8 weeks
What about this?
18 weeks
Or this?
4 weeks
?
Conception
Sunday, July 26, 2020
8. References and Further Reading
- Boonin, David (2002), A Defense of Abortion Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Boylan, Michael (2002), “The Abortion Debate in the 21st Century” in Medical Ethics, ed. Michael Boylan. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Chadwick, Ruth, Kuhse, Helga, Landman, Willem et al. (2007), The Bioethics Reader. Editor’s Choice Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
- English, Jane (1984), “Abortion and the Concept of a Person,” in: The Problem of Abortion, 151-161.
- Feinberg, Joel (1984), “Potentiality, Development, and Right,” in: The Problem of Abortion, 145-150.
- Feinberg, Joel (1984), The Problem of Abortion, Belmont: Wadsworth.
- Gauthier, David (1986), Morals by Agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Gert, Bernard (2004), Common Morality. Deciding What to Do, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Gillespie, Norman (1984), “Abortion and Human Rights,” in: The Problem of Abortion, 94-102.
- Gordon, John-S. (2005), “Die moralischen und rechtlichen Dimensionen der Abtreibungsproblematik,” in: Conjectura, 43-62.
- Hoerster, Norbert (1995), Abtreibung im säkularen Staat, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
- Hobbes, Thomas (1996), Leviathan, Ed. Richard Tuck Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Korsgaard, Christine (1996), The Sources of Normativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Noonan, John T. (1970), “An Almost Absolute Value in History,” in: The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 51-59.
- Noonan, John T. (1970), The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Schwarz, Stephen (1990), Moral Questions of Abortion, Chicago: Loyola University Press.
- Singer, Peter (1993), Practical Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sumner, Wayne (1980), Abortion and Moral Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Thomson, Judith J. (1984), “A Defense of Abortion,” in: The Problem of Abortion, 173-188.
- Tooley, Michael (1983), Abortion and Infanticide, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Warren, Mary A. (1984), “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” in: The Problem of Abortion, 102-119.
- Warren, Mary A. (1997), “Abortion,” in: A Companion to Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 303-314.
Author Information
You will note that neither character represents the feminist point of view. That requires a separate dialogue, which I have yet to write.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
A Socratic dialog on abortion
I published this dialog in September 2015 on another blog from which I have been locked out.
I am preserving it, with some additional discussion inserted, on Cosmosis.
You are free to reproduce this dialog.
"S" is Socrates and "T" is some Tom, Dick or Harry. "T" could represent the point of view of a liberal/moderate woman.
S: Is there a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Of course.
S: So any woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason?
T: Undoubtedly.
S: Well, suppose the preborn being -- or perhaps we might say potential human -- experiences pain during the termination process?
T: As the, er, being is not viable, how can it experience pain?
S: If there are physiological studies that show that the being's reactions are consistent with a viable infant's feeling of pain, would that be relevant?
T: Well, then you are only talking about what might be.
S: So if there is a possibility that the being in the womb experiences pain during abortion, that possibility is of no relevance to society?
T: Not to society, but that consideration might affect a woman's personal decision.
S: None of society's business?
T: No.
S: So if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy for trivial or shallow reasons, that is her affair.
T: Yes.
S: In many cases, the decision for abortion is economically based, as when the family of a young woman presses her to abort so that she can go on to an economically prosperous life, or when a woman aborts the being in her womb because she has enough children and doesn't want one more mouth to feed. Is that correct?
T: Economic issues are plainly a driving force behind abortion.
S: Also, many women resent the idea that a male-dominated society may control a woman's right to reproduce. So-called reproductive rights.
T: Yes, very true.
S: What is it that she doesn't want reproduced?
T: Another human, but that's only after birth. Before birth, the quality of humanity doesn't exist.
S: So you say. Others would say, before the first trimester. And there are yet other ideas. So there is little agreement about when the being in the womb becomes a bona fide human being. Anyway, wouldn't you agree that "reproduce" means reproduce oneself?
T: Well, the child is not a clone. The father's genes contribute.
S: So she is reproducing herself and her sex partner.
T: I suppose.
S: And that reproduction is in progress in the womb. So is she not destroying a reproduction of herself?
T: You are just playing word games.
S: And the male sex partner? Should he have no legal say in the preservation of a reproduction of himself?
T: Of course not. The reproduction hasn't occurred yet at the time of abortion.
S: Oh. But I thought that at conception, the genes begin the reproduction process. So doesn't the preborn being represent a partial reproduction of the male?
T: I suppose so. But you know very well that to give the male any legal say would upset the world since the day Roe vs. Wade was decided. Besides, the man doesn't have to suffer the trials of pregnancy and giving birth.
S: Yet, a part of the man, a potential daughter or son, has been destroyed. I suppose to a materialist like yourself that doesn't matter much?
T: Well, these things are all relative. There are no absolutes.
S: No absolutes? Except for the absolute right to abortion, of course.
T: We are clever, aren't we?
S: But it is a fact, is it not, that scientific materialism is your default philosophy?
T: Well, I am no philosopher, but I would agree that science is better than superstition.
S: And you have heard of the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell?
T: Who hasn't?
S: But no doubt you are unaware that Russell and a number of other philosophers have attacked scientific materialism as deeply flawed?
T: Really? I had no idea. What do they propose in its place?
S: Would you be perturbed if I told you that there is no consensus, that no one seems to know what to make of the Cosmos, or Being?
T: Yes, all very well. But as I say, I am no philosopher.
.S: You concede you don't know why there is a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Well, Rights of Man -- I mean Human Rights -- and all that sort of thing.
S: I see... Well, you do agree that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy for economic reasons.
T: Correct.
S: So then, a woman -- perhaps in consultation with her partner -- has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on the sex, or gender, of the being in the womb.
T: I don't quite follow.
S: She has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on sex preference.
T: It's a trivial reason, but I suppose it is none of society's business.
S: Now suppose a large number of women preferentially abort females? Would that be acceptable?
T: It doesn't sound right, but fortunately that isn't the case.
S: What do you think feminists would think of such a practice?
T: They would probably try to outlaw it.
S: So then society does have an interest in maintaining the life of a being in the womb?
T: Your scenario is not the case.
S: You are wrong; it is a fact. In India, couples routinely terminate females in the womb for socioeconomic reasons. Further, there is a shortage of brides there, which is the consequence of this practice. India's laws against revealing the sex of the being in the womb have proved ineffective.
T: Well, point. But this isn't India.
S: The original question was, Is there a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Ah, I see what you mean. If we must go by cases, there isn't a fundamental, all-encompassing right.
S: So society is permitted to take an interest in the welfare of the being in the womb?
T: I would say you have made a good case. But, unfortunately for you, most people think in memes, and won't follow philosophical arguments.
S: Agreed.
I am preserving it, with some additional discussion inserted, on Cosmosis.
You are free to reproduce this dialog.
"S" is Socrates and "T" is some Tom, Dick or Harry. "T" could represent the point of view of a liberal/moderate woman.
S: Is there a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Of course.
S: So any woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason?
T: Undoubtedly.
S: Well, suppose the preborn being -- or perhaps we might say potential human -- experiences pain during the termination process?
T: As the, er, being is not viable, how can it experience pain?
S: If there are physiological studies that show that the being's reactions are consistent with a viable infant's feeling of pain, would that be relevant?
T: Well, then you are only talking about what might be.
S: So if there is a possibility that the being in the womb experiences pain during abortion, that possibility is of no relevance to society?
T: Not to society, but that consideration might affect a woman's personal decision.
S: None of society's business?
T: No.
S: So if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy for trivial or shallow reasons, that is her affair.
T: Yes.
S: In many cases, the decision for abortion is economically based, as when the family of a young woman presses her to abort so that she can go on to an economically prosperous life, or when a woman aborts the being in her womb because she has enough children and doesn't want one more mouth to feed. Is that correct?
T: Economic issues are plainly a driving force behind abortion.
S: Also, many women resent the idea that a male-dominated society may control a woman's right to reproduce. So-called reproductive rights.
T: Yes, very true.
S: What is it that she doesn't want reproduced?
T: Another human, but that's only after birth. Before birth, the quality of humanity doesn't exist.
S: So you say. Others would say, before the first trimester. And there are yet other ideas. So there is little agreement about when the being in the womb becomes a bona fide human being. Anyway, wouldn't you agree that "reproduce" means reproduce oneself?
T: Well, the child is not a clone. The father's genes contribute.
S: So she is reproducing herself and her sex partner.
T: I suppose.
S: And that reproduction is in progress in the womb. So is she not destroying a reproduction of herself?
T: You are just playing word games.
S: And the male sex partner? Should he have no legal say in the preservation of a reproduction of himself?
T: Of course not. The reproduction hasn't occurred yet at the time of abortion.
S: Oh. But I thought that at conception, the genes begin the reproduction process. So doesn't the preborn being represent a partial reproduction of the male?
T: I suppose so. But you know very well that to give the male any legal say would upset the world since the day Roe vs. Wade was decided. Besides, the man doesn't have to suffer the trials of pregnancy and giving birth.
S: Yet, a part of the man, a potential daughter or son, has been destroyed. I suppose to a materialist like yourself that doesn't matter much?
T: Well, these things are all relative. There are no absolutes.
S: No absolutes? Except for the absolute right to abortion, of course.
T: We are clever, aren't we?
S: But it is a fact, is it not, that scientific materialism is your default philosophy?
T: Well, I am no philosopher, but I would agree that science is better than superstition.
S: And you have heard of the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell?
T: Who hasn't?
S: But no doubt you are unaware that Russell and a number of other philosophers have attacked scientific materialism as deeply flawed?
T: Really? I had no idea. What do they propose in its place?
S: Would you be perturbed if I told you that there is no consensus, that no one seems to know what to make of the Cosmos, or Being?
T: Yes, all very well. But as I say, I am no philosopher.
.S: You concede you don't know why there is a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Well, Rights of Man -- I mean Human Rights -- and all that sort of thing.
S: I see... Well, you do agree that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy for economic reasons.
T: Correct.
S: So then, a woman -- perhaps in consultation with her partner -- has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on the sex, or gender, of the being in the womb.
T: I don't quite follow.
S: She has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on sex preference.
T: It's a trivial reason, but I suppose it is none of society's business.
S: Now suppose a large number of women preferentially abort females? Would that be acceptable?
T: It doesn't sound right, but fortunately that isn't the case.
S: What do you think feminists would think of such a practice?
T: They would probably try to outlaw it.
S: So then society does have an interest in maintaining the life of a being in the womb?
T: Your scenario is not the case.
S: You are wrong; it is a fact. In India, couples routinely terminate females in the womb for socioeconomic reasons. Further, there is a shortage of brides there, which is the consequence of this practice. India's laws against revealing the sex of the being in the womb have proved ineffective.
T: Well, point. But this isn't India.
S: The original question was, Is there a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Ah, I see what you mean. If we must go by cases, there isn't a fundamental, all-encompassing right.
S: So society is permitted to take an interest in the welfare of the being in the womb?
T: I would say you have made a good case. But, unfortunately for you, most people think in memes, and won't follow philosophical arguments.
S: Agreed.
The night before the procedure, I asked the baby to forgive me
https://www.sarahmae.com/abortion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
<i><U>What is a continuum? </u></i><br />Russell knocks Hegel's logic (1903)
Bertrand Russell, in his Principles of Mathematics (1903), comments on G.W. Hegel's Logic : 271. The notion of continuity has be...
-
This page holds a copy of an article posted Nov. 17, 2013. On Nov. 25, 2013, extensive amplifications of Part V and Part VI were made. This...
-
A discussion of The Concept of Mind (Oxford 1949) by Gilbert Ryle. Apologies for the odd footnote numbering, as in [1xx] and ...
Saturday, May 26, 2018
A dashed-off note on the cult of Moloch/Mammon
The unwilling mother "knows" that she is more important than her baby. This belief is promoted by the idea that human beings do not have souls and hence "nothing happens" to a very young baby that will bring it suffering.
Abortion in a very great many cases puts the self ahead of the baby and rationalizes this selfish decision by dehumanizing the baby, by arguing that its extreme youth makes it not-yet human, that it is a non-person because the state has not granted it a certificate of personhood, that as a dehumanized construct, its mother's right to serve herself overrides a baby's right to life; in fact, by the dehumanization of the baby, that now non-person is stripped of all rights.
Isn't it wonderful that Irish women have won the right to be merciless toward the unborn, who are not real people and so can be easily thrown away?
"That guy doesn't love me and I don't want his child," is often the unspoken motivation.
A problem with the idea of disposable people (or "almost people") is that the boundaries of what is acceptable may shift. If abortion is socially sanctioned, then we may see cases in which women are court-ordered to have an abortion. Why not? The proto-human is a meaningless lump with no rights, and so a woman could get involved in a legal situation that results in forced abortion.
But more disturbingly, why does the mother think she should live and the baby should die? Unless she is suicidal, her normal inclination is to feel strongly that "I wish to survive." She has the will to live. That instinct is something precious, perhaps God-given. But doesn't the baby have that very same instinct? There is something not quite right about the woman favoring her own life instinct over her baby's, which she assumes doesn't count.
The trick is to twist words in such a way as to help the woman play a confidence game on herself. The unborn being isn't a baby, it's not even a being. It's little more than an inert thing. Really, it's not at all inert; it's lively, it's animate. But we must pretend that it's a mere assemblage of parts that are not up and running in synchronous order yet. Of course, that's not true either. Anyway, thank heaven, she's not a mother merely because she has something inside that makes her pregnant. We're not to say that she is with child. Children are human (all too...).
Well perhaps this will do: It is too young to have a mind, and so it won't know what it will miss. This could be true, if we are all very advanced forms of robotic intelligence. But suppose there is a Mind behind the mind? What if there is a soul? Many silly people assume that "Science shows that people don't have souls." But as the saying goes, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
Many women are ecstatic with the heady notion that they have overcome an unfair (to whom?) religious obstacle. They won't face the fact that they are using shallow euphemisms to help them evade moral responsibility for the souls nourished in their bodies. They don't see that they are following an ancient pagan practice of offering their children to Moloch as human sacrifices. Yes, that is what they do -- with the connivance of boyfriends and casual partners who don't want the bother of a child to care for. That's a burden. That requires commitment, with a plentiful dose of faith. Why wreck my life just so that that miserable little blot can live?
But isn't sisterhood wonderful? We women have won the battle to determine what goes on in our own bodies. And if we don't want some proto-human parasite, we can choose to kill it. Of course, the sisters won't word that last thought that way. They must marshal the mushy euphemisms that permit them to glide past the annoying moral crux.
What the woman wants to expel is not so much the baby, but what she regards as an obstacle to her grand expectations of a Wonderful Life. In other words, she is offering up her unborn child to the god Mammon, to the idol of a Pleasant, Self-based Life, to the god Moloch, who craved to devour human children.
Abortion in a very great many cases puts the self ahead of the baby and rationalizes this selfish decision by dehumanizing the baby, by arguing that its extreme youth makes it not-yet human, that it is a non-person because the state has not granted it a certificate of personhood, that as a dehumanized construct, its mother's right to serve herself overrides a baby's right to life; in fact, by the dehumanization of the baby, that now non-person is stripped of all rights.
Isn't it wonderful that Irish women have won the right to be merciless toward the unborn, who are not real people and so can be easily thrown away?
"That guy doesn't love me and I don't want his child," is often the unspoken motivation.
A problem with the idea of disposable people (or "almost people") is that the boundaries of what is acceptable may shift. If abortion is socially sanctioned, then we may see cases in which women are court-ordered to have an abortion. Why not? The proto-human is a meaningless lump with no rights, and so a woman could get involved in a legal situation that results in forced abortion.
But more disturbingly, why does the mother think she should live and the baby should die? Unless she is suicidal, her normal inclination is to feel strongly that "I wish to survive." She has the will to live. That instinct is something precious, perhaps God-given. But doesn't the baby have that very same instinct? There is something not quite right about the woman favoring her own life instinct over her baby's, which she assumes doesn't count.
The trick is to twist words in such a way as to help the woman play a confidence game on herself. The unborn being isn't a baby, it's not even a being. It's little more than an inert thing. Really, it's not at all inert; it's lively, it's animate. But we must pretend that it's a mere assemblage of parts that are not up and running in synchronous order yet. Of course, that's not true either. Anyway, thank heaven, she's not a mother merely because she has something inside that makes her pregnant. We're not to say that she is with child. Children are human (all too...).
Well perhaps this will do: It is too young to have a mind, and so it won't know what it will miss. This could be true, if we are all very advanced forms of robotic intelligence. But suppose there is a Mind behind the mind? What if there is a soul? Many silly people assume that "Science shows that people don't have souls." But as the saying goes, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
Many women are ecstatic with the heady notion that they have overcome an unfair (to whom?) religious obstacle. They won't face the fact that they are using shallow euphemisms to help them evade moral responsibility for the souls nourished in their bodies. They don't see that they are following an ancient pagan practice of offering their children to Moloch as human sacrifices. Yes, that is what they do -- with the connivance of boyfriends and casual partners who don't want the bother of a child to care for. That's a burden. That requires commitment, with a plentiful dose of faith. Why wreck my life just so that that miserable little blot can live?
But isn't sisterhood wonderful? We women have won the battle to determine what goes on in our own bodies. And if we don't want some proto-human parasite, we can choose to kill it. Of course, the sisters won't word that last thought that way. They must marshal the mushy euphemisms that permit them to glide past the annoying moral crux.
What the woman wants to expel is not so much the baby, but what she regards as an obstacle to her grand expectations of a Wonderful Life. In other words, she is offering up her unborn child to the god Mammon, to the idol of a Pleasant, Self-based Life, to the god Moloch, who craved to devour human children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
<i><U>What is a continuum? </u></i><br />Russell knocks Hegel's logic (1903)
Bertrand Russell, in his Principles of Mathematics (1903), comments on G.W. Hegel's Logic : 271. The notion of continuity has be...
-
This page holds a copy of an article posted Nov. 17, 2013. On Nov. 25, 2013, extensive amplifications of Part V and Part VI were made. This...
-
A discussion of The Concept of Mind (Oxford 1949) by Gilbert Ryle. Apologies for the odd footnote numbering, as in [1xx] and ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
<font size="4"><u>Appendix G</font></u><br> <i>Amen, Amen</i> sayings in the fourth gospel
This is a mirror of a page compiled by Felix Just of the Society of Jesus. "Amen, Amen" Sayings in the Fourth Gospel compiled...
-
This is a mirror of a page compiled by Felix Just of the Society of Jesus. "Amen, Amen" Sayings in the Fourth Gospel compiled...
-
18. "Pet cat"or "pet dog" is an appropriate characterization of the present legal status of the fetus in many states. ...
-
1. abortion Argument under Level I Human beings develop gradually inside women's bodies. The death of a newly fertilized human egg do...
Wow! this is Amazing! Do you know your hidden name meaning ? Click here to find your hidden name meaning
ReplyDelete