Topic suggestion: Pro-Life Atheists

[SM1970]

Hi,
just found your show and and slowing going through past episodes. Just listended to the abortion podcast and wondered if you would be interested to have Pro-Life Atheists or agnostics on the show? I'm a strong atheist and while technically I'm not Pro-Life I lean that way. It would also be nice to tie this in with an overall discussion of what gives human life full moral value. Maybe I wouldn't be the best guest but I know of others eloquent enough to make a good interview. But I would love to help suggest some of the topics; I've done the basics of the topic at university and continued with my own research. Nice show.
Cheers
Simon

[NH Baritone]

Hi,
just found your show and and slowing going through past episodes. Just listended to the abortion podcast and wondered if you would be interested to have Pro-Life Atheists or agnostics on the show? I'm a strong atheist and while technically I'm not Pro-Life I lean that way. It would also be nice to tie this in with an overall discussion of what gives human life full moral value. Maybe I wouldn't be the best guest but I know of others eloquent enough to make a good interview. But I would love to help suggest some of the topics; I've done the basics of the topic at university and continued with my own research. Nice show.
Cheers
Simon

Just to be clear, are you simply trying to convince pregnant women that they individually should decide not to have abortions, or are you genuinely seeking to deny women the legal right to control their own wombs?

If the former, then you are not pro-life, but instead, you remain pro-choice. You are just inviting women to think about the procedure differently, and make a choice in your preferred direction.

But if the latter, are you proposing that all abortions be made illegal?

If instead, as an example, you state that women are legally allowed to seek abortion in the case of rape or incest, why would the fetus in those circumstances have less "full moral value" than any other fetus?

And if you are seeking changes in the law, what legal redress are you going to propose? Fines? Prison? Capital punishment?

Remember that robust data from several studies have indicated that at least 25-30% of US women have had an abortion during their lifetimes. If you attempt to inflate the moral value of the potential human life that a non-viable fetus represents (and thereby diminish the moral value and agency of a living, breathing independent human), you are going to have a high ethical bar to cross.

And simultaneously you are going to bring into question various fertility treatments, embryo storage for cancer patients, and other current medical procedures that are currently allowed because American society functions under an assumption that a fetus does not have full human value.

[SM1970]

NH Baritone you have raised quite a few questions so if you have the time I'll address each as fully as I can. I'm going out of town but will be back tonight so I'll have something for you then.

[SM1970]

Hi,
just found your show and and slowing going through past episodes. Just listended to the abortion podcast and wondered if you would be interested to have Pro-Life Atheists or agnostics on the show? I'm a strong atheist and while technically I'm not Pro-Life I lean that way. It would also be nice to tie this in with an overall discussion of what gives human life full moral value. Maybe I wouldn't be the best guest but I know of others eloquent enough to make a good interview. But I would love to help suggest some of the topics; I've done the basics of the topic at university and continued with my own research. Nice show.
Cheers
Simon

Just to be clear, are you simply trying to convince pregnant women that they individually should decide not to have abortions, or are you genuinely seeking to deny women the legal right to control their own wombs? If the former, then you are not pro-life, but instead, you remain pro-choice. You are just inviting women to think about the procedure differently, and make a choice in your preferred direction.

I would deny anyone the legal right to kill someone they effectively place inside themselves. I have a Button analogy derived from the Twilight Zone episode Button Button that questions that ‘right’.

But if the latter, are you proposing that all abortions be made illegal?

No, just most non rape cases.

If instead, as an example, you state that women are legally allowed to seek abortion in the case of rape or incest, why would the fetus in those circumstances have less "full moral value" than any other fetus?

Much is made of our right to bodily autonomy, since we don’t as a community make people donate organs or blood to save another life we shouldn’t in rape either. I do think that there is a case that you lose that right if you put another moral being in state of dependency, even if that is inside yourself. After all it is a well used moral precept that we are morally responsible for harm and existential dependency and that often compensation is owed in those cases. Even the Pro-Choice philosopher David Boonin makes this case with his toxic waste analogy.

And if you are seeking changes in the law, what legal redress are you going to propose? Fines? Prison? Capital punishment?

That would depend of precedent. Given the recent Post Birth Abortion paper and Child Destruction laws already in place around the world, that could range from manslaughter to murder. BTW I don’t support capital punishment.

Remember that robust data from several studies have indicated that at least 25-30% of US women have had an abortion during their lifetimes. If you attempt to inflate the moral value of the potential human life that a non-viable fetus represents (and thereby diminish the moral value and agency of a living, breathing independent human), you are going to have a high ethical bar to cross.

First it isn’t a potential human life it is a human life, and one could based on telenomy argue it is a person, but we can take that up later. Next viability and independence don’t really make much sense unless you think a leech isn’t a independent organism because it attaches and feeds off another living organism. Regarding viability it is one of the worst arguments in the debate and discounted by many Pro-Choice philosophers themselves. The fact remains even if viable in one sense it still occupies the woman’s body and if bodily autonomy is such a strong justification, viability changes nothing in that regard and is in fact just another type of potentiality.

BTW I don’t think they gaoled people in the US just because they used to own slaves when the laws changed, wouldn’t happen here either even if a woman had had an abortion.

Just be consistent, if you think bodily autonomy is the justification then abortions should be legal right up until birth.

If you think only persons have full moral rights then neonates and infants up to around 18 months could be terminated as well if done humanely.

Yes there other accounts but they are on thin ice themselves.

And simultaneously you are going to bring into question various fertility treatments, embryo storage for cancer patients, and other current medical procedures that are currently allowed because American society functions under an assumption that a fetus does not have full human value.

Yes I would. Let’s put it this way, the Post Birth Abortion paper sees no basic reason why new born’s couldn’t be terminated for similar reasons as pre-natals; they aren’t persons after all. & though this wasn’t raised in the paper nowhere else in society do we force people who want to terminate non person animals to hand them to people who want to care for them, so why force a parent who wants to do this with a non person human? BTW if you argue the utility value of stem cells etc then think of all the lives you could save if unwanted babies were used as body banks and experimental subjects. Again they aren’t persons.

Say society moved in that direction what objection would you have if there was great utility value, when it is perfectly consistent with both bodily autonomy and that only persons have full moral value?

[mitchellmckain]

Hi,
just found your show and and slowing going through past episodes. Just listended to the abortion podcast and wondered if you would be interested to have Pro-Life Atheists or agnostics on the show? I'm a strong atheist and while technically I'm not Pro-Life I lean that way. It would also be nice to tie this in with an overall discussion of what gives human life full moral value. Maybe I wouldn't be the best guest but I know of others eloquent enough to make a good interview. But I would love to help suggest some of the topics; I've done the basics of the topic at university and continued with my own research. Nice show.
Cheers
Simon

LOL

Yeah maybe we can have a discussion between anti-abortionist atheists like you and pro-choice Christians like me.

That should break from the rut of tire old cliches.

[Keep The Reason]

This is probably better off in the discussions forum but ok, I'll bite: why this qualifier?

No, just most non rape cases.

What is it about rape that changes the blastocyst from being a person with full protection of all rights (as you argue), into a non-person who can be terminated? Why should the "baby" pay for an act it had nothing to do with?

[SM1970]

Hi,
just found your show and and slowing going through past episodes. Just listended to the abortion podcast and wondered if you would be interested to have Pro-Life Atheists or agnostics on the show? I'm a strong atheist and while technically I'm not Pro-Life I lean that way. It would also be nice to tie this in with an overall discussion of what gives human life full moral value. Maybe I wouldn't be the best guest but I know of others eloquent enough to make a good interview. But I would love to help suggest some of the topics; I've done the basics of the topic at university and continued with my own research. Nice show.
Cheers
Simon

LOL

Yeah maybe we can have a discussion between anti-abortionist atheists like you and pro-choice Christians like me.

That should break from the rut of tire old cliches.

Yes contrarian voices would be interesting.

[Rian]

This is probably better off in the discussions forum but ok, I'll bite: why this qualifier?

No, just most non rape cases.

What is it about rape that changes the blastocyst from being a person with full protection of all rights (as you argue), into a non-person who can be terminated? Why should the "baby" pay for an act it had nothing to do with?

I think the general principle behind this is like where a person sees several people drowning, and it's only physically possible for him to save one at a time. There must be a choice made; it's not that the ones he does not choose aren't people, or are bad or deserving, etc. etc. Or if it's obvious that a person is dying on the field of battle and they're in terrible pain, and a fellow soldier might choose to shoot them. They weren't shot because they were bad or deserving; it's just the least bad of two horrible choices.

[SM1970]

This is probably better off in the discussions forum but ok, I'll bite: why this qualifier?

No, just most non rape cases.

What is it about rape that changes the blastocyst from being a person with full protection of all rights (as you argue), into a non-person who can be terminated? Why should the "baby" pay for an act it had nothing to do with?

First i don't say it becomes a non person without moral value, one can have full moral rights and still have your life ended in certain circumstances. Self defence is a prime example. A mad person attacking someone is still innocent, and it would be unfortunate to kill them to save yourself, regardless you would be justified in killing them if you had no other choice.

Again, much is made of our right to bodily autonomy, since we don’t as a community make people donate organs or blood to save another life we shouldn’t in rape either. The rape baby is an innocent offender occupying another moral entity without consent. Ethically while it is very moral to donate blood and organs to save other peoples lives we don't force people to do it.

On the other hand I do think that there is a case that you lose that right if you put another moral being in state of dependency, even if that is inside yourself. After all it is a well used moral precept that we are morally responsible for harm and existential dependency, and that often compensation is owed in those cases. Even the Pro-Choice philosopher David Boonin makes this case with his toxic waste analogy.

[Keep The Reason]

I think the general principle behind this is like where a person sees several people drowning, and it's only physically possible for him to save one at a time. There must be a choice made; it's not that the ones he does not choose aren't people, or are bad or deserving, etc. etc. Or if it's obvious that a person is dying on the field of battle and they're in terrible pain, and a fellow soldier might choose to shoot them. They weren't shot because they were bad or deserving; it's just the least bad of two horrible choices.

It's completely different. Abortions are a case by case issue; its' not like a group of people in mortal danger at the same time and you're forced into selecting who lives or dies.

Mother / fetus A --Abortion in this non rape case is disallowed.

Three days later, in a completely different state:

Mother / fetus B -- Abortion in this rape case is allowed?


It's not like it's Mother / baby AB and only one can be saved so make your choice as the ship sinks. It's just not that scenario, general or otherwise. It's irrelevant.

[Keep The Reason]

. The rape baby is an innocent offender occupying another moral entity without consent.

Innocent offender? Pease justify that concept, that a forming baby is capable of offense. And please justify the idea that any fetus consents to implantation in a uterus ("occupying") be it by any method whatsoever.

On the other hand I do think that there is a case that you lose that right if you put another moral being in state of dependency, even if that is inside yourself.

Support the statement that a week old blastocyst is a "moral being". And you haven't defended the idea that this "moral being" is thus justified in being "murdered" in rape cases other than saying anything other than, "Well, sometimes unfair shit happens".

[SM1970]

I think the general principle behind this is like where a person sees several people drowning, and it's only physically possible for him to save one at a time. There must be a choice made; it's not that the ones he does not choose aren't people, or are bad or deserving, etc. etc. Or if it's obvious that a person is dying on the field of battle and they're in terrible pain, and a fellow soldier might choose to shoot them. They weren't shot because they were bad or deserving; it's just the least bad of two horrible choices.

It's completely different. Abortions are a case by case issue; its' not like a group of people in mortal danger at the same time and you're forced into selecting who lives or dies.

Mother / fetus A --Abortion in this non rape case is disallowed.

Three days later, in a completely different state:

Mother / fetus B -- Abortion in this rape case is allowed?


It's not like it's Mother / baby AB and only one can be saved so make your choice as the ship sinks. It's just not that scenario, general or otherwise. It's irrelevant.

As you would expect I agree with Rian, & general moral principles can still be applied in line with what we use in society. We don't allow anyone to use our bodies without our consent, or even force relatives to do so to save our lives. Nor are we required to risk our lives and no birth is risk free. So why here? & we do as a society accept we can kill even innocent people in extreme circumstances, even if that is not directly their fault.

If saving a life at risk is so important then force everyone to give up their bodily autonomy if it can save a life. Don't just force it on just these women. & don't say well they are the only ones in this situation, because you don't have to be attached to someone to see that cancelling your bodily autonomy rights can save a lives in other situations.

[Keep The Reason]

As you would expect I agree with Rian, & general moral principles can still be applied in line with what we use in society. We don't allow anyone to use our bodies without our consent, or even force relatives to do so to save our lives. Nor are we required to risk our lives and no birth is risk free. So why here? & we do as a society accept we can kill even innocent people in extreme circumstances, even if that is not directly their fault.

If saving a life at risk is so important then force everyone to give up their bodily autonomy if it can save a life. Don't just force it on just these women. & don't say well they are the only ones in this situation, because you don't have to be attached to someone to see that cancelling your bodily autonomy rights can save a lives in other situations.

It's apples and oranges. The idea that completely separate cases of impregnation are "either-or" scenarios to one another (I must choose which baby to save in these abortions scenarios!") is just nonsense. You're simply ignoring the moral issue of the innocent "baby" who came into life as a product of rape because you are in a logical box. In short, if you consider all abortion murder, even the "murder" of a 2 week old blastocyst, then you are forced to admit that it's just as much murder to the product of rape as it is a product of a night of drinking or a broken condom.

You are also trapped in deciding whose life is more valuable. Your argument that "no birth is risk free" cuts both ways-- it stands as equally strong to thus abort EVERY baby since the risk to the mother is in some way possible.

The second major, MAJOR issue is the idea that we kill innocent people in extreme circumstances even if not directly their fault. How so? What are you going to say ? Collateral damage in a war? If so, you are missing the key ingredient of such collateral damage which is that their deaths are unintentional -- which is why they are called "collateral". When civilians and innocents are purposely targeted, this is called "war crimes" and rightly so.

But what are we to make of aborting the fetus who is created from rape? This is a clear cut intentional murder of the so-called innocent; it's not accidental, it's not even being done to save the life of someone else (i.e., the mother); no it's being done based purely on an arbitrary decision to find it unpalatable that a rape victim should suffer a second outrage and be forced to carry a baby to term under those circumstances.

Now I am in favor of abortion for a wide variety of reasons, though under a limited time frame, so this is not a problem I have to deal with. I have no problem with the abortion of any blastocyst for any reason be it rape or even inconvenient timing; I do not consider fetuses up to a certain point to have any protected features. But you definitely have a much different problem, which is how to make this moral argument about the protection of life, and at the same time not slide into the moral morass of your arbitrary "exclusions". No, the rape fetus is not collateral damage, it is not an offender, it committed no crime, and despite "birth being not risk free" you are intentionally intervening, and that changes the game.

Unless, of course, you admit your position is hopelessly contradictory and you stand by it anyway. You certainly can opt to admit that you are suspending its imperative and making an exception, and are quite conscious of doing so, but that won't change the fact that if abortion is, in any sense murder in your position, then you are a party to murder as well in any and all cases where you grant an exception.

I think you're backing a 1 legged horse in this race, but you have every right to do so.

[SM1970]

As you would expect I agree with Rian, & general moral principles can still be applied in line with what we use in society. We don't allow anyone to use our bodies without our consent, or even force relatives to do so to save our lives. Nor are we required to risk our lives and no birth is risk free. So why here? & we do as a society accept we can kill even innocent people in extreme circumstances, even if that is not directly their fault.

If saving a life at risk is so important then force everyone to give up their bodily autonomy if it can save a life. Don't just force it on just these women. & don't say well they are the only ones in this situation, because you don't have to be attached to someone to see that cancelling your bodily autonomy rights can save a lives in other situations.

It's apples and oranges. The idea that completely separate cases of impregnation are "either-or" scenarios to one another (I must choose which baby to save in these abortions scenarios!") is just nonsense. You're simply ignoring the moral issue of the innocent "baby" who came into life as a product of rape because you are in a logical box. In short, if you consider all abortion murder, even the "murder" of a 2 week old blastocyst, then you are forced to admit that it's just as much murder to the product of rape as it is a product of a night of drinking or a broken condom.

I never said all abortion is murder. So the most of what you say falls flat right away.

You are also trapped in deciding whose life is more valuable. Your argument that "no birth is risk free" cuts both ways-- it stands as equally strong to thus abort EVERY baby since the risk to the mother is in some way possible.

Non sequitur if we choose to risk our lives for another that’s perfectly fine, we are talking about being forced to do it.

The second major, MAJOR issue is the idea that we kill innocent people in extreme circumstances even if not directly their fault. How so? What are you going to say ? Collateral damage in a war? If so, you are missing the key ingredient of such collateral damage which is that their deaths are unintentional -- which is why they are called "collateral". When civilians and innocents are purposely targeted, this is called "war crimes" and rightly so.

Let’s take the example of shooting down an 9/11 hijacked airliner to protect those on the ground. Even though most of those on board are innocent many ethicists would consider the shooting down of the jet as justifiable on self defence or public safety grounds. BTW unintentional killing of civilians in some circumstances can also be a war crime.

But what are we to make of aborting the fetus who is created from rape? This is a clear cut intentional murder of the so-called innocent; it's not accidental, it's not even being done to save the life of someone else (i.e., the mother); no it's being done based purely on an arbitrary decision to find it unpalatable that a rape victim should suffer a second outrage and be forced to carry a baby to term under those circumstances.

Begging the question. I've raised bodily autonomy and you have yet to address that in any meaningful way. & again I'm simply applying a moral precept that is widely accepted that we don't have to allow anyone to use our body against our will. Thompsons Violinist addresses the point about innocent offenders pls feel free to address that at some stage.

Now I am in favor of abortion for a wide variety of reasons, though under a limited time frame, so this is not a problem I have to deal with. I have no problem with the abortion of any blastocyst for any reason be it rape or even inconvenient timing; I do not consider fetuses up to a certain point to have any protected features. But you definitely have a much different problem, which is how to make this moral argument about the protection of life, and at the same time not slide into the moral morass of your arbitrary "exclusions". No, the rape fetus is not collateral damage, it is not an offender, it committed no crime, and despite "birth being not risk free" you are intentionally intervening, and that changes the game.

With due respect you don't get the basics of my stance right let alone address bodily autonomy or any of my points or Rian's for that matter.

Unless, of course, you admit your position is hopelessly contradictory and you stand by it anyway. You certainly can opt to admit that you are suspending its imperative and making an exception, and are quite conscious of doing so, but that won't change the fact that if abortion is, in any sense murder in your position, then you are a party to murder as well in any and all cases where you grant an exception.

I think you're backing a 1 legged horse in this race, but you have every right to do so.

Maybe you could think about it again and come up with something coherent.

[Keep The Reason]

I never said all abortion is murder. So the most of what you say falls flat right away.

Okay if it isn't "all" murder then what is it, and why is there a moral issue with it if it's NOT murder? When is abortion NOT murder in your model?

Non sequitur if we choose to risk our lives for another that’s perfectly fine, we are talking about being forced to do it.

I'm not opposed to this, but your stance is nebulous. In some places it's okay to forfeit the life, in other places not. What's the difference? I have a serious push back on the idea that it's based exclusively on "bodily autonomy" which is incredibly subjective and unenforceable even if it could be objectively defined.

Let’s take the example of shooting down an 9/11 hijacked airliner to protect those on the ground. Even though most of those on board are innocent many ethicists would consider the shooting down of the jet as justifiable on self defence or public safety grounds. BTW unintentional killing of civilians in some circumstances can also be a war crime.

That's right but how this relates to abortion is only clear in that it doesn't relate to it at all. In the case of rape you are not in the position of having to select the loss of one number of lives in order to save another number of lives necessarily (let's put aside the occasions where "life of the mother" is a medical issue though there's a meaningful debate there as well, let's just take this one at a time).

The aborting of a rape baby is not going to destroy the "lives of those on the ground" as it would in your 9/11 hijacking example. There are options other than abortion, whereas there are no other options in terms of having to stop that plane. And every time you float this unrelated example it's going to fail for the same reasons.

Begging the question. I've raised bodily autonomy and you have yet to address that in any meaningful way. & again I'm simply applying a moral precept that is widely accepted that we don't have to allow anyone to use our body against our will. Thompson's Violinist addresses the point about innocent offenders pls feel free to address that at some stage.

But this is in the case of every fetus born of a broken condom or around some other form of birth control. All the mother need do is express the idea that it wasn't her intent to get pregnant, and thus the fetus is now "using her body against her will". How do you discriminate between the two?

Thought experiments are fun, and I might choose to spend the 9 months to help a fellow human being out, or maybe not-- "Obligation" is a spectrum. But then your approach, in order to be consistent would be that a pregnancy that was accidental is under the same guidelines as one from rape-- in neither case is the person who is pregnant consenting to be the incubator of the fetus. So, are you open to the idea of abortion from accidental pregnancy as well, or not?

With due respect you don't get the basics of my stance right let alone address bodily autonomy or any of my points or Rian's for that matter.

With due respect your comparison to either-or scenarios are simply unwarranted examples because the cause-effect is nothing remotely the same, and you're really not being clear. If abortion is not the killing of a human being with rights, then what is your objection to it?

Maybe you could think about it again and come up with something coherent.

I can only base my response on the position you offer. What is your objection to abortion?

If it is the killing of a human being, then how do you justify the innocent rape victim -- why does that person's rights vanish? The mother could easily have the child, offer it up for adoption, and walk away from the entire episode without the taking of a life.

Comparing that to a plane full of innocents which is headed for an attack that would cause even more innocents' death-- and would also kill the persons on the plane in any event -- is a completely different moral dilemma in that you have to opt for an action where someone MUST die: X number of people, or X number of people plus MORE people on the ground as well. But in both cases, the X number will in fact die. There are no alternatives. This so completely detaches itself from the rape-baby argument to render them completely different in kind and scope.

I just find your position to be fraught with serious flaws, and inconsistent, and unclear.