Those “cells” are human beings regardless of whether they have certain cognitive functions or not. That’s a scientific fact. Now, if you want to argue human embryos aren’t “persons” (a philosophical term) because they lack some cognitive functions, that’s fine and dandy but arguing they aren’t human beings because they don’t have certain cognitive functions shows a lack of basic knowledge regarding biology.

I’m pretty sure you’re playing at semantics, but even then I think you’re wrong. You’re defining cells with human DNA as being fully human. If I lost my hand in an accident, would it be a human being? How is that any different from a clump of undifferentiated cells? How is it different from a fetus that lacks a spine? A nervous system? Working internal organs? Is sperm a human being? An egg? Where does the designation “human being” come from, at what point does something qualify and at what point does it cease to qualify? These aren’t questions of science, all science can do is confirm the species of a given bit of genetic material.

From someone who claims the unborn aren’t human beings until they are born – you shouldn’t really be talking about magic since it appears you think a 9 inch journey down the birth canal magically changes a non-human into a human. Presto chango!

Interesting how you dodged the question and went straight for a personal attack.

Anyway, that journey through the birth canal doesn’t change someone from a non-person to a person. It ends the use of the woman’s body. If someone was trying to kill you you would be perfectly within your right to shoot them, but if they suddenly dropped their weapon and began to run away you couldn’t shoot them in the back. See, when a fetus is in the womb, it is using he body of the mother. If the mother doesn’t want that, she can stop that use by any means necessary. Once a fetus is out of the womb, it isn’t using the mother’s body. Thats pretty much what I’ve been arguing all along. It really isn’t that complicated, and your persistent misunderstanding is starting to look disingenuous.

Oh, and I answered your question in post #65.

Still, this has gotten kind of irrelevant. Here we are, two men on a feminist board arguing about abortion after all the regulars have left. Right, wrong, or in between, I’m bored. Later.

Is it that you believe there is some magical force haunting those cells, something that makes them special and precious, something that elevates them above animals and makes them human? If that is your belief, why? More importantly, why should that completely subjective and unprovable notion be enshrined into the law?

Those “cells” are human beings regardless of whether they have certain cognitive functions or not. That’s a scientific fact. Now, if you want to argue human embryos aren’t “persons” (a philosophical term) because they lack some cognitive functions, that’s fine and dandy but arguing they aren’t human beings because they don’t have certain cognitive functions shows a lack of basic knowledge regarding biology.

From someone who claims the unborn aren’t human beings until they are born – you shouldn’t really be talking about magic since it appears you think a 9 inch journey down the birth canal magically changes a non-human into a human. Presto chango!

Infants, people in comas, and those under anesthesia don’t have self-awareness, (the criteria you used above), so which “magical properties” make them “human?”

Did I miss it or have you not answered what I wrote/asked in this comment above?

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree there.

Yeah. Agreed.

I’ve stated at least

three times in this discussion that I am supporting a liberal abortion policy (aka “legal and available”, to use your words) but that I, while supporting it, do believe that the moral implications have to be given appropriate consideration in the debate.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree there. My only interest in this discussion is law, beyond that I’m far too much of a moral relativist to be interested in an essentially masturbatory discussion about the moral implications of abortion. Ultimately, I could only really comment on my own subjective experience and how I apply my own morality in my life.

LOL, that’s a good quote. I’m not sure whether it’s a sign of profound ignorance or profound knowledge of Kant… the stuff about his “simplistic Christian moral” makes ignorance more likeley… Kant’s philosophy is the cornerstone of rationality. If you feel that you can simply dismiss abstract rationality because it’s not supporting a particular point of view, I think then you may have a problem with that point of view. I actually think it is possible to make a rational argument for “legal and available” while at the same time accepting that no right is without limits. You seem to – at least partly – share my skepticism writing that “There might be some room for abstract discussion somewhere else.” However, by stating that -

Heh, you are right that I’m dismissing Kant because I have a big problem with his point of view. I think a discussion of Kant is a bit off topic here. I’ll just say that Kant is a product of his time and environment, and that I have many of the same objections to him that I do to Descartes. Ultimately, a syphilitic German made the same points I would make with far more style.

you’re simply choosing to not even try making that argument, because it may involve defining particular instances in which “bodily autonomy” should not be given preference (I’m thinking in particular of late term abortions, or of embryos that may have a shot at surviving on their own with appropriate medical/social care, outside of their mother’s body).

I think you’re missing a nuance. I’m saying that I’m not going to bother with the discussion because even if a fetus had full rights as a human being, it would be irrelevant to my argument.

You know, the advantage of conceptualising abstractly is that it is entirely unnecessary to attribute social categories like “slut”.

Its only an advantage if you’re trying to avoid the unplesant places your opinions came from.

Keep the context of this discussion in mind. Look up to the top of your browser window. This isn’t a theoretical discussion of abortion, this is a discussion of why it should remain legal or be criminalized. Were talking not about the abstract moral implications of abortion but whether the coercive force of government should be brought to bare on women who choose to end a pregnancy. There might be some room for abstract discussion somewhere else, but in this discussion there is a big bold line. Either you believe it should be legal and available, or not. If you’re on the legal side, fine. If you believe it should be criminalized, well, then I hope my side has more pull.

Well, my intitial post was a question to the author. It was a theoretical remark about her argument being appropriately detailed and complex on the one hand (correctly differentiating murder and abortion) and simplistic on the other (failure to recognize the difference between a parasite and a fetus). I’ve stated at least three times in this discussion that I am supporting a liberal abortion policy (aka “legal and available”, to use your words) but that I, while supporting it, do believe that the moral implications have to be given appropriate consideration in the debate.

repressed Victorian

LOL, that’s a good quote. I’m not sure whether it’s a sign of profound ignorance or profound knowledge of Kant… the stuff about his “simplistic Christian moral” makes ignorance more likeley… Kant’s philosophy is the cornerstone of rationality. If you feel that you can simply dismiss abstract rationality because it’s not supporting a particular point of view, I think then you may have a problem with that point of view. I actually think it is possible to make a rational argument for “legal and available” while at the same time accepting that no right is without limits. You seem to – at least partly – share my skepticism writing that “There might be some room for abstract discussion somewhere else.” However, by stating that -

You’re missing my point. I’m not defining away the rights of the fetus, I’m simply ignoring them.

you’re simply choosing to not even try making that argument, because it may involve defining particular instances in which “bodily autonomy” should not be given preference (I’m thinking in particular of late term abortions, or of embryos that may have a shot at surviving on their own with appropriate medical/social care, outside of their mother’s body).

And you’re ok with that? You’re ok with being a slave to the vagaries of nature?

Nature really doesn’t care about my being ok with it…

Or is the situation different because were talking about women and fetuses, which is really shorthand for sluts and innocents?

You know, the advantage of conceptualising abstractly is that it is entirely unnecessary to attribute social categories like “slut”.

So you agree then that a person might not always be morally justified in witholding use of their body from someone else. That, I take it, is the point of the example. Issues of bodily autonomy are not simple, and they deserve lots of careful thought and discussion. Certainly it is not appropriate to argue for a pro-choice position as if the right to bodily autonomy is obviously absolute. Though of course there might be a cogent argument from the right to bodily autonomy for a pro-choice view; I just don’t think it will be an easy or simple argument.

Is that what I said? Read my response closely, did I at any point call into question bodily autonomy? Was not the entire thrust of my post drawing a big bright line between personal ethics and legal obligations? I’ll break it down for you, as you seem to be having problems.

When we talk about rights we are talking about specific legal standards. I have the right to free speech, which means that I can say what I please and the government cannot prosecute me for it. That means that I have the right to deny the holocaust or or refer to people of certain races as monkeys. I can say those hurtful things and no law can be enacted to stop or penalize me because it is my right to say them. However, if I chose to say those things I believe it would be morally wrong. See the difference, the nuance? I might not choose to do those things because I feel they would be morally wrong, but the implications of making those actions illegal are unacceptable.

I didn’t say that William agreed that the infant has a right to the person’s body. I said that he agreed that it is morally impermissible for the person to withold her body from the baby in the case described. I think it follows that the right to bodily autonomy is not absolute.

Again, you’re having trouble with the distinction between what is moral and what is legal. What is moral is what I, as an individual, thing someone ought to do. What is legal is a different standard. When a behavior is criminalized that means that a society has decided an action to be so universally terrible that the transgressing individual should have the vast majority of their rights taken away. More importantly, criminalizing a behavior means that any force, including lethal force, is acceptable in bringing an offender to heel. See the difference?

I still hold that the legal right to bodily autonomy is absolute. I was simply saying that just because someone is able to do something doesn’t necessarily mean that they ought to do something. See, I believe that people ought to have some freedom, ought to have the ability to make choices. I don’t need some all powerful daddy figure looking over my shoulder and making sure I always make the right choice.

I won’t disagree–it would require getting clearer on the ways in which abortion and the cabin case are different.

How about that in one case you’re talking about a legal human and in the other you aren’t? Does that help with clarity? Maybe the fact that in the cabin case the breast-feeding satisfies a basic need to remove milk from the breast and thus the relationship becomes more of a symbiotic one? Perhaps the fact that the cabin case doesn’t necessarily require privation of bodily autonomy to satisfy? What about the difference between chewing up some food and spoon feeding it to a infant for a few days versus having your entire body hijacked for nine months and then going through either major abdominal surgery or an incredible amount of pain? Or maybe the difference lies that the demand in one instance has no risk of death while the other has considerable risk?

Or how about this one: unwanted pregnancies are common and abortions happen every single day in this country with the blessing of the law, the support of more than half of society, and firm grounding in constitutional principle and English common law. On the other hand the cabin example is a bad analogy that is unlikely to ever happen and it’s sole purpose is to create a wedge in which a bad faith argument can be made.

Dance all you want, Chad, but you aren’t fooling anyone. This isn’t the first time any of us have had this discussion. We’ve seen better arguments, we’ve seen more honest arguments, and we still remain unconvinced. At the end of the day we don’t think pregnancy is punishment for being a slut, we don’t think that the theoretical rights of a potential human being trump the rights of a real one, and we don’t believe that the will of an angry God is both at work in the minutia of our lives and worth preserving.

Certainly it is not appropriate to argue for a pro-choice position as if the right to bodily autonomy is obviously absolute. Though of course there might be a cogent argument from the right to bodily autonomy for a pro-choice view; I just don’t think it will be an easy or simple argument.

So you agree then that a person might not always be morally justified in witholding use of their body from someone else.

I’m sorry, have you been reading the thread at all? The obligation to feed an infant does not create a corresponding right in the infant to use your body.