights” of a single-celled organism trump the “rights” of a woman? (I’d like to point out the first set of scare quotes are mine, and the second set Neil’s.)
Taking off from the last current comment on Lisa’s thread, by Theobromophile:
The scientific fact is that gametes are not human beings the way that zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos are. There is no right to life of a gamete, no more than your dandruff has a right to life.
However, conception changes all of that. From the moment of fertilisation, the egg changes; it develops a hard outer shell to keep out other sperm; DNA from the parents’ gametes mixes; and cell division begins. (Scientists can examine two-celled blastocysts and determine where the head will be.) The result is a complete human being at the earliest stage of life.
There is a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty required to pretend that foetuses (or embryos) are not living human beings. While I fully understand why most anti-lifers do not acknowledge this point – as to do so would be to admit that some humans in our society have a right to life, but the smallest, most vulnerable, and unwanted ones do not – it is, nevertheless, antagonistic towards basic biology.
Theo, considering you would apparently gladly risk the life of a real woman with a lifetime of experiences just as deep as your own for the sake of a non-sentient single celled organism that happens to have a hard outer shell, you really oughtta reconsider who you want to call “anti-life” here.
Wanna argue with me about about late term abortions, sure, we’ll still disagree, but at least I’ll feel like we might be able to have something approaching a rational conversation. Arguing in favor of a single cell is pure kookiness. Now you can claim “INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY!111!!” all you want, but you’re not actually demonstrating exactly how I am supposedly being so. Let me instead show you your own.
You and Neil and others like you make the argument that because the scientific establishment classifies a certain parisitic single-celled organism as “human”, this somehow also proves, scientifically, your faith-based ethical belief that this non-sentient microscopic life form is morally equal to (or perhaps higher than) the life of the host human off of whom it is currently leeching. What we have here is a (yes) human single cell which has precisely as much awareness as a monkey zygote or a cat zygote or a mouse zygote or a gamete or an amoeba or a rice krispy. Your position seems to be that since a human zygote has a chance of growing into a self-aware homo sapiens at some much later date, it has already got some magic quality which makes its worth equal (or better) than the life of an adult woman who has it. But… why? Unfortunately, you guys are missing any kind of middle steps in your intended chain of logic.
This is intellectual dishonesty. Though I’ll give y’all the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re being just as intellectual dishonest with yourself as you are with me. I really can’t understand why anyone would hold your point of view, except with the theory that you are only getting so hot and bothered over this issue because believing this confers on you moral superiority and thus the right to control other people. Like, women.
Speaking of hot and bothered, here’s a challenge to Neil, Theobromophile, and to any other pro-zygote anti-woman’s “rights” lurkers out there. (Remember, that’s Neil’s scare quotes, not mine.)
Let me pose you a simple question. A variation on one I’ve read somewhere before, wish I could remember where. Anyway, please answer directly, as it may clarify a lot for all of us.
First, imagine that you are a heroic firefighter. (Who knows, maybe you really are one.)
You’re passing by a fertility clinic when you notice it’s burning down. Being the brave and plucky embryonic-rights crusader you are, you leap into the fray to save as many frozen embryos as you can. You’re just lumbering out of a burning lab, loaded down with a refrigerator full of potentially hundreds of frozen blastocysts, when you suddenly notice a child whimpering in the corner, trapped behind a fallen timber which you are sure that you, with your rock hard pecs, can easily move.
Now, you might be able to leave and then come back for which/whoever you left behind; but the fire’s raging pretty badly. You also might not. Do you…
(1) …drop the refrigerator to save the child, and take the chance that the blaze might destroy the hundreds of frozen blastocysts before you can return?
(2) …keep on going with the refrigerator, and take the chance that the fire might kill or maim the child before you can return?
Follow-up questions:
If you chose the child, why did you do so?
If you chose the refrigerator, does your answer change if you know that the refrigerator has only ten frozen blastocysts? Only one?
And finally, if you refuse to give a straight answer either way, what does this say about the strength of your convictions?
Oh, and so Neil can’t complain about everyone else dodging the dilemma posed in the blog post, I’ll answer it, despite it not being aimed at me.
I drop the fridge and save the living, breathing, sentient being in front of me who can feel fear and pain and gratitude. Not a single moment of doubt or indecision there, no ambiguity in the slightest.
But then, I’m “pro-death”, as they keep trying to call those of us who think people should be able to control their own bodies, so my answer is no big shock.
The original post does not warrant a direct answer any more than does the query, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Questions with flawed premises are not required to be taken seriously.
The pro-death / pro-selfishness culture makes the refrigerator dilemma different every day. After all, even if someone rescued the embryos they’d have to wonder if they’d get killed for experiments anyway. Imagine the dilemma in early 1940′s Germany: Do you save one gentile or two Jews, knowing that the Jews would be captured after you leave the building?
The most obvious flaw was addressed above (or at my place): We have associations and preferences with people or stages of people that don’t correspond to the value of the people in question.
Re. sperm: It is hard to believe you go that path. Yes, putting “human” in front of something doesn’t make it “sacred” (your religious terms, not mine) — i.e., human fingernail.
But human zygote, human embryo, human toddler, etc. contain very specific, consistent and logical uses of the adjective. They are completely in sync with the scientific reality that a distinct human being has been created. Gamesmanship with the word zygote tips your hand, especially when your “parasite” argument demontrates that you aren’t just in a quandry over the morning after pill.
Or am I mistaken? Do you switch gears with the parasite argument at later point in the pregnancy? After all, as transparently lame as it is (two humans don’t create a non-human parasite that later becomes a human), when do you propose that abortions be illegal, if ever? Please answer this with a yes/no: If a baby has been delivered but the umbilical cord has not been cut (i.e., that awful, awful parasite of unknown origin is still greedily sucking nutrients from the defenseless mother), is it OK to kill the baby? If you revert to the flawed sentience reasoning, perhaps you should give up the parasite argument as well.
I realize this is an odd scenario for a pro-legalized abortionist, but if you produced a child and let her live and she was in the room, would you save her or another person? How about her vs. 2 people? Her vs. 10 people? I must say I’d save my daughter every time. Not a single moment of doubt or indecision there, no ambiguity in the slightest. Is that a moral flaw on my part? Perhaps. But does it say anything about the worth of the 10 people? Of course not.
Your sentience requirement is just another item from the philosophical grab bag of reasons to rationalize the destruction of the unborn. Reminds of a guy at my blog who kept trotting out the “they can’t feel pain, so it’s OK” argument until I pointed out that it would also rationalize killing people outside the womb painlessly as well as require him to favor anesthesia for later term abortion victims (and you know the pro-legaized abortion lobby hates that). Instead of re-thinking his pro-legalized abortion views he also jumped to the “awareness” bit. I see that Shiyiya would be OK with gassing a toddler in her sleep. After all, she wouldn’t feel fear or pain.
Still waiting on answers to my questions about Planned Parenthood. Anyone? Anyone? What scientific discoveries did they learn to make them realize that abortions do not kill the life of a baby after it began? Was it the 4-D ultrasounds? No, that goes the other direction, as do all the other scientific advances that have been made regarding how life begins. Could it be that they discovered how profitable it was to sucker women into thinking that killing their unborn children was evidence of their equality with men?
You beg the question and forget about the body of the unborn human being. Virtually all pro-legalized abortion arguments commit this fallacy.
So you really don’t see how things would be different today in these two scenarios?
1. Your mom pricked her finger and lost a drop of blood.
2. Your mom had you destroyed when you were a zygote.
On the firefighter’s dilemma, you are not arguing in good faith. Fine, make me fisk you, here we go then.
Spell it out for me. What is the flawed premise here?
This is arguing in bad faith, with a further attempt to appeal to emotion by bringing in a gratuitous Nazi metaphor. I stated clearly already that, for the purpose of making the morals at play as undiluted as possible, the firefighter knows that the blastocysts will be implanted in willing host mothers if s/he chooses to save them.
So you do see a moral flaw on your part there? Okay then, I’ll just reprint what I already wrote: “As you surely know, the point of the exercise is to pinpoint what choice you think is morally correct, not the choice you might make as a weak fallible human in the heat of the moment but regret in retrospect.”
Perhaps you didn’t digest the words properly when you read them before. I’m asking, what’s the most moral choice? That’s all. Simple. And by the way, it’s perfectly valid to say “the two choices are morally equivalent”, as well, if that’s how you feel. I think it’s interesting that, even after all this time, you resort to an analogy involving your daughter rather than just answering the question.
Once again, please answer the question. Without making up your own rules about the scenario, like that the embryos would just become lab experiments anyway. Unless there truly is a flawed premise here, in which case tell me what it is. Spell it out for me step by step like I’m a moron. Because I just don’t see it.
Okay, Neil, so here you state that you disagree with my sentience premise. Fair enough. Nowhere do I actually see any explanation from you as to why it’s the wrong approach. Neil, please highlight the portion of that text where you actually explain why my “flawed sentience reasoning” is flawed. Forgive me, but I missed that part. Once again, break it down for me. Use bullet points if you have to. Show me a single chain of logic, rather than a series of unrelated arguments that I’m not even addressing.
If it was a zygote when it got destroyed, it wasn’t “Quin”. It was just “the zygote that might have become Quin (or any number of other people, all sharing the same genetic characteristics but different environmental influences)”. But as long as it was only a zygote, it was only a zygote! “I” wouldn’t care, because “I” wouldn’t be capable of caring. “I” would never have existed.
Do you understand why this thought really, truly doesn’t bother me? Can you understand why?
I beg your pardon, but where are you getting that I support gassing toddlers? From saying that a child is *able* to feel fear and pain and gratitude, and blastocysts are neither sentient or self aware? How does this lead to murder of actual people? Zygotes are not people. They are collections of cells with the potential to one day grow into people. Yes, it’s a human zygote. No, this isn’t make it any more an independent being.
Also, seriously, Godwin’s Law much. That was totally unnecessary.
Oh, and will one of you prolifers (see? I’m courteous enough to use the term you like. You could have the common decency to do the same for us, or I could give up and call you forced birth advocates, k?) answer as to what you think will happen to all of those unwanted children that you’re going to force women to bear? You really think that it’s morally better for a child to go through life unwanted and resented, or with parents who cannot actually afford to have a child, or aren’t mature enough to take care of one? You really think it would be better for a child to go through their life resented and unwanted than for it to be terminated before being born into a life that no-one should have? Think of the goddamned children, you pricks.
theobromophile:
You have repeatedly used your status as a scientist to back up your claims in this rights debate. I am also a female scientist, but I’m a physicist (and pro-choice, as it happens), and I myself am not qualified to comment on the scientific accuracy of your comments or others regarding the validity of claims made about human reproduction. Unless your specialty overlaps the area of the claims being made (such as obstetrics, gynecology, and human reproduction), you are also not qualified to use your scientific credentials to back up your claims. In addition, I would like to point out that science has nothing at all to say about the rights of human beings at all. I have copied and pasted examples that I feel are intellectually dishonest attempts to use your scientific credentials to back up your claims.
——————-
theobromophile Jul 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
“No dishonesty here; just scientific illiteracy on the part of the Womyn’s Studies majors.”
theobromophile Jul 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“Not for long. Amanda, be honest about science. Sperm aren’t humans; zygotes and embryos and foetuses are.”
“The scientific fact is that gametes are not human beings the way that zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos are. There is no right to life of a gamete, no more than your dandruff has a right to life.” (attributed to theobromophile)
theobromophile Jul 1st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“Intellectually honest and intelligent. Sorry, MH. (Also a woman, and a scientist, both of which piss off anti-lifers.)”
O.o. I see a scienc-y challenge here. Lesse what I can do to clear things up. What does this theobromophile person, whose name I already noted as a rather odd sort of biological declaration (at least the “bromophile” part; not sure how the “theo” part fits into that).
Nice! Let’s take them one at a time:
1.I’m not a Womyn’s Studies major and I am scientifically literate. I will provide my educational and professional credentials on demand, if anyone wants ‘em.
2. What archaeobacteria might be trying to say here is that typical human sperm cells, unlike typical human zygotic, embryotic or fetal cells, are haploid, containing only one set of 23 chromosomes. Typical human zygotic etc. cells are diploid, and have 46 chromosomes. Now, the number of chromosomes that anything living might possess is not really a good or reliable way to decide what is human and what is not. Chris Burke, a well-known actor on the TV series Life Goes On, had 47 chromosomes in at least a decent proportion of every cell in his body. Does that make him not human? I am surprised that extremophile doesn’t clarify her point here–perhaps she will now?
3. Again, with the gamete remark, I think theowhatever is trying to talk chromosome numbers. In terms of number of chromosomes to be found within it, a dandruff cell is more similar to a zygote than a spermatozoa; however, from a perspective of whether or not something is living or dead, a spermatozoa is a lot more similar to a zygote than a dandruff cell is, because dandruff cells are unquestionably dead. So again, maybe halophile will be a little more specific on the comparison’s she’s trying to make? (or maybe not…)
4. Hey, I’m intellectually honest and intelligent AND a woman AND a scientist–well, at least I’ve functioned in the role of scientist off and on for the past ten years (other times, I am more of an engineer). Darn being so honest.
Anyway, does that piss all you anti-lifers off? If so I will totally stalk off in a huff, just lemme know.
I did. Just re-read my last comment and my previous comments.
Re. sentience — many people don’t have sentience that we don’t get to kill.
To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious you must have the following (abortion fails on both counts):
1. You need to demonstrate that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious
2. That there is little or no hope of recovery.
(Hat tip to Theobromophile for that).
Right. Because you would have been destroyed.
Spare me the faux outrage. You know I don’t think you support gassing toddlers. I’m just pointing out the logical conclusion of your pro-legalized abortion views.
Good, then just have a “potential” abortion. Seriously, the human zygote is a human being. Independence isn’t required to have a right to life outside the womb, and it isn’t inside, either. Once again your argument proves too much.
I am under no moral obligation to follow Godkin’s law. How ironic that you consider that a greater offense than abortion.
Heh. Classy argument. Please re-read it and note how all those justifications could be used to kill toddlers as well. Have you ever noticed that people can get poorer after they have kids? Bad things happen. Can they kill the children then? Of course not. So the only question is, “What is the unborn?” If they aren’t human beings, have all the abortions you like. If they are human beings, they have a right to life.
BTW, I am thinking of the children. I think you shouldn’t crush their skulls and rip off their limbs without anesthetic.
I also think of the children outside the womb. I pay all my taxes and donate lots of time and money to help the poor.
And be sure to read Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born? where I dismantle that canard.
Re. the children I’m “forcing” women to bear — Really? Cause I don’t remember getting them pregnant. I realize that argument has a lot of emotional play with pro-legalized abortionists (“Ooooh . . . FORCED!”) but I see right through it.
This is getting repetitive and these answers don’t seem to be penetrating, so I’ll take my leave. Thanks for the space. I know that pro-legalized abortionists aren’t easily swayed but I am always thrilled when middle grounders can see pro-legalized abortion annihilated. When you bring out the parasite arguments, for example, it is time to just let you all write and write while the middle grounders realize how freaky and repulsive your views are.
Do feel free to drop back to the post at my place and answer these for me: Still waiting on answers to my questions about Planned Parenthood. Anyone? Anyone? What scientific discoveries did they learn to make them realize that abortions do not kill the life of a baby after it began? Was it the 4-D ultrasounds? No, that goes the other direction, as do all the other scientific advances that have been made regarding how life begins. Could it be that they discovered how profitable it was to sucker women into thinking that killing their unborn children was evidence of their equality with men?
And bonus points if you come answer this one:
But human zygote, human embryo, human toddler, etc. contain very specific, consistent and logical uses of the adjective. They are completely in sync with the scientific reality that a distinct human being has been created. Gamesmanship with the word zygote tips your hand, especially when your “parasite” argument demontrates that you aren’t just in a quandry over the morning after pill.
Or am I mistaken? Do you switch gears with the parasite argument at later point in the pregnancy? After all, as transparently lame as it is (two humans don’t create a non-human parasite that later becomes a human), when do you propose that abortions be illegal, if ever? Please answer this with a yes/no: If a baby has been delivered but the umbilical cord has not been cut (i.e., that awful, awful parasite of unknown origin is still greedily sucking nutrients from the defenseless mother), is it OK to kill the baby?
All the best,
Neil
Just saw Lisa’s comment — if people really care about science they’ll go to the embyrology textbooks. They are spectacularly clear. Here’s a good starting point: http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony
Pro-legalized abortion reasoning isn’t about science, it is about [bad] philosophy.
Um, Neil? That link is not an embryology textbook. Just fyi.
oh, I’m sorry, I have this tendency to take words at face value, so when someone tells me that they think I’d be okay with gassing toddlers, I’m going to actually believe them. Sorry is this is a horrible character flaw.
I don’t ‘consider Godwin’s Law a greater offense than abortion’, if you actually looked it up you’d see that it’s not a law that you follow.
From Wikipedia: “Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is a humorous observation coined by Mike Godwin in 1990, and which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”"
(incidentally, how do you do the quoted text thing? [quote] tags?)
Anyway, the point I was making was that the gratuitous Nazi reference was unnecessary and did nothing to help your argument.
No, those are not a justification to kill toddlers as well. I would repeat what I’ve said about sentient beings with feelings and such, but as you two didn’t care the first two times I’m not going to bother.
There is a difference between murdering a child and preventing one from ever being born. I don’t think you really get that.
And I will ask again, since people keep ignoring my questions (you keep bitching about us ignoring yours, but you never answer ours that we asked first!).
Are you still against abortion if the mother was raped? If it was incest? Sexual abuse? If she’s too young for her body to bear a child properly, or to care for one? If carrying the child longer, or bringing it into the world, will kill its mother? If they child will be brain-dead, or have a quality of life a decent person wouldn’t wish on their worst enemy?
Shiyiya, you just write “< blockquote > (text you want in a block) < / blockquote >“, but without the spaces.
In fairness to Neil, I’m not a big fan of Godwin’s Law– sometimes Nazis really are a meaningful analogy. But it’s so overplayed, it takes a special hand to use that brush with any worthwhile precision.
Neil, once again, I will not rise to the bait of answering questions that don’t actually relate to the point of my post (such as the whole “parasite” issue, which is really irrelevant to the issue of whether a zygote of any species should be valued equally with a human being), especially not until you’ve actually done me the courtesy of answering this post’s central question first.
Now, you argue that there’s no point in answering because my question has a flawed premise. When I asked you nicely spell out exactly why, all you did was say “Read what I already wrote.” Well, I did. The only direct argument I could see from you was this:
This comparison fails. “Have you stopped beating your wife?”, assuming that the person being asked has never beaten their wife before, has a flawed premise, sure– the question is framed in such a way that it assumes something that is not true to be true.
In the firefighter’s dilemma, on the other hand, there is no such untruth underlying the situation. Or as MH so concisely put it, “Saying it doesn’t make it so.”
Interesting how your arguments turn to what is or isn’t legal when you believe it supports your position. We’re arguing moral philosophy, not the law– or would you like me to just say “because abortion is legal, you should just shut up about it”? Because that would be a really easy way to end this conversation.
I am happy to have given you the space. From my perspective, you have exposed your own weaknesses quite a bit more, Neil, considering you never actually answered my questions directly. There was a reason why I ended my post with “…if you refuse to give a straight answer either way, what does this say about the strength of your convictions?”
Because I knew how you’d probably just weasel out at the end.
By the way, if there are any people in the “middle” here, I’d be very interested in hearing if you thought any of these arguments, on either side, are helping to make up your mind in one direction or the other.
Your intellectual laziness and dishonesty is astounding. First you posit that all suffragettes were anti-choice, then you backpedal and say that perhaps not all of them were but Susan B. Anthony totally was and why can’t you uppity feminists just face the facts and admit the truth about your predecessors and heroines. Well, maybe that’s because we value the evolution of thought. No hero or heroine of any important political or social movement is infallible. Anthony was an important figure in the progression towards women’s suffrage, which was important in fueling subsequent waves of feminism. But we don’t simply stop and read Anthony and other suffragettes as the last word in women’s rights. If we did, everything would be rosy once upper class white women felt satisfied with their privilege. Simply holding up Anthony as proof that our feminist mothers disagree with abortion is irresponsible in the same way that holding up Thomas Jefferson’s rationalized vision of compassionate slaveholding as a very enlightened compromise and worthy of contemporary emulation. I can value both of their contributions to thought while moving beyond the transitional nature of some specific comments.
The reason I bring this up is because you’ve not only invaded a feminist space with the classic “let me tell you what you feminists REALLY think” syndrome, but you’ve also chosen to use “science” as a smokescreen to avoid discussing another completely valid and important aspect of reproductive choice—bodily autonomy. Simply asking why we don’t value embryos does not answer the problematic question of who is allowed to make decisions about a woman’s body. The reason many people use viability and/or sentience as a benchmark ties directly into this question of autonomy. If you had, indeed, studied anything about feminist theory instead of assuming you know all about it from reading Susan B. Anthony, you might have encountered the hundreds of years that women were NOT in charge of their own bodies, especially in pregnancy (where, in a patriarchal society, women are little more than vessels for the continuation of proper male bloodlines). We can discuss the “science” of reproductive health once you’ve taken time to actually learn why there’s so much more than mere science that colors the pro-choice position.
The issue of a person on life support has been discussed in comments. If we can defend the right of a close family member/power of attorney holder to consult with a doctor and make the medical and moral decision to take a brain-dead loved one off of life support, why are we loath to let a woman make the same decision about carrying a pregnancy to term? This is where the moral panic argument comes in, the one where none of the pro-lifers want to admit that they don’t actually trust women to make medically and/or morally sound decisions.
“By the way, if there are any people in the “middle” here, I’d be very interested in hearing if you thought any of these arguments, on either side, are helping to make up your mind in one direction or the other.”
I’m not in the middle, I am decidedly pro-choice. In the past I have focused on the development-of-awareness argument and found the fetus-as-parasite argument a bit abhorrent. I have been slowly coming around to more sympathy for that one, and this thread overall has solidified that for me somewhat. I find it to be a less morally clear argument than the developmental one though.
Interesting. Where does the “right to choose what to do with one’s own body” argument lie for you?
The utilitarian in me feels like one has to consider the developing life form even though it is dependent on someone’s body for survival, that as it develops the moral risk of abortion increases.
My moral compass has been moving toward inherent rights and away from the maximum amount of good for the greatest number of people, so the position that a woman should be able to terminate at any time for any reason makes more sense to me than it used to. I am still not certain that the development of the fetus has no bearing on the morality of abortion.