Analysis

Response to pro-choice blogger: you’re begging the question

Somebody emailed me this blog post by someone who goes by the name “uncloseyourmind.” I want to offer a brief response to get him or her thinking more about the issue.

Common Ground
Here’s where we agree: uncloseyourmind opens the post by saying we need to talk about abortion. I whole-heartedly agree. Lots of people don’t want to talk about this, but whether pro-life or pro-choice people are right, this issue is an important one. If pro-choice people are right, then people like me want a medical procedure that’s tantamount to having a mole removed to become illegal. If pro-life people are right, then around 3,300 human beings will be wrongfully killed in America today. (Based on Guttmacher stats.) Either way it’s an important issue worth talking and thinking carefully about.

We also agree that women are persons, although we have a different definition of personhood. The word “person” is not preferable to me to describe anybody, because the word “person” is a legal term that’s been used in history to discriminate against different communities of human beings. I prefer to just say “human being,” because I believe all human beings are intrinsically valuable. I don’t know how you make sense of the concept of “equal human rights” without believing that humans have inherent value.

Personhood Criteria
Uncloseyourmind asserts that a person can be identified by asking these four questions:

1. Can the entity act in the world and respond to its environment?

2. Is the entity aware of its own existence?

3. Does the entity possess rights and duties?

4. If it can claim the right to live, does it live independently?

Obviously an unborn child, at least in the first trimester, doesn’t qualify under those standards as a person, except for arguably the first question. An embryo responds to its environment from fertilization.

The third question is actually a perfect example of circular reasoning, as the question at play is whether the unborn has rights. In other words, the implicit argument goes like this: “Does the unborn have rights? That depends on 4 questions, one of which is whether the unborn has rights.” Circular reasoning.

The problem here is that I have no reason to believe that the other qualities, (responding to the world, self-awareness and independence/viability) are morally relevant to determining a human being’s value. Maybe they are morally relevant, but there is no argument made that these are the relevant questions to be asking. They’re merely asserted, and then the blogger argues why the unborn don’t qualify under those asserted qualifications. That’s skipping a step, and it undermines the entire article. It undermines the entire article because every main point the blogger makes during the rest of the article assumes the unborn aren’t “persons,” and because that was never argued for, it’s classic begging the question.

Allow me to illustrate with the blogger’s next point.

“When abortion is illegal, women are not safe.”

For sake of argument, let’s assume that uncloseyourmind is correct and women around the world will continue to ignore abortion laws when they don’t agree with them and pay for risky, illegal abortions. This is only a morally relevant point if the unborn are not full human beings like the mother is. If the unborn are not human, then I agree, we should make abortions as safe as possible, because the only human being in the equation (besides the abortionist) is the mother. If the unborn are human, then the safety of killing that human is not the topic we should be focused on.

As Scott Klusendorf says, “why should the law be faulted for making it more risky to kill innocent human beings?”

You can see that the blogger is begging the question by bringing up the danger of illegal abortions without having first argued that the unborn are not “persons.”

“Not all women who get pregnant can have safe pregnancies.”

This is an example of a different informal logical fallacy: a strawman argument. Virtually no pro-life people or organizations, including the Catholic Church, are arguing that abortions to save the mother’s life should be illegal. (A distinction is sometimes made that a life-saving procedure that saves the mother’s life but results in the death of the embryo is not an “abortion,” but a life-saving medical procedure.) Whatever you call it, these procedures weren’t illegal before Roe, and they wouldn’t be illegal after Roe. That’s because if the mother’s life is at risk and the only way to save her life is to end the pregnancy, then it’s morally permissible. You can get there by using double effect reasoning, or you can use the philosophical concept of “third-party defense against an innocent aggressor.” (Similar to self-defense.) It doesn’t mean I think the unborn is not human in the case that the mother’s life is in danger. It means that through careful philosophic reasoning we can make sense of the idea that it’s morally permissible to take action to save a mother’s life, for instance in the case of a tubal pregnancy, even if we have the foreknowledge that the human embryo will not survive the surgery. Any careful thinker can differentiate between a salpingectomy and an elective abortion.

“An accidental pregnancy or a rape can destroy a woman’s life if she does not have access to abortion.”

I agree that pregnancy can be very difficult for a woman where the circumstances of conception involve rape. I’ve talked to enough rape-victims that became pregnant and gave birth to their baby that I’m a little weary of agreeing that this can “destroy a woman’s life.” That seems to assume a certain fragility about women that feels a little misogynistic to me, but that doesn’t mean I think pregnancy is easy, under any circumstances.

I also don’t think rapists are punished enough in our society. They’re often not even prosecuted for their crime, and when they are, they get off with too light of a prison sentence (in many states.) I say lock them up and throw away the key, because rape is one of the most evil and inhumane acts a human being can do to another human being.

But my colleague Steve Wagner asks a fair question here: “why should the child pay with her life for her father’s crime? The answer is yes if she’s not a child, but just a blob of cells or “potential human,” but that question has not been answered here.

Another relevant question from Scott Klusendorf would be this: how should our society treat people who remind us of a painful event? If the entity in question is a human being like you and me, then the answer is certainly not to kill him or her. I think the answer is to punish the criminal to the fullest extent of the law so that justice can be done, and to pass legislation for stronger punishments for those criminals. Legislation like that would recognize the true horror that is rape, and I think our society would be better for it.

Conclusion
Perhaps this blogger is right in that abortion should remain legal, but he or she has not actually argued for that position. He or she has simply asserted a very high bar that disqualifies the unborn from personhood as well as many other humans, including newborns and those that are disabled, and then argued from there. That is explained really well in a comment that was posted under the bloggers article, by an atheist who refers to himself as “G.F.”

Read every word:

I don’t see how whether a child is a product of rape or not has anything to do with whether or not it should be aborted. From the perspective of someone who believes in rights for the unborn, the actions of its father are irrelevant. If your father went and raped someone, it would be ridiculous to advocate punishing you for his crime. Similarly, a child that is the product of rape should not be killed because it’s father is a rapist.

As for “what qualifies as a person” in this article, you seem to set a very high standard for “personhood”.

People who are incarcerated or severely disabled may lack the ability to interact with their world – a prisoner is stuck behind four walls; a quadriplegic cannot eat, bathe, use the bathroom, etc. without assistance.

Some people who are severely mentally disabled may also be “unaware of their existence”. At the very least, it would be difficult to assess whether they are or not.

The severely handicapped also do not have any duties in society – for criminal actions, they can be ruled not criminally responsible due to mental defect. Are they not entitled to rights and protections? Should the disabled be euthanised?

The fourth point is once again one of “living independently”, something that the severely mentally or physically disabled, as well as young children, are incapable of doing.

By your measure, many living, breathing human beings are not “persons”.

What I am suggesting is not a slippery slope fallacy – some abortion advocates ARE advocating infanticide.

http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9950

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract

As an atheist and free-thinker, it I am appalled by the all-too-commonplace belief among atheists that human life, particularly for the most vulnerable members of society, has no value. The argument of many religious people that atheists are amoral is, unfortunately, often correct.

Live Action on Facebook
  • LoveTheLeast8

    Good job Josh. Bring out logic and science and the pro-aborts run scared.

    • Oedipa Mossmoon

      It’s apparent that pro-life advocates in these parts have an over-reliance on setting up debate workflows and subjecting pro-choice positions to its analysis. I’m sure, like you,  they think it’s a winning formula and, illustratively, Mr. Brahm sets up his expectations in a rigid dichotomy: either the pro-choice side is right … or the pro-life side is right.

      But there are problems with this approach. Maybe most importantly is the fact that Mr. Brahm’s expectation that either side will  “win” the debate is unobtainable. Both sides can and will hold onto their positions and, subsequently, the abortion problem has to be approached in terms of what the society’s priorities are: is the woman’s body subordinated to the protection of embryos? Or are embryos subordinated to the protection of women’s rights?

      Interestingly, Mr. Brahm himself in some cases is willing to subordinate the embryo to protection of the woman in cases where the woman’s life is in jeopardy. That’s the pro-choice position writ small. Writ large, we’d simply prioritize the woman in more cases than Mr. Brahm would. Both positions describe a policy that’s not some binary opposition (that will one day be “won” by either side), but something with some moral and political trade-offs.

      • Warrior4Life

        “Writ large, we’d simply prioritize the woman in more cases…”
        The issue is not “prioritizing”. By claiming that the pro-life position prioritizes the unborn’s life above his mother is a false accusation. The mother’s life is not at risk by being pregnant (Mr. Brahm has already argued for women who are at risk during pregnancy, so I won’t repeat what he has stated). Her social life may be. Her education may be. But there are so many mothers out there who have thrived as mothers, educationally, economically, and socially. Pregnancy is not a sentence to suffering. Live Action actually just posted an article on a young woman attending college while raising her 2-year-old. The pro-life side is actually very active in making sure the mother is taken care of and supported during and after pregnancy. Check out CareNet, a chain of crisis pregnancy centers who care for the mother during pregnancy by offering free counseling, materials, and medical service, as well as after pregnancy with continued free materials, parenting classes, and support. The pro-life argument is that the unborn is JUST as valuable as his mother, so they both deserve life and support.

      • http://www.facebook.com/josh.brahm Josh Brahm

        Why should I believe that choosing a medical procedure that will result in only one death instead of two is comparable to an elective abortion, chosen because having the baby would dramatically change her life, because of a financial issue, or because she’s a single mother or has relationship problems. Those three reasons are the top three reasons women choose to have abortions, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. 35% of aborting women named one of those three reasons as the primary reason for their abortion in 2004, the last time Guttmacher performed that survey. 
        http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

      • http://www.facebook.com/josh.brahm Josh Brahm

        By the way, I do think one side can win this debate, because after having reviewed the best arguments from both sides for 10 years, including pro-choice philosophers like David Boonin, Judith Jarvis Thompson and Peter Singer, I believe that pro-life arguments have much more explanatory power. 

        I think abortion is comparable in this way to slavery. It once seemed like a never-ending debate, but it wasn’t. Abolitionists like William Wilberforce saw black people for what they were: valuable human beings who’s rights were being violated. That is how I see the unborn, based on science and philosophy. And like slavery, I think people will continue to become more pro-life as they evaluate pro-life arguments with an open mind.

        • Kelsey

          The fact that you related this to slavery is just wrong. Whether you believe life starts at conception or later, abortion is not the same as cruelly, and intentionally forcing a mass race of people to involuntarily suffer for no other reason than the monetary gain of someone else for hundreds of years. Defending a conscious, self-aware human being against extreme, life-long psychological/physical damage at the hands of slavery is NOT the same as defending the “right to life” for a fetus that is created in, fed by, and a part of a woman’s body AGAINST THAT WOMAN. You have the right to your thoughts/feelings, but please be sensitive about your rhetoric.

          • Guest

            Notice that he said “comparable to”, not “identical to”.  This means that although abortion and slavery have many obvious differences, some of which you’ve pointed out in a less than courteous manner, there are some key similarities.  Specifically, both issues seemed unresolvable at one point in time.  Both involve human rights violations, and were tolerated because many people in society did not respect human equality.  And (hopefully), minds and society can be changed through rational discourse.

            You’ve made several specious claims in your comment.  There is no question that fertilization is the beginning of a genetically unique, metabolizing, self-developing, biologically separate human individual.  Here’s what the most widely used embryology textbook has to say:

            http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.ca/2004/12/embryology-quote-of-week-4.html

            Do you have a better scientific source saying that conception is not the beginning of a human individual?

            Abortion is done primarily for socioeconomic reasons.  While those may sound slightly more noble than the reasons given for slavery, do they justify killing a human being?  Killing someone causes extreme, life-long damage too you know:

            http://herestheblood.com/

            Why do you emphasize consciousness and self-awareness?  If you were in a temporary coma, wouldn’t it be just as wrong to kill you?

            The fetus is not “part of a woman’s body”.  If that were true, you could say that a pregnant woman can have two brains, two separate (unsynchronized) heartbeats, and (in some cases) two non-compatible blood types or two genders.  Surely this is ridiculous.

            One more thing: it’s not just any old woman we’re speaking of here.  It’s the child’s own biological mother they need to be protected from.  Pretty wild, huh?

          • Guest

            Notice that he said “comparable to”, not “identical to”.  This means that although abortion and slavery have many obvious differences, some of which you’ve pointed out in a less than courteous manner, there are some key similarities.  Specifically, both issues seemed unresolvable at one point in time.  Both involve human rights violations, and were tolerated because many people in society did not respect human equality.  And (hopefully), minds and society can be changed through rational discourse.

            You’ve made several specious claims in your comment.  There is no question that fertilization is the beginning of a genetically unique, metabolizing, self-developing, biologically separate human individual.  Here’s what the most widely used embryology textbook has to say:

            http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.ca/2004/12/embryology-quote-of-week-4.html

            Do you have a better scientific source saying that conception is not the beginning of a human individual?

            Abortion is done primarily for socioeconomic reasons.  While those may sound slightly more noble than the reasons given for slavery, do they justify killing a human being?  Killing someone causes extreme, life-long damage too you know:

            http://herestheblood.com/

            Why do you emphasize consciousness and self-awareness?  If you were in a temporary coma, wouldn’t it be just as wrong to kill you?

            The fetus is not “part of a woman’s body”.  If that were true, you could say that a pregnant woman can have two brains, two separate (unsynchronized) heartbeats, and (in some cases) two non-compatible blood types or two genders.  Surely this is ridiculous.

            One more thing: it’s not just any old woman we’re speaking of here.  It’s the child’s own biological mother they need to be protected from.  Pretty wild, huh?

          • Leiapeison

             kelsey: you cant win with this guy. he is a mysoginist to his core. my friend and i made a response video to him once on youtube. he false dmcd us. he is a creep

      • Elise77

         It’s not that one side or the other won’t win the debate. It’s just that one side will never concede the debate. Because if you try to inject facts into the debate, that side reverts to the argument that only their rights matter, and anything else is irrelevant.

        You speak of “moral and political trade-offs.” I rarely hear of pro-”choicers” (at least the vocal ones) being willing to yield ANY ground in the debate. You want to restrict elective abortions to the first trimester with exceptions for the life and health of the mother? NO WAY, forget about it. How about setting the bar at sixteen weeks? HECK no. Twenty weeks?? It’s been PROVEN that unborn children are capable of perceiving pain at that point, so any decent human being should be content to draw the line there for SURE, right?? RIGHT??? Ha! Nope! That’s completely irrelevant! The ONLY thing that matters is my COMPLETE SOVEREIGNTY over my uterus. Any child that has the nerve to manifest itself (apparently from thin air) within that hallowed chamber deserves what it gets.

        As far as “subordinating” one human over the other: only one of the two people (baby or mother) has ANY say in the whole process. To say that pregnancy makes a woman the baby’s slave implies that the situation was the baby’s fault or the baby’s decision. Are you really casting an embryo as a villain? Seriously?

        In cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, it’s not about favoring one’s right over that of the other. It’s about saving who you can save. If the baby can not yet survive outside of the womb, the only question is whether to save the mom or let them BOTH die. There’s no “subordination” there. It’s the same principle as is used in a triage situation. With limited options, you use your best judgment and save who you can.

        In the case that the baby will likely survive birth but carrying to term will somehow only jeopardize the mother, I can tell you that most mothers would give their lives to save their unborn children if they could. I personally know someone who was faced with that very decision and risked leaving behind three very young children to carry her youngest son to term. Moms tend to do crazy stuff like that. But in the event that carrying the pregnancy to term would somehow result in substantial risk to the mother’s life despite good prospects for a healthy baby, someone must reason their way through that difficult decision between saving the mother or saving the baby, and obviously, since the baby can not reason, it must be the mother who decides whether to save her baby or herself. Bringing the pregnancy to an end to save the mother is not really “elective.” Unlike elective abortion, the procedure is intended to save a life, not produce a dead baby.

  • Mary Ann Wright

    Thank you for putting into words EXACTLY what needed to be said in response to the woman who posited this pro-abortion position.  Well said, Josh!

  • Simonjm1970

    I would agree with my fellow atheist; I don’t see Liberals atheists as any more rational than conservatives, they have their own bias blindspots.

  • bubbalouwee

    Why is our society so caught up with rights granted by the federal goverment?  If the government robs Americans of their right to life by declaring certain Americans “domestic terrorists”, will there be countless pro choicers in favor of their fellow Americans being put to death because they have been declared to have no rights?  The concentration camps built throughout the USA frighten me.  Human life is sacred and a gift from God.  Everyone is accountable to God, including those who do not believe in Him, and all people should have a holy fear of offending God.  Seek mercy while you live, because in death, it is perfect justice. 

  • Pingback: silent no more. « Bonum Certamen

  • Leiapeison

    it isnt a matter of it “just reminding her” of her rape. it is a matter of her being subjugated to role of forced broodmare for her attacker. you say you have spoken to lots of impregnated rape victims. i HOPE they had a choice whether or not to have those children and that no one like you forced them to be mothers. it is absolute subjugation to be an unwilling mother after rape. all her free will is gone. if i am ever pregnant, whether by rape or consensual intercourse, i will abort.

    • grdawg

      People seem to forget that the baby isn’t just the attacker’s child.  She’s the mother’s child, too, and she is not a monster.  She should not have to be put to death for a crime that her father committed – and one that he won’t even be put to death for!  The answer, I think, is to tighten and heighten the punishment for rape, not to kill the innocent children.  Abortion does not make rape go away or get better or make it forgotten.  It often hurts the mother again.  http://www.hliamerica.org/truth-and-charity-forum/i-know-that-abortion-hurts-women/ Take a look at this lady whose mother gave her up for adoption after rape – she has many other stories on her site, too:  http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html.

  • Paulo Mendonça

    Wanna stop the criminalization of abortion on the world? So please give a LIKE on brazillian’s movement on facebook in favor of abortion’s legalization, it will only take 5 seconds.

    The link is: facebook.com/abortoeumdireito

    Obrigado, my friends!