Does anyone find an argument like this one familiar?
Democrat: Abortion is ok, because it is not murder.
Republican: Abortion is murder, because the unborn are humans.
Democrat: Abortion is ok, because it is not murder, because the unborn are not alive.
Republican: The unborn are alive (cites scientific data x).
Democrat: The unborn are not alive (cites scientific data y).
Republican: Hitler.
Democrat: Woman hater.
Democrat: as usual, you've done little than circularly reason that the unborn is not living, and therefore cannot be killed. Logical problem here, Mr. Democrat. The problem, is that your assertion that abortion is not killing, and therefore not murder, is based on your pre-determination that abortion is morally acceptable. Therefore, your argument requires your premise, and your premise requires your argument. Your statement cannot exist on its own, and use itself as its own proof.
Republican, you are the polar opposite of Democrat's circular reasoning. You circularly rationalize from the "Republican" point of view, and do not address the topic legitimately so as to change the mind of anyone observing the statements you make. Suffice to say, circular reasoning on either side is insufficient to create an appeal to reason. "Abortion is murder, therefore not permissible", holds about as much weight as "Abortion is not murder, and is therefore allowable".
Furthermore, all scientific evidence presented from both sides is functionally biased, and due to the already existing paradigm of the poster of such "objective material", and only further causes the complete alienation of opposition. Therefore, I really must reject literally every position taken in the above conversation. However, I offer what should be seen as a rational and acceptable approach, Many may disagree with the findings, but I challenge them to look beyond the conclusion, and to examine the methodology. If so done, I believe that the reader will find a strong case to re-examine the question of abortion.
Abortion is a moral choice; that correctness of that choice revolves around an answer to what seems to be positive question: "Is abortion murder?" However, the reality of the situation, is that the question "Is abortion murder?" Is based on the nomothetic question "What should be considered murder?".
As a logical answer to the nomothetic question, I suggest that anything that can be realistically considered murder, in the absence of scientific proof of "murderness/unmurderness", ought to be considered murder, and therefore the "murderee" be protected.
Why? Because society demands as a functional and foundational first pillar, the respect for human life, in the order of sustainable development, and societal progress and structure. That is, to say, that without a broad respect for human life, society reverts to the Hobbes' state of nature, in which life is nasty, brutish, and short.
As a logic model, we can see that there are two possible answers to the positive question: "Is Abortion Murder?"
However, we can also assert that those who answer the positive question "no", ought to be very narrow in their answer to the question "What should be considered murder?". However, it has been historically observed that a majority of the individuals who would answer the positive question no, would reject the notion of capital punishment, while the nomothetic question of whether or not capital punishment is murder, (that is not to say that capital punishment is not killing) remains unanswered, largely due to the societal ramifications for allowing/disallowing capital punishment, and the issue of whether or not government instituted punishments can indeed be considered murder. Therefore, it can be concluded that those who assert that abortion is not murder, thereby answering the nomothetic question as well as the positive, are quite possibly answering the nomothetic question based on a personal bias for the desired societal answer to the positive question.
On the other hand, the same parallel can be made for individuals who oppose abortion. While their opposition to abortion is based on their assertion that abortion is murder, their assertion that abortion is murder also does not correlate to a pattern of a broad definition of humanity, but instead also is an indicator of support for capital punishment.
Therefore, a neutral stance must be taken.
Society at large, understands that a respect for life, (especially of humanity) is important. If this is disputed, then nothing in the positive nor nomothetic questions matters.
As a neutral respect for life, we must assume that the nomothetic question remains unanswered, as far as a democratically acceptable "truth". (If I accept that there is anything such as a democratic truth is another question altogether). Therefore, the "unansweredness" of the nomothetic question leads a rational society to accept that the unproven "non-life" of the unborn constitutes a real and legitimate societal protection of the unborn, as if it were life. While scientific data can only provide evidence of functionality, this evidence will never provide sufficient answer to the positive question, as evidence will be manipulated by the respective sides in order to promote their respective positions.
In conclusion, the question "Is Abortion Murder?" is not answered by Planned Parenthood, nor the National Right to Life. The question "What should be considered murder?" is a nomothetic one, that cannot be answered by scientific data and evidence, therefore the positive question cannot be answered scientifically. As a result, society must act in the best interest of society; that being the protection of all plausible definitions of life, as if they were indeed life.
Hobbes depicts the fight of the strong vs. the weak as a certainty in the state of nature. While the unborn cannot indeed gain up and fight mothers who may pursue an abortion, the concept of "assumed equality", while proof of such equality is absent is the foundational pillar by which our society respects women and men as equals, as well as respects various races as equals. To disqualify something that cannot be reasonably proven to lack standing as a member of society, is to commit a great crime against humanity in general.
From a merely logical assertion of the debate of abortion, here's an outcome possibility layout, starting with the assumption (I believe a fair one) that the positive question "Is abortion murder?" cannot be objectively answered.
Key:
if Murder = If M
if Not Murder = If ~M
and outlawed = /\ O
and not outlawed = /\ ~O
then = -->
Women's reproductive rights revoked for no reason.
= Negative Result for women = NR(women)
The unborn are given no right to live.
= Negative Result for unborn =NR(unborn)
Women maintain reproductive rights.
= Positive Result for women = PR(women)
The unborn retain the right to life.
= Positive Result for unborn = PR(unborn)
First: If abortion is not murder, but is outlawed, then...
Negative Result: Women's property rights revoked for no reason.
Logically signified by
1) If ~M /\ O --> NR(women)
------------------------------
Second: If abortion is not murder, and is completely left up to the choice of the mother, then...
Positive Result: Women maintain reproductive rights.
Logically signified by
2) If ~M /\ ~O --> PR(women)
-------------------------------
Third: If abortion is murder, and is not outlawed, then...
Positive Result: Women maintain reproductive rights.
However, since abortion is murder, unborn are no longer merely subject to the reproductive rights of the mother, so the Positive Result does not really exist.
Negative Result: The unborn are given no right to live. (Therefore, murdered)
Logically signified by
3) If M /\ ~O --> PR(women, null), NR(unborn)
-------------------------------
Fourth: If abortion is murder, and is outlawed, then...
Positive Result: The unborn retain the right to life. (Given the assertion that abortion is murder)
Negative Result: Women lose reproductive rights.
However, since abortion is murder, unborn are no longer merely subject to the reproductive rights of the mother, so the Negative Result does not exist.
Logically signified by
4) If M /\ O --> PR(unborn), NR(women, null)
-------------------------------
By the logic model, we can see that the worst possible results are 1 and 3. We can also gauge that loss of property rights in result 1, while being negative to a woman, do not outweigh the possible existence rights lost by the unborn, in result 3. Because the scientific community is divided on the moral subject level of the unborn, the most logical choice is to ban abortion, since banning abortion can yield the only possible Positive Result listed above, while avoiding the WORST Negative Result listed above.
Based on John Rawls' principle of the Maximin, society should pick solutions with the "best worst" concept, in order to avoid the worst outcomes. If you're uncertain about the Maximin, consider it like this: If two people want a piece of cake, and there is only enough cake left for two pieces... the person who cuts the cake gets second choice. Therefore, the person who cuts the cake will try to cut the cake as evenly as possible, to avoid getting a much smaller piece. Similarly, justice in the Maximin principle tells us to ignore assertions of "my body, my choice" when we cannot reasonably prove (without functionally biased evidence) that the "choice" being made is simply a neutral one of female autonomy. If only it were that simple. Since it is not, and since justice is our aim, we must ignore the emotional cries, and look at the issue anew.
Disclaimer: I'm not addressing anything other than the morality of abortion. If you wish to bring up questions of the practicality of making abortion illegal, go ahead... but I'm not sure you could convince me that laws to ban things that society ought to consider murder shouldn't be made, just because they're "not practical". Also, I'm not addressing in the slightest the other issues in abortion, I'm merely addressing the "is it murder?" question. For me to suggest that I've exhausted the issue would be an oversight.
Come back tomorrow!
Eric Drzewiecki is a recent graduate from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. He has a bachelor's degree in Political Science, as well as Public Administration. He can be reached at eric_drz@hotmail.com
Democrat: Abortion is ok, because it is not murder.
Republican: Abortion is murder, because the unborn are humans.
Democrat: Abortion is ok, because it is not murder, because the unborn are not alive.
Republican: The unborn are alive (cites scientific data x).
Democrat: The unborn are not alive (cites scientific data y).
Republican: Hitler.
Democrat: Woman hater.
Democrat: as usual, you've done little than circularly reason that the unborn is not living, and therefore cannot be killed. Logical problem here, Mr. Democrat. The problem, is that your assertion that abortion is not killing, and therefore not murder, is based on your pre-determination that abortion is morally acceptable. Therefore, your argument requires your premise, and your premise requires your argument. Your statement cannot exist on its own, and use itself as its own proof.
Republican, you are the polar opposite of Democrat's circular reasoning. You circularly rationalize from the "Republican" point of view, and do not address the topic legitimately so as to change the mind of anyone observing the statements you make. Suffice to say, circular reasoning on either side is insufficient to create an appeal to reason. "Abortion is murder, therefore not permissible", holds about as much weight as "Abortion is not murder, and is therefore allowable".
Furthermore, all scientific evidence presented from both sides is functionally biased, and due to the already existing paradigm of the poster of such "objective material", and only further causes the complete alienation of opposition. Therefore, I really must reject literally every position taken in the above conversation. However, I offer what should be seen as a rational and acceptable approach, Many may disagree with the findings, but I challenge them to look beyond the conclusion, and to examine the methodology. If so done, I believe that the reader will find a strong case to re-examine the question of abortion.
Abortion is a moral choice; that correctness of that choice revolves around an answer to what seems to be positive question: "Is abortion murder?" However, the reality of the situation, is that the question "Is abortion murder?" Is based on the nomothetic question "What should be considered murder?".
As a logical answer to the nomothetic question, I suggest that anything that can be realistically considered murder, in the absence of scientific proof of "murderness/unmurderness", ought to be considered murder, and therefore the "murderee" be protected.
Why? Because society demands as a functional and foundational first pillar, the respect for human life, in the order of sustainable development, and societal progress and structure. That is, to say, that without a broad respect for human life, society reverts to the Hobbes' state of nature, in which life is nasty, brutish, and short.
As a logic model, we can see that there are two possible answers to the positive question: "Is Abortion Murder?"
However, we can also assert that those who answer the positive question "no", ought to be very narrow in their answer to the question "What should be considered murder?". However, it has been historically observed that a majority of the individuals who would answer the positive question no, would reject the notion of capital punishment, while the nomothetic question of whether or not capital punishment is murder, (that is not to say that capital punishment is not killing) remains unanswered, largely due to the societal ramifications for allowing/disallowing capital punishment, and the issue of whether or not government instituted punishments can indeed be considered murder. Therefore, it can be concluded that those who assert that abortion is not murder, thereby answering the nomothetic question as well as the positive, are quite possibly answering the nomothetic question based on a personal bias for the desired societal answer to the positive question.
On the other hand, the same parallel can be made for individuals who oppose abortion. While their opposition to abortion is based on their assertion that abortion is murder, their assertion that abortion is murder also does not correlate to a pattern of a broad definition of humanity, but instead also is an indicator of support for capital punishment.
Therefore, a neutral stance must be taken.
Society at large, understands that a respect for life, (especially of humanity) is important. If this is disputed, then nothing in the positive nor nomothetic questions matters.
As a neutral respect for life, we must assume that the nomothetic question remains unanswered, as far as a democratically acceptable "truth". (If I accept that there is anything such as a democratic truth is another question altogether). Therefore, the "unansweredness" of the nomothetic question leads a rational society to accept that the unproven "non-life" of the unborn constitutes a real and legitimate societal protection of the unborn, as if it were life. While scientific data can only provide evidence of functionality, this evidence will never provide sufficient answer to the positive question, as evidence will be manipulated by the respective sides in order to promote their respective positions.
In conclusion, the question "Is Abortion Murder?" is not answered by Planned Parenthood, nor the National Right to Life. The question "What should be considered murder?" is a nomothetic one, that cannot be answered by scientific data and evidence, therefore the positive question cannot be answered scientifically. As a result, society must act in the best interest of society; that being the protection of all plausible definitions of life, as if they were indeed life.
Hobbes depicts the fight of the strong vs. the weak as a certainty in the state of nature. While the unborn cannot indeed gain up and fight mothers who may pursue an abortion, the concept of "assumed equality", while proof of such equality is absent is the foundational pillar by which our society respects women and men as equals, as well as respects various races as equals. To disqualify something that cannot be reasonably proven to lack standing as a member of society, is to commit a great crime against humanity in general.
From a merely logical assertion of the debate of abortion, here's an outcome possibility layout, starting with the assumption (I believe a fair one) that the positive question "Is abortion murder?" cannot be objectively answered.
Key:
if Murder = If M
if Not Murder = If ~M
and outlawed = /\ O
and not outlawed = /\ ~O
then = -->
Women's reproductive rights revoked for no reason.
= Negative Result for women = NR(women)
The unborn are given no right to live.
= Negative Result for unborn =NR(unborn)
Women maintain reproductive rights.
= Positive Result for women = PR(women)
The unborn retain the right to life.
= Positive Result for unborn = PR(unborn)
First: If abortion is not murder, but is outlawed, then...
Negative Result: Women's property rights revoked for no reason.
Logically signified by
1) If ~M /\ O --> NR(women)
------------------------------
Second: If abortion is not murder, and is completely left up to the choice of the mother, then...
Positive Result: Women maintain reproductive rights.
Logically signified by
2) If ~M /\ ~O --> PR(women)
-------------------------------
Third: If abortion is murder, and is not outlawed, then...
Positive Result: Women maintain reproductive rights.
However, since abortion is murder, unborn are no longer merely subject to the reproductive rights of the mother, so the Positive Result does not really exist.
Negative Result: The unborn are given no right to live. (Therefore, murdered)
Logically signified by
3) If M /\ ~O --> PR(women, null), NR(unborn)
-------------------------------
Fourth: If abortion is murder, and is outlawed, then...
Positive Result: The unborn retain the right to life. (Given the assertion that abortion is murder)
Negative Result: Women lose reproductive rights.
However, since abortion is murder, unborn are no longer merely subject to the reproductive rights of the mother, so the Negative Result does not exist.
Logically signified by
4) If M /\ O --> PR(unborn), NR(women, null)
-------------------------------
By the logic model, we can see that the worst possible results are 1 and 3. We can also gauge that loss of property rights in result 1, while being negative to a woman, do not outweigh the possible existence rights lost by the unborn, in result 3. Because the scientific community is divided on the moral subject level of the unborn, the most logical choice is to ban abortion, since banning abortion can yield the only possible Positive Result listed above, while avoiding the WORST Negative Result listed above.
Based on John Rawls' principle of the Maximin, society should pick solutions with the "best worst" concept, in order to avoid the worst outcomes. If you're uncertain about the Maximin, consider it like this: If two people want a piece of cake, and there is only enough cake left for two pieces... the person who cuts the cake gets second choice. Therefore, the person who cuts the cake will try to cut the cake as evenly as possible, to avoid getting a much smaller piece. Similarly, justice in the Maximin principle tells us to ignore assertions of "my body, my choice" when we cannot reasonably prove (without functionally biased evidence) that the "choice" being made is simply a neutral one of female autonomy. If only it were that simple. Since it is not, and since justice is our aim, we must ignore the emotional cries, and look at the issue anew.
Disclaimer: I'm not addressing anything other than the morality of abortion. If you wish to bring up questions of the practicality of making abortion illegal, go ahead... but I'm not sure you could convince me that laws to ban things that society ought to consider murder shouldn't be made, just because they're "not practical". Also, I'm not addressing in the slightest the other issues in abortion, I'm merely addressing the "is it murder?" question. For me to suggest that I've exhausted the issue would be an oversight.
Come back tomorrow!
Eric Drzewiecki is a recent graduate from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. He has a bachelor's degree in Political Science, as well as Public Administration. He can be reached at eric_drz@hotmail.com
5 Comments:
I have yet to see a sperm grow legs. The argument of broad generalization doesn't apply, because sperm and eggs naturally die off themselves without becoming humans. Not even a good comparison.
First, I'm not making a ludicrous statement to suggest that it is very plausible that the unborn is deserving of the status of "moral subject". Merely suggesting that this is similar to the suggestion of the souls of the unborn is facetious.
Furthermore, I'm not really rejecting science whatsoever here. I merely observed that both sides will toss around scientific data, and that both sides can present such data in a way that seems to lend support to their side.
The reality of the situation, is that people fundamentally debate the "humanity" of the unborn based on the fact of location and self-sustainability. All the debate centers around "do I think it is murder?", and no sort of practical and realistic safeguards when there is real and legitimate doubt about the humanity/non-humanity of the unborn.
My suggestion, is that the question "Is abortion murder" is not possible to be answered. Therefore, I assert that we should consider both sides, and block the one with the worst possibility. I do assume equal probability. To assume inequal probability of humantiy would be biased in the direction of one of the sides.
I think you really reached here, and not because of an invalid argument on my behalf, but because of a dislike of the conclusion on your behalf. You really couldn't apply anything that remotely resembled my argument, however.
Sperm and eggs are a strawman. Broad generalization and bad ideas such as the "I think this kills babies" are situations where there is strong scientific evidence that walking into souls does not happen, or if it does, there is no way to observe that it does, or where it does. We're pretty sure abortion kills the unborn... I mean, it isn't someone sneezing outside the abortion clinic that just happens to do it.
So, at the end... when you say "similar but perhaps more outrageous", the problem is that they are not similar at all. Sorry.
Perhaps you're not well versed in the Hobbes method of "assumed" positions. Hobbes suggested that it is beneficial and right for society to assume things which are extremely unprovable, because in the long run they benefit society. Mainly, he looked at assuming equality between strong and weak, rich and poor, healthy and ill. Why? Because even though the strong could easily assert themselves over the weak, it wouldn't be beneficial in the long run.
In this argument, I'm showing how the Maximin principle applies to how we look at the question of "Is abortion murder", because science doesn't really lend itself in one direction or another. Science isn't built to answer nomothetic questions, so I don't ask it to answer this one.
Beyond that... a sperm or egg doesn't naturally develop into a human. Before conception, the sperm or the egg have two natural results, after conception, the natural result is birth. There is a definite observable, and even slightly scientific line drawn there. While some religions have made other lines, there is a definite problem in their reasoning. Also, you'll note I haven't cited any religious texts to back my argument.
Yes, my method does hinge on some form of absolute morality, but the Maximin is considered an extremely well-established concept that is already used by governments for environmental issues, as well as economic considerations. Therefore, I find the defintion of the conception being the natural starting point of the human a logical one, where from this point on the natural progression is life. (most sperm and eggs do not fertilize, and do not do so naturally, where the natural progression of the fertilized egg is indeed carried until birth)
I also find, that the question of "is abortion murder?" to be impossible to answer, but the replacement question "should abortion be considered murder?" does indeed have a legitimate "yes" response.
Killing humanity as it is in the natural progression of life is murder.
By your reasoning... if someone is unconscious but will be able to regain consciousness... why isn't disposing of them legal?
btw Erich, you have seen and read this before because it was on my blog as a guest entry a little while back. :)
shatnermosism said:
"As far as the line, I think (aka my actually opinion, something i didn't give earlier) when the fetus is able to support itself, outside of the mother, it gets its own rights, until we are precisely aware at when it becomes concious, which... i'd imagine would be roughly at that time anyway, give or take. Otherwise, as odd as it sounds, it's simply a collection of biological cells, and not really "human", sure it has potential to be human, but thats the same with sperm and eggs."
Saying a being is human when it can support itself outside of the mother is a laughable statement. By this reasoning, the homeless aren't human, and neither are those that live with their parents. So it's okay to kill them. How many reading this still depend on their mother/parents to survive?
Of course, then you run into the question of "what is surviving?"
Oh, and sperm and eggs may not be considered human because they don't have the required human genome (only have half, which makes them different from us).
Post a Comment
<< Home