Human Rights

A challenge to pro-choicers: on behalf of the little ones

For the sake of argument, I shall grant the pro-choicers the following two claims: (1) the fetus is not a human being, and (2) even if the fetus is a human being, it does not have a right to life. I argue that even while granting these two (false) claims, it is still morally wrong to abort a fetus.

How then does one figure out whether it is morally wrong to abort a fetus (henceforth: little one) while granting the two claims above? Here is one way: provide conditions for why it is morally wrong to murder a paradigmatic example of a human being that do not rest on the membership of the human specie, and then see whether those conditions are present during abortion. If they are, then we have good reasons to think that aborting the little one is morally wrong. In this article, I provide the required conditions.

But first a caveat: there is an important distinction to keep in mind between something being morally wrong and something being unlawful. Although they are intertwined, they are conceptually distinct. There are things that are morally wrong that need not be outlawed (e.g., lying), and there are things that are outlawed that are not morally wrong (e.g., jaywalking). I do think abortion both is morally wrong and should be outlawed. However, I say nothing explicit in this article to support the latter. I am merely concerned with the former.

Now, consider this example to help us find these conditions. Suppose there is a young man, Joseph, who is walking late at night on the streets of LA. He decides to take a shortcut through a dark alley (Joseph often makes poor decisions). Unbeknownst to him, a killer is lurking nearby. And as they say, the rest is history; Joseph is no more. The killer took Joseph’s life with joy. The killer did not only kill Joseph, but murdered him. A lion kills a zebra, but he does not murder the zebra! The same cannot be said for Joseph. Not only is his fate unfortunate, but it was effected in cold blood and by a moral agent.

What makes Joseph’s untimely death morally wrong? Some would answer that Joseph’s death is morally wrong because he is a human being. He is a member of the species homo sapiens. Because of what I granted above, I set this account aside without saying anything about its merit. Rather, along with Marquis (1989), I suggest a different (and probably compatible) answer: It is morally wrong because “the loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future” (p. 189). Simply put, what makes Joseph’s death morally wrong is the unjustified deprivation of future values.

We find support for this account in our everyday experience. Just consider Joseph’s weeping mother at the funeral. Surely she will lament not being able to hold his children or see him graduate from college or see him enjoy any other future values. And this is the type of reason that causes her to weep. The same could be said about young individuals who have only a short time to live. If you ask them what it is about dying that makes them grieve, certainly they will locate the reason in a dearth of future experiences that they would otherwise have had. Contrast that with an eighty-year-old man on his deathbed. Most will be content, especially if they had a fulfilling life. They would likely say to their loved ones, “Don’t weep, I had a full life.” These examples can easily be multiplied, but they should suffice to show that this account makes sense of a wide range of experiences.

At this point, the inevitable question arises: are the conditions present during an abortion? Of course! With abortion, the little one is being deprived of a “future like ours,” just as Joseph is deprived of future values. Moreover, this deprivation is done unjustly. The little ones are just as innocent and inculpable as Joseph. Thus, if the conditions properly capture why it is morally wrong to kill a paradigmatic case of a human being, and the conditions are also present during an abortion, then the conclusion is logically inescapable: aborting a little one is morally wrong.

Here are three objections. First, one might object that given this account, the use of contraception is morally wrong. Response: perhaps the use of contraception is morally wrong, but this does not follow from the account because destroying the sperm or the egg does not deprive either of a future like ours. The egg on its own and the sperm on its own cannot naturally grow into something that can be deprived of having a future like ours. The same cannot be said of the little ones. Left to grow naturally, the little ones will have a future like ours.

Secondly, one might object that according to this account, abortion is morally permissible if we know the little one will have a miserable life after birth. Response: the alleged consequence does not follow because the account provides sufficient conditions and not necessary conditions. In other words, if someone is unjustly deprived of future values, then those would be grounds to think that such a state is morally wrong. However, unjustly depriving one of future values is not the only way a death can be morally wrong. Perhaps there are other reasons that ground why abortion is morally wrong. This account provides only one set of sufficient conditions. Moreover, even if the conditions are necessary (which they are not), we are not in a good position to assess whether the little one will have a miserable life. Surely there are alternatives like adoption (at least in the Western culture), and surely murdering the little one in the womb is worse than any life we might predict for him or her.

A third and similar objection might be that on this account, the killing of those in excruciating agony and suffering turns out to be morally permissible. Like the previous objection, this too assumes that the account establishes necessary conditions, which is not the case. And to reiterate, we are not in a position to predict beyond reasonable doubt that such people’s suffering will not cease. And even if we are in such a position (and oh what a big “if” this is), and if the suffering individual gives consent, then perhaps in this unlikely circumstance it is morally permissible. I said “perhaps”!

There are numerous other things that are implied by this account. For example, if other species can have a future like ours, then, all things being equal, it would be morally wrong to unjustly end their members’ lives. However, space and time do not permit me to pursue them. I will say this, though: I do not see such implications as problems.

Lastly, I want to pose a challenge for the advocates of pro-choice. If this account does not satisfy you, then provide an account of why it is morally wrong to murder a paradigmatic example of a human being that (1) does not exclude too much (e.g., infants, handicapped, reversibly comatose humans) and (2) does not include too much (e.g., artificial intelligence, trees, insects). I contend that any alternative account you provide either will be defective or must include the little ones. Challenge commenced…ready…set…go!

 

Reference

Marquis, D. (1989). “Why Abortion is Immoral?” Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 86, No. 4, pp. 183-202.

   
Live Action on Facebook
  • Guest

    I think you’re asking the wrong question. How about, is it morally wrong to force a woman to gestate and give birth if she does not want to do so?

    • Matthias

      Who’s forcing her? We’re forcing her to do that because, what… we think you shouldn’t kill innocent people?

    • Solntsye

      A woman has implied consent to a possible pregnancy each time she consents to sex. Even if she uses some form of birth control, the consent to a possible pregnancy is still implied when she consents to sex. We all know pregnancy may still occur, as no birth control is 100% effective. Therefore, she needs to carefully consider whether or not she is ready to be pregnant prior to having sex.

      The question you should ask yourself is: Is it morally wrong to expect an innocent unborn human to pay with their life for the sex that his or her mother consented to, which brought about his or her existence to begin with?

      • Richard

        No, it is not morally wrong.

        A woman has implied (sic) consent to possible pregnancy every time she is raped? No. Does she give “implied consent” to raise a child? No. Does she have to have a child just because you say she does? No. Is her womb yours to do whatever you want with? No, thankfully.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      No, if the method by which that woman wants to get rid of the baby is killing him or her. In that case, forbidding abortion is called being humane.

      Shouldn’t it tell you something that your chosen method of defending your position is phrasing the issue in such a way as to avoid describing – or even mentioning – the procedure in dispute?

      • peach

        Omar didn’t mention the woman in his entire article. Shouldn’t that tell you something?

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Nope. Omar’s article is a clear, focused exploration of specific philosophical concepts, equally applicable to members of both sexes.

          • peach

            whooosh

          • Sorites Paradox

            Ha, I debated Don Marquis on this very point, and he couldn’t think up a satisfactory response. I doubt that Calvin or Omar will be able to.

          • Jim Adams

            Presuming we want what is good for all people, including women, is a given. We can presume that from “Women have equal rights” to “sex should be consensual” we are all on the same page. Where we digress is the very specific moral question of what can be done about a fetus being carried by a woman who did not seek to become pregnant.

            I will present a rape victim, so that the above implied consent “out” isn’t available, we would want to examine all the options available, right? of course we would. For example, one common intervention is a strong contraceptive dose (Which even hardcore pro-life folks see as a act of defense in this case, provided no embryo is detected and/or LH levels are not high). However, when we come to the question of what to do about the fetus, we must answer the potential murder question. If an abortion would be homicide, then we would have to find another, ethical, option.

            Everyone is pro-woman. No need to write arguments for premises that we all accept. Where we differ is the homicide question, and so that is what we are discussing.

          • Sorites Paradox

            “If an abortion would be homicide, then we would have to find another, ethical, option.”

            No, we don’t. You assume your own conclusion: that if abortion kills a “person” or a “being with rights” (which is what the author uses Marquis’ argument to try and prove), that removing it via abortion is ethically unacceptable. The point of my original post (and of Peach’s) was that the inquiry as to whether abortion is ethical does not end at determining whether the fetus is the type of human who has rights, generally. It does not answer the question about whether it can use the woman’s body.

            There is nothing pro-woman about taking away her right to decide who uses her body.

            I don’t debate on this site because of the way people are treated here, and because of the low level of the discourse, so I won’t be returning to comment. As I said, I’ve discussed this theory with its author, so I don’t think coming back here to debate it will be enlightening for me. Just wanted to let interested readers know that Marquis doesn’t have the magic answers :)

          • Omar Fakhri

            Sorites, I’m sorry that you think you have been treated poorly on this site—whether justly or unjustly.

            If you’ve debated with Marquis, you must have been a student at the University of Kansas where he teaches. I’m curious as to what sort of ground breaking objection that you raised against him that he wasn’t able to respond to. I’ve done my share of philosophy, and I don’t run across those types of encounters often, if at all. You must be a bright person if you can achieve that type of encounter with a professor.

            From your post, it’s not clear what your objection is or how it is explicitly relevant to the content of this article. This is perhaps my fault, but do flesh out your view. I have done my share of reading of Marquis’ critics, and they don’t seem to be that cogent. Actually some critics are so convinced by his account that they can only reject pieces of it and modify it at best (I can give you examples if you want). If you are willing, please do elaborate your objection a little more—at least enough for me to grasp them.

            I do want to comment about one thing. You said, “As I said, I’ve discussed this theory with its author, so I don’t think coming back here to debate it will be enlightening for me.” I’m not sure how that sort of talk is helpful. Talking to an author about his views does not imply that you have mastered them or that they are false or that no one else can contribute to the matter. And if it does, you haven’t provided any evidence to support that. Moreover, I’m a philosophy doctorate student. I’m not a Socrates or a Marquis, but I know a few things about ethics and Marquis’ view. Maybe I’d be able to answer some of your questions. Please feel free to throw them out there.

          • Crystal

            “here is nothing pro woman about taking away her right to decide who uses her body.”

            Haha- the very fact that you said “who” and not “what” means you believe it’s a person. So then, one person either lets the other “use her body”, or deliberatelly kills the other person. 9 months vs. for life. You tell me which person has more at stake here…

          • kayla

            You think that abortion doctors give a damn when it comes to pro woman or pro choice? No it’s that abortion being done at 18 weeks will make me 1800 dollars!!! Planned parenthood is responsible for 91% of their patients getting abortions and only 9 percent are referrals to see an Obgyn. They also are into a scam known as sex selective abortions and they commit a bunch of other scams as well. The thing is, they get paid by the taxpayers for these abortions and it’s clearly the only thing on the people doing the abortions. If they accidentally end up getting a hysterectomy when some abortion doctor wants to remove a fibroid or when one doctor decides to do an abortion on a teenage 18 week pregnant patient even though she isn’t feeling well just to get 1800 bucks, then I guess it shouldn’t matter because it’s a woman’s choice, right? And the abortion doctors have killed innocent babies that were born alive as well. But they were aborting the baby anyways so it must be okay right? Abortion is wrong and you should look up the methods of abortion and then you will realize why so many are against it.

          • Richard

            Exactly. The fetus has every right to life, just not to the woman’s body. It is more than free to live life on its own upon its liberation from its prison-womb.

          • Sorites Paradox

            Replying down here to Omar because it wouldn’t work up there…..

            Sorites, I’m sorry that you think you have been treated poorly on this site—whether justly or unjustly.

            –This “apology” rings insincere. Look at the creepy way Calvin follows my posts around.

            If you’ve debated with Marquis, you must have been a student at the
            University of Kansas where he teaches.

            –False. For a philosophy student you make a lot of assumptions. Marquis has been known to leave the state of Kansas.

            I’m curious as to what sort of
            ground breaking objections that you raised against him that he wasn’t
            able to respond to.

            –I already told you.

            I’ve done my share of philosophy, and I don’t run
            across those types of encounters often, if at all.

            –Can’t help you there. My experiences have been different.

            You must be a bright
            guy if you can achieve that type of encounter with a professor.

            –I’m a woman (more assumptions!). And yes, I’m pretty bright.

            From your post, it’s not clear what your objection is. That’s perhaps
            my fault. I have done my share of reading about the critiques of
            Marquis, and they don’t seem to be that great

            –Yes, it is your fault. I spelled it out. Plus, if you know anything about the abortion debate, it would be clear.

            . Actually some critics are
            so convinced by his account that they can only reject pieces of it and
            modify it at best (I can give you examples of you want).

            –I
            agree. I personally think that Marquis’ theory is the most compelling
            argument for giving the fetus moral consideration that I’ve heard yet.
            Of course, it isn’t perfect, but what is? And even if it was airtight, I
            just don’t think it resolves the abortion debate.

            If you are
            willing, please do elaborate your objection a little more—at least
            enough for me to grasp them.

            -I’d really prefer not to. For a
            number of reasons- I’m too busy, Calvin creeps me out completely, and as
            a rape survivor I don’t enjoy speaking with people here or reading
            comments supporting forced gestation in the event a woman was raped. As
            I said, discussion on this site I’ve generally found to be a waste of
            time. I pop in once and a while cause I like to see what the other side
            is thinking. And sometimes I can’t resist commenting.

            –And I find Pro-Truth’s posts to be highly informative and I love reading them.

            I do want to comment about one thing. You said, “As I said, I’ve discussed this theory with its author, so I don’t think
            coming
            back here to debate it will be enlightening for me.” I’m not sure how
            that sort of talk is helpful.

            –Don’t really care whether you think it’s helpful.

            Talking to an author about his views does
            not imply that you have mastered them or that they are false or that no
            one else can contribute to the matter.

            –Never
            claimed I mastered them. But I’ve done more legal, philosophical,
            scientific research into the abortion debate than each writer on this
            site. You can choose to believe me or not, but I know what is or isn’t worth my time.

            And if it does, you haven’t
            provided any evidence to support that. Moreover, I’m a philosophy
            doctorate student. I’m not a Socrates or a Marquis, but I know a few
            things about ethics and Marquis.

            -OOOOh.

            Maybe I’d be able to answer any of your
            questions. Please feel free to throw them out there.

            –Perhaps
            if this was on a different forum, or if I had more time. Honestly I’m
            just not that interested. Thanks for at least being sort of respectful.
            Just figured I’d respond so you don’t wait around for a longer treatise
            that isn’t coming.

          • Omar Fakhri

            Sorites, thanks for responding.

            “–This ‘apology’ rings insincere. Look at the creepy way Calvin follows my posts around.”

            I was being sincere. Not sure what I else I can say to make you believe me.

            “False. For a philosophy student you make a lot of assumptions. Marquis has been known to leave the state of Kansas.”

            I was speaking loosely here. I should of not said ‘must’; maybe I should of said, ‘it’s likely’. Sloppy wording on my part.

            “–Can’t help you there. My experiences have been different.”

            There I was just making a comment that added a little suspicion to what you were claiming. In other words, it made what you were claiming seem a bit unlikely. Especially given all the new publications that are coming out from Marquis, defending his view.

            “I’m a woman (more assumptions!). And yes, I’m pretty bright.”

            I apologize for that. I actually noticed that and tried to edit it. But it didn’t work for some odd reason. (I don’t know how to work the website yet; I’m new, clearly).

            “Yes, it is your fault. I spelled it out. Plus, if you know anything about the abortion debate, it would be clear.”

            I’m not sure how you’re using the phrase “spelled it out.” But it’s not spelled out by any standard that I think is reasonable. (I don’t even really consider the article I wrote spelling out Marquis’ argument. It’s, rather, a brief sketch). It seems like all you were saying is that I should (is this a normative ‘should’?) talk about the woman’s choice in order to settle the question. Well for one, why? Two, even if the woman’s choice bares on the moral significance of the issue (which I think it does), it doesn’t follow from this that the argument in this article fails to establish that abortion is similar to murdering an adult (maybe even worse since you deprive them of more future values).

            “I’d really prefer not to. For a number of reasons- I’m too busy, Calvin creeps me out completely, and as a rape survivor I don’t enjoy speaking with people here or reading comments supporting forced gestation in the event a woman was raped. As I said, discussion on this site I’ve generally found to be a waste of time. I pop in once and a while cause I like to see what the other side is thinking. And sometimes I can’t resist commenting.”

            I’m really sorry that you are a rape victim (sincerely). That’s quite awful. I understand why this topic would be a sensitive issue for you.

            “Never claimed I mastered them. But I’ve done more legal, philosophical, scientific research into the abortion debate than each writer on this site. You can choose to believe me or not, but I know what is or isn’t worth my time.”

            I never claimed that you claimed that you mastered them. I simply said that it doesn’t imply those things. More needs to be said than playing the authority card.

            “Perhaps if this was on a different forum, or if I had more time. Honestly I’m just not that interested. Thanks for at least being sort of respectful. Just figured I’d respond so you don’t wait around for a longer treatise that isn’t coming.”

            I hope you change your mind about talking on this forum.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “Look at the creepy way Calvin follows my posts around.”

            Yeah, I replied to your comment just like I replied to half a dozen or so other people’s comments on this post. That is weird. It’s almost like this is a debating forum or something!

            “Calvin creeps me out completely.”

            Why?

          • guinnypigg

            Dude, gestation is a natural process. The fetus has a right to her body by dictation of evolution. Any Darwinian should be able to figure that out.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Considering that your past debating on this site amounted to a less than compelling mix of logical fallacy, misdirection, and vicious defamation, I somehow doubt that. Perhaps his responses were only unsatisfactory because you’ve defined “satisfactory” so as to be unattainable.

    • Rowland

      If the implied consent for driving on any road in US is that you must keep to the rules, and subject to ticket for flawing any of the rules; if implied consent for blood achohol concentration(BAC) is that being on the road you must submitt to the test for achohol when demanded; so who ever doesn’t want to be embarrassed by the law enforcement agents should either not drive, or not drive when taken achohol.
      Generation of new off springs, humans, is a complex whole that finds its intelligibility in the process unobstructed. It is a continuum; a process the begins with the sexual intercourse(which you can choose either to or not have), through fertilization, implantation, then birth. Accepting to have sex is a decision that responsible individuals undertake( hence, sex with an under aged is both immoral and a crime). So then, one should also be responsible enough to accept the crowning result of one’s freely chosen act-sex. Abortion is a vivid expression of irresponsibility. A responsible man should own up his action.

      • marty

        Well said and terribly sad that such a simple logical conclusion cannot be reached by so many..

      • Richard

        A responsible man should own up his action. Men can’t get pregnant, last I checked. Responsible women on the other hand, don’t give birth unless they can provide for the child. Bringing a child into the world that you do not want or cannot care for is not likely to work out well for all involved.

        Abortion is a vivid expression of responsibility.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          News flash: The child abortion destroys is ALREADY IN the world.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Durham/100002906757423 Daniel Durham

          I think I can safely say that adoption works out better than abortion 99% of the time, if not 100%.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Durham/100002906757423 Daniel Durham

      Possibly, but it’s definitely a lot more wrong to kill the baby.

  • SeekingTruth

    In the case of rape I can’t help but think of what I was taught as a child, “two wrongs don’t make a right”. If abortion is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of the circumstances.

    • Guest

      Yes, a woman having her body violated once is a “wrong”, and forcing her to have it violated again and again through pregnancy and childbirth would constitute another “wrong”.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        Even conceding for the sake of argument that the pregnancy can be described as a secondary “violation,” it does not follow that every conceivable response to that violation on the table is justified. Once you figure out a way to end that unwanted pregnancy without executing an innocent third party, be my guest.

      • Crystal

        ”
        violated again and again through pregnancy and childbirth” how is this a “violation”?

        • Solntsye

          I think that’s a reference to if she were to conceive via rape. If she were unable to return her life to as close as what it was before being attacked, and were required to go through the misery of pregnancy and the agony of birth from an act she did not consent to (rape, as opposed to consensual sex), that might be viewed as a repeated violation to the woman who was the victim of the rapist.

      • gues

        But a lot of women choose not to get abortion after rape because they choose not to be violated again. They heal a lot better when they keep their baby than if they were to get abortion because abortion is something a person regrets for life. When they do have a child, not only will they remember the first born they aborted but it will be in their medical record for any doctor that takes care of their prenatal needs to see. They won’t be considered G1P1 as in one gestation and one pregnancy. They will be considered G1P1A1 which is the same but with A1 meaning 1 abortion. They won’t ever forget, never.

        • Solntsye

          The recovery after rape is different for every woman that has been raped. While there are some women who would rather carry and deliver the baby (if she were to conceive during her attack), and feel that doing so would promote their recovery; there are others who would feel unable to recover if they were required to carry and give birth after being raped. There is no way anyone can make a definitive claim on what is best for every woman who has been raped. I’m not making the claim that a baby conceived in rape is a lesser human, but I am also not willing to dictate to a victimized woman what she “ought” to do while she is busy trying to pick up the shattered pieces of her life.

          You make a comment about once they do have a baby, that they will remember their “first born they aborted”. It sounds as though you believe that rape pregnancies only occur prior to a woman having children. It also sounds as though you believe every raped woman will go on to have kids later in her life. Neither of these assumptions you seem to be putting forth are true.

          I’m also curious to know what you are implying when you mention medical records and the fact that a doctor would know? Are you insinuating that a doctor would mistreat or neglect to care for her? Are you unaware of the Hippocratic oath?

        • Old RN

          You are mistaken to what the “G” and “P” represent in medical terminology. The “G” stands for “gravida”, meaning pregnancy; the “P” stands for “Para” meaning parity- or how many times she has given birth, how many visible children she has birthed.

          As far as medical records are concerned, we practitioners are only aware of whatever the patient would choose to divulge to us. There is no “permanent record” that follows people around like a felony rap sheet. However, in order for us to provide the best care, honesty is always the best policy when giving medical history.

          I find it highly offensive that it is being suggested that we would treat a post-abortive woman differently than a woman who has never aborted! I care for all my patients the same, and to the very best of my ability. Although I may be pro-life, I would never neglect the needs of a woman who has had an abortion in the past, nor would I ever mistreat her. I wouldn’t even take her past into consideration, as I would be caring for her in the present, key word being “caring”. To even suggest such behavior from us is inconscionable!

  • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

    “simply because its life is dependent on another human being.once the baby is born his/her body can survive on its own without leaching off of anybody else,thus it has a right to life”

    Why? What does dependence have to do with rights?

    • Arielle

      it’s the same argument that people have the right to their bodies and no one can force you to donate a kidney just because someone will die without it. the fetus will die without the mother’s body but just as I said, it’s not the mother’s fault, it’s just nature.if someday artificial wombs are created,good then,take out the baby and put it in that.until then every woman has the right to decide if they wanna lend their body to another human being or not.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        How is donating your kidney to a stranger analogous to not killing the child growing within you?

        • Arielle

          think about donating a kidney to your own child.And I will say it again,abortion doesnt kill a fetus,the fetus dies because it cant live without a the woman’s body.just like a child might die without a kidney.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “abortion doesnt kill a fetus”

            Do you even know what an abortion is?

          • kayla

            How could you think that? That’s somebodies first born not just a fetus!!! Is that all people care about these day??? Not, oh this was my first born and it could have had my hair or my eyes and could have been just like me? No, it’s all about I don’t want it so I’m going to put it down! What is it with the general population treating an unborn baby like a dog now???? First born children aren’t dogs, they are human beings that could feel pain!!!!

          • Rexi

            You’re describing abortion as if someone just plucks a fetus out of the womb and it just dies as a result of being born prematurely. D&E abortions are designed to rip pieces of the fetus’s living body apart until it is dead and it’s body parts are sucked out of the womb. The child is killed in utero, then removed, not the other way around.

  • Omar Fakhri

    In the original article that I submitted, it had the Marquis reference. For some reason, they didn’t include it. But since now I have log in information, I suppose I can just edit it and include it. Thanks for pointing that out.

    As to your other comments, “little one” is a reasonable translation of the Latin word “fetus.” I don’t think I was doing anything objectionable there. And I think my response to the third objection should cover your question about Grandma. That objection just assumes that the account I defend provides necessary conditions, which is not the case.

    • ProTruth2

      “little one” is a reasonable translation of the Latin word “fetus.”

      It bears no resemblance to a genuine translation of the Latin word ‘fetus:’

      http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfetus1

      http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dfetus2

      The ‘little one’ definition is a fake translation, used primarily by the pro-life community, as far as I can tell, and it’s a self-serving pseudo-translation meant to negate the distinction between a ‘baby’ and a ‘fetus’ that is drawn by the pro-choice community. Generally I find that the appearance of the ‘little one’ definition is a good indication that a post is going to be a repackaging of the same arguments circulating on other pro-life blogs, since it indicates that the author has not bothered to check the accuracy of his/her source material–something that is very easy to do on-line. While the definition is not germane to your argument, it is a fundamental part of the post’s rhetoric, and so your uncritical adoption of a tendentious and emotionally evocative fabrication severely undercuts your attempt to present your defense of “the little ones” as a dispassionate and reasoned logical proof.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        “a self-serving pseudo-translation meant to negate the distinction between a ‘baby’ and a ‘fetus’ that is drawn by the pro-choice community.”

        A distinction which is itself every bit as self-serving and misleading, rooted not in pro-choicers caring the slightest about accuracy but in their desire to dehumanize their victims through semantics.

      • Omar Fakhri

        Notice how I didn’t say, “‘Little one’ is THE translation of the Latin word ‘fetus,’” or “‘Little one’ is THE ONLY translation of the Latin word ‘fetus,’” or “‘Little one’ is THE BEST translation of the Latin word ‘fetus’”. Rather, I said, “‘Little one’ is A REASONABLE translation of the Latin word ‘fetus.’” And even after looking at those websites you cited, I still think it’s a reasonable translation. For instance, one of the translations from the website you cited is “young,” but in order for me to use that translation and it make sense grammatically, I think it’s reasonable to translate it “young ones.” Moreover, one of the translations in the Webster’s Online Dictionary is “young ones”
        (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Fetus). But if that’s the case, then surely “little ones” is not unreasonable! It’s not like I translated it to “thou who shall not be killed.” That would be objectionable. But to be honest with you, it doesn’t matter to me either way. When you read this article, just go back and insert “young ones” or even “fetus” if it so pleases you.

        As to the rest of the stuff you say after your website citations, it seems like you’re unfairly concluding too much from something so little. I can go back and change every instance of “little one” to “young one” (or to “fetus”), and this would not change the epistemic value of my arguments, at all. And at the end of the day, I care more about truth than rhetoric. Cheers.

        • ProTruth2

          Rather, I said, “‘Little one’ is A REASONABLE translation of the Latin word “fetus.” And even after looking at those websites you cited, I still think it’s a reasonable translation.

          With all due respect, if you were in a position to make a judgment on what a REASONABLE translation is, you would have recognized the “websites” that I cited as entries in an academic Latin-English dictionary–the thing that actual translators use to translate–and seen that those entries show no textual support for your interpretation. Leaving aside the etymological issues, ‘little one’ is not a reasonable translation for ‘young’ because while some young things are little and some little things are young, ‘young’ and ‘little’ aren’t the same thing. You might try drawing a Venn diagram if you’re still confused.

          When you read this article, just go back and insert “young ones” or even “fetus” if it so pleases you.

          Oh, it’s no more important to me than it is to you. I mentioned it simply because Live Action likes to pretend that it practices journalism, and real journalistic sites think that it’s important to correct inaccuracies whenever they appear, rather than deciding that accuracy is only important when they want it to be.

          • Omar Fakhri

            You say: “‘little one’ is not a reasonable translation for ‘young’ because while some young things are little and some little things are young, ‘young’ and ‘little’ aren’t the same thing.”

            I just disagree. I don’t think a reasonable translation implies that they have to mean the same thing. I don’t know why you have such stringent restrictions on translations. And you should notice that the website you provided says nothing about your stringent restrictions on translations. So citing the websites isn’t helping you establish these claims you’re making, although it seems as if you think they are. Also, on your view, there is a very odd consequence that arises. Suppose you’re right that a translation of a word must have the same meaning as that translation or else it’s not reasonable. Now just take some of the translations that are provided by that website you gave: young, offspring, progeny, brood. According to your view, ‘offspring’ is not a reasonable translation of fetus because ‘young’ is a reasonable translation and they don’t mean the same thing (you can work the argument the other way around too, starting with ‘offspring’ being the reasonable translation of ‘fetus’). That sort of reasoning is just muddleheaded. A translation of a word need not have the same meaning. That’s just way too stringent.

            I’ve done work in Ancient Languages (granted it’s not Latin), and a translation of something need not mean the same thing. They could be synonyms. And I don’t think “little ones” is that off from “young ones.” Those two seem reasonable to me.

            But again, it seems like your quibbles are just that quibbles. They are not dealing with any of the epistemic content of my arguments. To be honest with you, and with all due respect, they are not helpful remarks nor do they further the discussion on this topic, which at the end of the day, I think, is what we should all be aiming to do.

      • BuzEaston

        “ProTruth2″ is attempting to kick up dust on this subject instead of bringing clarity. I’ve never participated in a conversation about abortion that was conducted in Latin. The word “fetus” is often used in conversations conducted in English. So, it is only useful to understand how the word is used in English conversations. This is easy to figure out. When one wants to justify killing the being in question, it is called a fetus. When one does not want to kill the being in question (for instance in the case of expectant parents, grandparents, siblings, and doctors) it is called a “baby.” So there it is. A fetus is an unborn baby that someone wants to kill. Because the essence of this being cannot change because of any external agent’s motives, it necessarily follows that fetus and baby are synonyms.

  • Lea C.

    The child cannot survive on it’s own once outside the womb. Does it not require nourishment, protection from the elements, love and nurturing? You are in denial if you think children survive independently once born.

    • Arielle

      yes,but there is a difference( a very big one) between needing someone to take care of you,and leaching nutrients off of someone’s body. A baby can survive without the mother’s milk once it’s born.other people can take care of him if the mother doesnt want to.you cant compare it to pregnancy

  • Kim

    The morality behind “pulling a plug” is because one is brain dead, has no brain activity, and is basically already dead. If you don’t have brain activity, there’s no way to recover and all you are doing is being kept alive with a machine. The simple act of living when you’re brain dead isn’t really living. It’s the same concept when a baby is only being kept alive with machines and the parents are grieving because the baby will never be aware, never learn to talk or walk and do all the things the parents want for it. So there’s a lot of moral issues. As for “little one” that is what Fetus means!!!! He is going by the english translated definition of what a fetus IS.

  • Kayla

    If you do more research, then you can see why a lot of people believe abortion to be murder. The D&E abortions are the worst but there are still bad ones out there. With D&E abortions, they pull body parts of the baby out while the baby feels it. They die in pain so how is that not considered murder? If someone is cut into pieces it is considered murder but not when an abortion doctor is pulling apart body parts of the baby???? How is that a simple removal of a fetus??? Can’t you see why so many women, not mothers but women come to regret their choice of aborting their baby. They are depressed. Abortion isn’t really safe either. If they do end up not having any complications then they are more at risk for not having any more kids and could have an increased risk of certain cancers. These risks increase with every abortion a woman has.

  • Erica

    If the child was born prematurely and couldn’t survive outside the womb, THAT wouldn’t be the mother’s fault. However it IS the mother’s fault when she willfully takes the child out of it’s safehaven.

  • ProTruth2

    So citing the websites isn’t helping you establish these claims you’re making, although it seems as if you think they are.

    Oh, I think that if you read the dictionary a little more closely, you’ll see
    that it does. I explained it badly in my previous post. You are correct that
    ‘young’ and ‘offspring’ are not synonyms, but they are both reasonable
    translations of ‘fetus,’ a noun derived from the past participle of the archaic
    verb feo, as shown by several quotations from real Latin sources. So the question is, could one reasonably translate the examples of ‘fetus’ in the dictionary source quotations as ‘little one?’ I think we can all agree that would be a comical mistranslation of ‘fetus’ in the Horace quotation. It’s not a logical translation of ‘fetus’ in the Paulus quotation. Granted, Cicero does use some diminutives in his examples of ‘fetus,’ but they can mean ‘young’ as well as ‘little,’ and then we must ask ourselves whether ‘little one’ is the right connotation. I’m really not seeing it, particularly when a quick dictionary search shows us that when Cicero wanted to say ‘little one,’ he used a word that actually can be translated as ‘little one:’ the adjectival noun parvus.

    Not to harp on this point, because I know you don’t think that the accuracy of your words is relevant to the content of your argument. I’m just marveling at your belief that you don’t need a scrap of knowledge about a language to make pronouncements about its translation.

    • Omar Fakhri

      I never made a claim as strong as the one you’re accusing me of: ” I just can’t quite get past your belief that you don’t need a scrap of
      knowledge about a language to make pronouncements about its translation.”

      I of course take the Latin translation on authoritative grounds since I haven’t done any serious work in that language. But I take lots of things on authoritative grounds just like everyone else (most of the scientific claims I believe in I take on authoritative grounds since I haven’t done the experiments myself). I’m merely making this claim: the authoritative translations of the Latin word ‘fetus’ is not so much off from ‘little one.’ Even the website you gave seems to make it reasonable since I think ‘young ones’ and ‘little ones’ are not unreasonably off from each other.