Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Jerry Coyne stands up for abortion and infanticide. Not so much for democracy.

Jerry Coyne on abortion and infanticide:

Coyne quotes CNN news:

From CNN News comes this bizarre event: Mississippi will hold a referendum to determine whether voters think that “personhood” begins with conception.

Mississippians vote on whether a zygote is a person
Voters in Mississippi will be given a chance to decide whether life begins at conception, a controversial abortion-related ballot initiative that the state’s highest court has refused to block.
The Mississippi Supreme Court late Thursday allowed Measure 26, also known as the Personhood Amendment, to appear on the state ballot November 8. The decision was a rejection of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and abortion-rights groups.
The 7-2 ruling said those groups had not met the legal burden required to restrict the right of citizens to amend the state constitution. . .
. . . Anti-abortion forces hope the amendment, if passed, would ultimately be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, providing another opportunity for the justices to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. 

Coyne:
...I recognize that for many abortion is not a clear-cut issue, and there is controversy about the stage at which aborting a fetus should be considered illegal or immoral. Some, like Peter Singer, even think that some euthanasia of severely afflicted or doomed newborns might be permitted, and I can see the validity of that view as well.
Medical killing of handicapped children has quite a history in the 20th century. In Groningen Holland neonatologists have been killing handicapped newborns for a decade. They even published a paper describing their technique (legal technique, not just the medial technique) in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In Germany in the 1930's, the T4 program euthanized killed a quarter of a million handicapped people, many of whom were children. After the war, the doctors responsible for it got to explain themselves in court. Their explanations were similar to explanations used by defenders of euthanasia of handicapped children today. The court carefully considered their explanations. The doctors were hanged.

Hint to Coyne: your opinion is on thin ethical ice if it was used by defense counsel at Nuremberg.
At any rate, according to a 2006 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, only 1.5% of abortions in America involve fetuses older than 21 weeks, the age at which the fetus is usually considered viable,...
There were over a million abortions in the U.S. last year. So 15,000 "viable" babies were aborted last year. Actually, most of the million kids were viable, if they hadn't been killed and had been allowed to continue to grow in their mother's womb.

There are 3700 undergraduates at the University of Chicago, which is the institution at which Coyne teaches. The fact that the number of viable babies (babies who could live outside of the womb at the time they were aborted) killed by abortionists each year is four times the number of  undergraduates at Coyne's university seems not to bother him. His term for that number of viable aborted babies is "only..."
 I know that women don’t take the procedure lightly, and hardly regard it (as many religious people seem to do) as a form of birth control.
Abortion is the most common surgical procedure performed on women in the U.S.-- about 1.2 million per year. That's more than all breast augmentations (296,203), nose reshapings (188,676), liposuctions (179,207), eyelid surgeries (177,288), and tummy tucks (111, 642) combined.

Women don't take abortions lightly.
Clearly, an 100-cell blastocyst does not have any feelings or thoughts...
Coyne uses his scientific training here.

(much less a soul),

The soul the form of a living thing. A human being has a soul from conception to natural death.

Coyne has a soul too. He had one when he was a 100 cell blastocyst, and he'll have one when he's very elderly. All human beings have souls.

and to deem that ball of cells equivalent to an adult human being elides some very serious differences involving sentience.
To deem a human being at the blastocyst stage the intellectual equivalent of an human being at the adult stage would be mistaken. To deem a very young human being devoid of the right to life is another matter entirely.

Coyne's implicit assertion is that intelligence or sentience is the criterion on which to base human rights. This is an assertion that most people would challenge, which is why it is usually stated vaguely.

Do notice that pro-abortion pro-infanticide folks always assert that their own qualities (adulthood, intelligence,...) are the criteria that confer human rights. Coyne does not assert, for instance, that non-interference with the rights of defenseless humans should be a criterion for conferral of human rights.

Coyne's criteria for human rights seems to boil down, in the important respects, to being like Coyne. Hmmm...
A blastocyst is no more what we think of as a “person” than an acorn is the same thing as an oak tree.
A member of a species remains a member of that species throughout its life. An acorn is a very young oak tree. A blastocyst is a very young human being. Species and individuation remain the same throughout life. Accidents (size, leafiness, sentience) change.

Does Coyne, a professor of biology, believe that the unborn child changes species during development? If it does not, then the child is as much a homo sapiens (human being) at conception as he is when he gets tenure at the University of Chicago. People look different, and have different capabilities, at different ages. They're still human beings, from conception to natural death. Basic biology, Jerry. Do you actually teach your students that human beings change species in the womb?
And this doesn’t even take into consideration the widespread view that abortion is a private matter involving the wishes of the parents, the fact that women will seek out abortions whether or not they’re illegal (thousands of Irish women, for example, fly to England every year for abortions), and the possibility that the production of unwanted children may be bad for both those children and society.
Uwanted children are not "produced". They're born. They need to loved, nourished, and cherished.  Ever heard of adoption, Jerry?
Further, if a fetus at any state is deemed a “person,” then abortion becomes equivalent to murder.
Abortion is homicide, as a matter of definition. Murder is the just most serious form of homicide.  Pro-abortion activists try to scare the public into assuming that legal restriction on abortion would involve charging the mother with murder. That is not part of the pro-life view. Abortionists-- the people who profit from killing babies-- should and would be the target of legal sanction.
Now there are nonreligious objections to abortion, but clearly much of this “personhood” kerfuffle derives from religion and its attendant concept of a soul...
The "concept" is respect for human life.  Christians (which is what Coyne means by "religion") believe that all human beings have the right to life at all ages. The most fundamental right of personhood is the right to life. It is the right on which all other rights depend.
It seems to me that although America is a democracy, it’s dicey to leave the definition of “personhood” up to the voters rather than the judiciary (but please, not this Supreme Court!).
Jerry Coyne finds this "We the People..." stuff so... so... frustrating. Why should the people of Mississippi get to write the laws for the people of Mississippi? Shouldn't the (unelected and unaccountable) judiciary get to make the laws? And shouldn't Jerry Coyne get to pick which courts get to make the law? They're elites like Coyne, and they know best.

The sheer depravity of Coyne's worldview in on display here. Support for abortion, including the annual killing of 15,000 babies capable of living outside of the womb, killing of handicapped children, idiotic assertions about the biology of human development to justify killing the young, and startlingly casual dismissal of democracy are part and parcel of atheist/materialist ethics.

This is why we fight.

74 comments:

  1. Dr. Egnor, what is your position on capital punishment ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. @iko:

    I oppose it. It is not utterly immoral, as abortion is, because taking the life of an individual convicted of a capital crime is not the same thing as killing an innocent child in his mother's womb.

    But the Church only supports capital punishment when society cannot be adequately protected in any way short of it. In modern society, life in prison without parole is an option, and therefore capital punishment is not necessary to protect society. Unnecessary killing is immoral.

    Your views?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike,
    you wrote:
    "They're still human beings, from conception to natural death. Basic biology, Jerry. Do you actually teach your students that human beings change species in the womb?"
    (No he just teaches them it is moral to kill human beings.)
    Brilliant question, Doctor. I have been asking this of pro-abortion people for ages, and get NO response. What ELSE could that embryo become OTHER than human? NOTHING. So it is a HUMAN EMBRYO. To kill a HUMAN anything is HOMICIDE.
    You know...the alarming thing to me, reading Coyne's post, is that this is not some know-it-all student like Oleg, this is a fully grown man with the mandate to educate.
    @iko,
    Just to chime in as another Theist (and a soldier) I too am against capital punishment. That is not to say I think it is never justified. I am against the formal and regular use of the death penalty. Corporal punishment, on the other hand...

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr Egnor and his ilk are fighting for an overpopulated ignorant irrational world of unimaginable suffering. They think that’s what their God wants. It’s madness.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  6. @iko:

    Thank you for your comments.

    [Even though I’m personally against abortion, I think it should be legal.]

    Why are you against it?

    [I don’t believe life begins at conception and I do not believe the State should establish subjective religious views as law.]

    Human life (a homo sapiens certainly begins at conception. That's a matter of basic biology. The question is whether all humans have a right to life, or just some. That is not intrinsically a religious question, but a matter of ethics, secular and religious. There are atheists (Nat Hentoff) who believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal.

    [I am an atheist. You see, we here in France, a nation of barbarian unbelievers, view capital punishment as morally repulsive.]

    Capital punishment is a terrible thing. The deliberate killing of any human being is terrible. That includes the deliberate killing of a human being in his mother's womb. I'm sorry about your personal experience-- I know that it is painful-- but that does not change the morality involved.

    [That American believers support capital punishment in any form what so ever is deep cold cynicism. In my eyes, and probably of most Europeans, we wonder how you can judge us. We find that arrogant, and nauseating.]

    Captial punishment is not intrinsically evil. If it is necessary to protect innocents, it is moral to do so. Abortion is intrinsically evil.

    Americans who support capital punishment and oppose abortion would ask Europeans: how can you be so protective of the life of a convicted murderer and yet so dismissive of the life of an innocent child? We find that arrogant, and nauseating

    [In my view, the correct approach would be to legalise abortion, then convince people it is wrong.]

    Why is abortion wrong? Because it's icky, or because it is the killing of an innocent human being. If the former, then it should be legal and discouraged. If it's the latter, it should be illegal. It would be like saying "I'm against rape, but it should be legal, and we should convince people it is wrong".

    [I believe different people have different views. That is the essence of democracy, and I respect that. That’s what differentiates us from the rest of the world.]

    Deliberate killing is wrong. Period. It should never be permitted under law.

    I respect different views. I make no attempt to prevent you from holding you view or from expressing it.

    It's acts that can be regulated by law. One of the acts that I believe should be regulated by law is deliberate killing.

    Seems pretty basic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Without a shred of evidence Egnor simply asserts his ludicrous and insane dogma that

    The soul the form of a living thing. A human being has a soul from conception to natural death.

    The "form"? What is the exact moment of conception? Why does death have to be "natural"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Egnor: People look different, and have different capabilities, at different ages. They're still human beings, from conception to natural death. Basic biology, Jerry.

    If you want to talk basic biology, let's talk basic biology.

    What do you make of the fact that about half of the embryos never make it to term? If God loves human beings so much, why would he let half of them die before they are even born? That's some 60 million "babies" a year.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @troy:

    [The "form"?]

    "Form" is a classical understanding of the soul, dating from Aristotle. It means the intelligible principle of a living thing that makes it living. You need to bone up on rudimentary philosophy.

    [What is the exact moment of conception?]

    That's an empirical question, open to debate. It is undeniable that there is such a thing as conception. First there are an egg and a sperm, than there is a zygote. Between, there is conception. We can discuss details.

    [Why does death have to be "natural"?]

    Natural is a religious term that means ordinary death as we know it. It has nothing to do with murder, passing away from 'natural causes', etc.

    It is in contrast to spiritual death, which occurs at the Final Judgement.

    You need to bone up on basic theology as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @oleg:

    If you want to talk basic biology, let's talk basic biology.

    [What do you make of the fact that about half of the embryos never make it to term? If God loves human beings so much, why would he let half of them die before they are even born? That's some 60 million "babies" a year.]

    Don't know. Above my pay grade.

    I note that naturally-occuring death has nothing to do with intentional killing.

    If you are accused of murder, and you use "lots of people die naturally" as a defense, you lose.

    I hope that you're not a criminal defense attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Egnor: I note that naturally-occuring death has nothing to do with intentional killing.

    If you are accused of murder, and you use "lots of people die naturally" as a defense, you lose.


    My comment was not a defense of abortion. I am probing coherence of your own viewpoint. Your response, "above my pay grade," indicates that it is not coherent.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @KW:

    [Dr Egnor and his ilk are fighting for an overpopulated ignorant irrational world of unimaginable suffering. They think that’s what their God wants. It’s madness.]

    Right. Respect for basic human rights, privacy, and innocent life have such dire consequences.

    We need to let a fringe cult of totalitarians who believe that there is no objective moral law have ultimate power to decide the most intimate aspects of our lives.

    Only then can we have heaven on earth.

    Nice to get away from all of that theocracy stuff.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  13. @oleg:

    [My comment was not a defense of abortion. I am probing coherence of your own viewpoint. Your response, "above my pay grade," indicates that it is not coherent.]

    Why would my observation that I don't know all of God's reasons be "incoherence"?

    Would your admission that you don't know everyting about the natural world be "incoherence", or just an honest expression of the limits of our knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Form" is a classical understanding of the soul, dating from Aristotle.

    Provide some empirical evidence that the soul is actually real and not an imaginary construct and you might have an argument with merit. Until then you're just making stuff up as you go.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Egnor: Why would my observation that I don't know all of God's reasons be "incoherence"?

    Not knowing the answer to the problem is one thing. Not even being bothered by it is another. You dismiss the problem out of hand, which likely means that you have not thought it through.

    ReplyDelete
  16. “We need to let a fringe cult of totalitarians who believe that there is no objective moral law have ultimate power to decide the most intimate aspects of our lives.”

    Dr. Egnor, that is precisely what you’re arguing for! Nobody is trying to force you or yours to have abortions, that’s up to you. I’m for the freedom and liberty of choice. I do not want to be forced to live as if you’re bronze age notions of God and the soul where true.

    The whole abortion debate isn’t really about abortion at all; it’s about preventing other people from enjoying non-procreative recreational sex, and results from the modern twisting of bronze age “morals” designed to maximize the reproduction of the Christian cult’s membership. I want no part of it.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  17. @anon:

    [Provide some empirical evidence that the soul is actually real and not an imaginary construct and you might have an argument with merit. Until then you're just making stuff up as you go.]

    Form and soul are metaphysical concepts, not bits of empirical data. If you have a metaphysical argument with it, present it.

    What would ever make you think that the only mode of knowledge is empirical, in the sense of scientific data?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @KW:

    [Dr. Egnor, that is precisely what you’re arguing for! Nobody is trying to force you or yours to have abortions, that’s up to you.]

    The victim of abortion is not me, its the baby. I have every right (even duty) to try to protect innocent life.

    I respect your freedom. I do not believe that you have a right to kill.

    [I’m for the freedom and liberty of choice.]

    Me too. You have to be alive to choose. I oppose all deliberate killing. That includes deliberate killing of human beings in the womb.

    [I do not want to be forced to live as if you’re bronze age notions of God and the soul where true.]

    Your ideology (that killing human beings who inconvenience you is moral) is a lot older than "bronze age". What makes you think that your mentality is "modern", rather than utterly primitive?

    [The whole abortion debate isn’t really about abortion at all; it’s about preventing other people from enjoying non-procreative recreational sex,]

    I support your legal right to enjoy any kind of consentual sex you choose. I oppose killing innocent people. When the two conflict, opposition to killing takes precedence for me. How about you?

    [and results from the modern twisting of bronze age “morals” designed to maximize the reproduction of the Christian cult’s membership. I want no part of it.]

    Yea. It's all about putting money in the collection plate. Aborted people can't tithe. You finally figured out our plot.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @KW:

    [I’m for the freedom and liberty of choice.]

    Yea. You support population control and draconian measures to halt "global warming".

    So aside from totalitarian intrusion in the most intimate aspects of sexual, personal, and economic life, you're all for freedom.

    Here's a synopsis of your views:

    "Laws to protect innocent life"-- an outrage. It conflicts with my rights.

    "Laws that prohibit childbirth and result in forced abortions and infanticide"-- Yaawnn...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Form and soul are metaphysical concepts, not bits of empirical data.

    So they aren't actually real then. Nice to see you admit that what you are touting has no relationship to reality.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Iko,
    "You see, we here in France, a nation of barbarian unbelievers, view capital punishment as morally repulsive."

    Is that what passes as humility in France?
    Does the Terror ring a bell...perhaps in the 'Temple of Reason'?

    A Nation? You mean 'nation-state' don't you? A star in the Circle of the EU.

    France a nation of 'unbelievers'?
    I was last in Paris in the dying days of the last century. Plenty of believers then.
    In fact, there was entire sections of Paris RUN by fanatic sects of those specific believers. I have been told by parisiennes, that women must cover their heads or face being spat on.
    Some of the 'believers' have BURNED Paris.
    SUBMITTERS, in fact.
    The Muslims, who are polygamous and have ZERO tolerance for abortion, are out-breeding you at a rate unheard of in recorded history.

    Oh maybe you don't mean 'believers'...maybe you mean CHRISTIANS?
    That is who Atheists are USUALLY attacking isn't it? Bravely striking the cheek that turns away.
    Most of the Francophones I have known (a LOT) are staunch Catholics. That is on both sides of the ocean.
    Sure there are the Deist worshippers of reason, and political personality cults, but there is always the Church. Even the token 'Atheist' among the family I have known longest takes his drunken, angry, self hating, futilist arse to Church at Christmas, 'for the kids'.
    Even the madness of the Terror could not expunge the Church entirely.

    As a member of the EU France has become a progressive province of the New EU. A place to test social engineering policy and experiment. Burka Ban anyone?
    I will also sadly concede that the new Gau that is France has a rather Atheist bent to it. Perhaps 'humanist' would be a better term for the sentiment, if not the political reality.

    All that being allowed, the vacuum created by that ideological taint is what has attracted a massive Muslim colonization of the region. This is undeniable.
    God is great, or so say the Believers of the New France.

    Of course, the God of the French for well over 1600 years was a far more tolerant and colourful character, wasn't He Iko?
    His Holy Days were celebrated song, wine, and food. Children and pretty women in Sunday dress etc etc.
    His teachings, ever defiled, were of brotherhood and acceptance. Of Love and peace.
    The new 'flavour' will not be so sweet, is my guess. You never know... given a few hundred years it could be a new Andalusia!
    This little idea should appeal to your futurism and promissory materialism, Iko!
    You, the French, may be just what the Muslim world needs in order to learn compromise and to learn the TRUE meaning of submission.
    Perhaps a little whine, cheese, and surrender is just the 'shot in the arm' the Muslim world needs. Perhaps a dash of EURO Angst is what will eventually give the Muslims an introspective aspect.
    I mean WHAT better land in all of Europe for the SUBMITTERS to conquer than France: The region that WROTE THE BOOK on being occupied and capitulation!
    Experts at occupation, the French will be the dolphin teaching the trainer! All that experience with every Empire to march across the continent.
    You're an Athiest, Iko. Think of it as 'kin selection'. Your nation-state's / Gau demise will make a better future for your nauseating, arrogant relatives in the Americas and elsewhere.
    They COULD even become less arrogant or nauseating!
    Your acquiescence, surrender, or submission will be a lesson to future generations. An example for the ages.
    All you folks have to do is sit tight and act like everything is okay. Keep on repeating that you have it all figured out, that 'science' will somehow rescue you...and what ever you do, do NOT forget to sneer at the USA and the English Speaking world; such a display will impress your new masters immensely!

    ReplyDelete
  22. RESPONSE TO IKO CNTD
    "In my view, the correct approach would be to legalise abortion, then convince people it is wrong."
    Maybe we should do the same with all forms of homicides? 'You CAN kill your neighbour, but you really should not. Not sure why, but it just doesn't... vibe well you know?'
    Come on, Iko.
    Naiveté.

    "I believe different people have different views. "
    What an observation.
    Banality again? Okay.
    I believe people have different bodies that develop at different stages. If you destroy one of those bodies, you have killed a human. That is homicide, regardless of at what stage of development.
    No life = no ability to express beliefs.
    Therefore my nauseatingly arrogant desire to protect life TRUMPS your naive effort to protect 'beliefs' by allowing the killing of unborn children.
    Get it? I hope so. It's VERY basic.
    Ideas are expressed by living things (a banality back at you), and thus your statement has no bearing on the matter of justifiable homicide in or out of the womb.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @anon:

    So [metaphysical concepts] aren't actually real then. Nice to see you admit that what you are touting has no relationship to reality.

    Huh?

    Ironically, the view that only material things are real is... a metaphysical concept.

    The deepest ignorance of atheism is that atheists don't even know how ignorant they are.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ironically, the view that only material things are real is... a metaphysical concept.

    A metaphysical concept backed up by empirical evidence. The problem with your clinging to your metaphysical concepts as having some sort of reality is that yours have no actual evidence to back them up, meaning they remain nothing more than imaginative fancies.

    Unless you can tie your metaphysical concepts to something with actual substance, they are just your preferences and nothing more. For example, you assert that blastocysts have a soul, because of some sort of magical thinking. But suppose someone else who believed in the existence of souls said that the contrary view was that blastocysts don't have a soul and that no one is endowed with a soul until undetectable invisible pink fairies inject the soul into a child three seconds after their birth. Until then, the fetus is nothing more than a lump of flesh. Their view is just as well-supported as yours is. You have no basis for asserting they are wrong.

    Once you abandon evidence based analysis, all bets are off. Anything goes. And your pathetic fantasies are based on nothing more than imagination and wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Mike
    Having a good sniker here at your response to Oleg and his pursuant hissy fit.
    He really liked that one :P

    You wrote:
    "If you are accused of murder, and you use "lots of people die naturally" as a defense, you lose.
    I hope that you're not a criminal defense attorney."

    An excellent contrast of a scientific observation with operational moral reality.
    Here we can see the logic of Oleg: HUMAN Babies die by the millions and God allows that, so therefore God must allow the KILLING of the HUMAN unborn.
    Contrasted with the reality: Millions of HUMAN pregnancies never reach term for natural reasons UNRELATED (morally or practically) to the INTENTIONAL interruption of that process and resultant DEATH of a developing HUMAN, in or out of the womb.
    A man falling from a crane does not justify HURLING another man from a crane, theology and philosophy aside.

    As for the above the 'pay grade', answer: For my own part, I admire that response, Doctor. It is 'above my level of clearance', too. The only idea I can posit (PURE conjecture) is that it has something to do with choice. But I will leave that to the Big Guy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon,

    "Once you abandon evidence based analysis, all bets are off. Anything goes. And your pathetic fantasies are based on nothing more than imagination and wishful thinking."

    Spat out like an angry 6th grader. Do you feel better now? Good! Now, go change your pyjamas and the sheets before daddy gets home.

    The Doctors point stands. Without the immaterial, your position of materialism would be impossible. It hamstrings ITSELF at every turn. Perhaps because it is a tool for Evil?
    Evil does that.
    But you don't believe in Evil do you?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dr. Egnor, You are trying to force me to accept your religiously derived definition of what it means to be human. The answer for me is a complex merging of shared experience and shared cognition just not possible with an embryo, and without reference to abortion or religion, I think most people would agree.

    Of course the question becomes more muddled the latter in a pregnancy as the embryo undergoes the transformation to a fetus, and ultimately to a baby. I would be happy to settle for some grand compromise that allows abortion before a certain point in development provided that there is sufficient time to detect the pregnancy and have an abortion, without hindrance, if that is the woman’s choice. Of course you aren’t interested in compromise because you think everything must be decided based on the absolute moral code of your God.

    If your really think all abortion is baby murder, then it would seem to me that you would be all for easy access to inexpensive birth control, and a public relations drive to encourage sexually active people who don’t want a child to use it. Do you agree? If not, how can you say the fighting against abortion is about preventing baby murder, and not about preventing consequence free sex?

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Doctors point stands.

    No, the Doctor's point falls apart. The problem is that it threatens your magical world-view, so you resort to childish insults. How very convincing.

    Metaphysics, by itself, can demonstrate nothing about reality. Metaphysics must be combined with empirical evidence or it is nothing more than a mental exercise with no substance. Bleating that "it's metaphysics, it doesn't need evidence" when someone asks for evidence to support your claims just reveals that your claims are worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @KW:

    [The answer for me is a complex merging of shared experience and shared cognition just not possible with an embryo.]

    Not possible for lots of people, either-- people with advanced Alzheimer's, severe brain injury, severe mental retardation, etc.

    The pro-life view is simple: all human beings have the right to life. No exceptions.

    You have a different view-- some human beings have a right to life, some don't. That view has a long ugly history.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @KW:

    [If your really think all abortion is baby murder, then it would seem to me that you would be all for easy access to inexpensive birth control, and a public relations drive to encourage sexually active people who don’t want a child to use it. Do you agree? If not, how can you say the fighting against abortion is about preventing baby murder, and not about preventing consequence free sex?]

    What is your evidence that contraception actually reduces the incidence of abortion? There is massive evidence that the reverse is true.

    Sex is never "consequence free". It is a profound human experience, and it changes people in deep ways. The argument of the Church is that sex is good in marriage when it is open to procreation.

    Outside of marriage, or closed to procreation, sex has consequences-- spiritual, emotional, physical-- that are not wholly good.

    Succinctly, contraception is to sex as bulimia is to eating.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Without the immaterial, your position of materialism would be impossible.

    Are you asserting thoughts are immaterial? You have evidence for that?

    ReplyDelete
  33. What is your evidence that contraception actually reduces the incidence of abortion? There is massive evidence that the reverse is true.

    Oh really?

    As usual, facts are not your strong suit.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous: As usual, facts are not your strong suit.

    Yeah, and this time it's not just the facts. The very notion that availability of contraception increases the number of abortions is entirely counterintuitive. Makes no sense, data don't support it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Are you asserting thoughts are immaterial? You have evidence for that?

    Only a fool absolutely blinded by materialist metaphysics would need "evidence" for such a thing. But, empirically speaking, his question is sort of a cross between red and orange, weighs 1.3 mg +/- 10%, has a specific gravity of 1.1, and a dipole moment approximately equal to that of the H2O molecule. Oh yes, and a capacitance of 1.2 uf.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yeah, and this time it's not just the facts. The very notion that availability of contraception increases the number of abortions is entirely counterintuitive. Makes no sense, data don't support it.

    You have got to be joking. Do you actually mean to assert that the contraceptive mentality, that is, the desire that sex should have absolutely nothing to do with babies, does not lead to the disposal of undesired babies resulting from sex? Really? Really?

    Did the abortion rate go up or down after The Pill was introduced? Does this not count as data?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Matteo,

    Provide a link to data, then we can talk. Here is an article Recent Trends in Abortion Rates Worldwide in International Family Planning Perspectives. It has data in it, and here is the conclusion:

    "Recent trends in legal abortion rates are predominantly downward, although they vary from country to country. The most striking change is that rates declined by one-fourth to one-half in the countries of the former Soviet Union and in Eastern and Central Europe during a period when fertility was also declining. The most likely immediate reason is greater use of modern contraceptives."

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Anon (kw?)
    you wrote:
    "No, the Doctor's point falls apart. The problem is that it threatens your magical world-view, so you resort to childish insults. How very convincing."

    Childish? But you're the one crying...
    Again, uric acid solution aside, you have produced nothing of any note. No argument of any sort. Instead we see the repetition of banal and uninteresting observations. Those 'water is wet' type comments do not disprove all that which cannot be measured in your beaker or with a graph.


    Then you (or is it another Anon?) query:
    "Are you asserting thoughts are immaterial? You have evidence for that?"
    You may want to read that question. Consider WHY it was asked, and to what ends. What purpose does it serve.
    You may have your proof in your own writing; if you care to read it. Where does a 'fact' or 'proof' exist? I mean REALLY. What is the FACT itself. Where does it PHYSICALLY exist?
    Pull up your philosophical pants Anon, your silly little monism is hanging out (again!)

    On the subject of contraception, I am not against the use of it within a stable monogamous relationship, and for the right reasons. Personally, I do not see it as a correlative to abortion. In other words, I do not think contraception prevents or encourages abortion in itself. Abortion is a stand alone issue.
    Nor would I see contraception outlawed. But I can see how it is used to promote a sexually promiscuous lifestyle by certain lobbies.
    I also agree with some of the Doctor's sentiments above, with regards to the profundity of the sexual act. There is no such thing as sexual union without consequence. Condoms do not make it okay/moral for children to have sex, to force sex on someone, married people to commit adultery, or to make an industry of sex in general. Neither do pills or implants.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Matteo wrote:
    "Only a fool absolutely blinded by materialist metaphysics would need "evidence" for such a thing. But, empirically speaking, his question is sort of a cross between red and orange, weighs 1.3 mg +/- 10%, has a specific gravity of 1.1, and a dipole moment approximately equal to that of the H2O molecule. Oh yes, and a capacitance of 1.2 uf."

    LMAO Matteo. Thanks, mate. Just made my lunch hour with that one. :P

    ReplyDelete
  40. "The most striking change is that rates declined by one-fourth to one-half in the countries of the former Soviet Union and in Eastern and Central Europe during a period when fertility was also declining."
    Fall of communism, drop of abortion rates. Raise in living standard and lowering of fertility rates. A bit of a stretch don't you think to rush to contraceptives as the answer, Oleg? A bit SIMPLE really, no? Not really HUMAN in it's depth.
    I mean wouldn't the desire to have less children be a big factor? The increased wealth and freedoms? What about emigration? ALL these factors count.

    "The most likely immediate reason is greater use of modern contraceptives"
    Immediate? Is this a chemical reaction we are talking about?
    'Likely'.
    LIKELY?
    Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  41. @anon:

    contraception and abortion:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-links-contraception-hike-with-increased-abortions/

    Contraception is a major contributor to a culture of recreational responsibility-lite sex, which is the major factor in abortion rates.

    ReplyDelete
  42. “What is your evidence that contraception actually reduces the incidence of abortion? There is massive evidence that the reverse is true.”

    That’s bull. No implantation no pregnancy, no pregnancy no abortion. In order to make your case have to redefine abortion to include cases where failed implantation may be due to contraception, but could conceivably be due to other causes. Considering the number of fertilizations that don’t result in pregnancy in the absence of birth control, it looks it looks like your God designed women to be veritable abortion machines under your broad definition of abortion.

    “Sex is never "consequence free". It is a profound human experience, and it changes people in deep ways.”

    I’ve had plenty of casual sex without consequences other than a deep physical mutual satisfaction and fond memories. Apparent you haven’t.

    CrusadeRex, I try to be good about adding the “–KW”, I haven’t forgotten today.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  43. "I do not want to be forced to live as if you’re bronze age notions of God and the soul where true."

    You have 'just enough of learning to misquote' I see. Only the early parts of the Old Testament are situated in Bronze Age and secular scholarship dates the earliest parts of the Pentateuch to the United Monarchy (that's after the Bronze Age). In any case, most of the Bible belongs to the Iron Age and later. I suggest making recourse to some books, as ignorant snark really doesn't have any bite.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "A metaphysical concept backed up by empirical evidence. The problem with your clinging to your metaphysical concepts as having some sort of reality is that yours have no actual evidence to back them up, meaning they remain nothing more than imaginative fancies."

    A foolish empiricism is the hobgoblin of little minds. If you think that the existence of some things cannot be proven via a priori reasoning then you are mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Abortion Meter

    I would like to know your reactions when you click on the above link.

    Will your answer be:

    1-Business as usual
    2-Worst holocaust of all time
    3-None of the above and this is my take on this: (you are invited to explain your position)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Michael,

    You stated that capital punishment isnt intrinsically evil.

    My answer to that is:

    Cameron Todd Willingham.

    He was convicted and executed in 2004 in Texas on the basis of a very flawed house fire investigation. Subsequent investigation, even evidence at the time, indicated that he was almost certainly innocent.

    Governor Perry, now frontrunner for the Ruplican nomination for President, refused to stop the execution.

    In meetings of the Republican candidates, he gets a lot of applause for the number of people Texas has executed during his term.

    At least he hasn't made the same gaffe as his predecessor who stated that no guilty person has been executed during his governorship.

    After capital punishment, no miscarriages of justice can be corrected. Capital punishment is intrinsically evil.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @bach:

    I made it clear that I do not support capital punishment. I oppose all deliberate killing. Deliberate has a specific meaning in Catholic ethics-- it means that killing is the primary intent, not an unavoidable consequence of an effort to accomplish a greater good.

    Killing a prisoner of war is a deliberate killing, and is evil.

    Killing an enemy soldier in combat is not deliberate killing, in the sense that the intention is self-defence (personal or national), etc.

    A killing is deliberate when it is the primary intention, and there are no non-violent options.

    A killing is not deliberate when it is an unavoidable consequence of acting to secure a greater good-- self-defense, national defense against an aggressor, etc.


    This distinction, articulated most clearly by Aquinas, is the basis for homicide law in the West. For example, the duty to retreat is based on this concept-- if you can protect yourself by withdrawing from a violent situation rather than acting violently yourself, you have an obligation to do so.

    In modern society, capital punishment is not needed to protect society, so killing the inmate is deliberate killing and is evil. However, there are and have been situations in which capital punishment has been moral-- in times past when there were no prisons, and killing the offender was the only way to protect society. Thus, capital punishment is evil now, but it is not intrinsically evil.

    Abortion on the other hand is intrinsically evil, because killing an innocent human being is never justified.

    The issue of saving the life of the mother is controversial. The Church teaches that it is not a justification for abortion, but many ethicists-- Catholic ethicists disagree.

    Saving the life of the mother is very rarely an issue. Elective abortion is always intrinscally evil.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @bach:

    I understand and admire your opposition to capital punishment, and aside from subtle philosophical issues, we agree that it is evil.

    Why do you not have such respect for the lives of children in the womb? Why do you so passionately (and appropriately) condemn the killing of Willingham as an adult, but have no objection to killing him a few days/weeks/months before he was born?

    ReplyDelete
  49. I said:

    "A killing is deliberate when it is the primary intention, and there are no non-violent options.'

    I misspoke.

    I meant:

    A killing is deliberate when it is the primary intention, and there are non-violent options.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You are using your own, private definition of the word deliberate.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @oleg:

    I've made the meaning clear.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Michael,

    I see we disagree what 'intrinsically' means (similar to the way we disagree what 'objective' and 'subjective' mean). I argue that 'intrinsically' means 'of itself' independent of circumstances. So, capital punishment I regard as intrinsically evil, but I concede there may be circumstances, rare though they may be, where it's justifiable.

    I'm not too concerned about elective abortions, because I don't regard embryos as children, and if the parents don't desire further children, then that's their choice. I don't feel the need to judge other people for actions that affect only themselves. If doctors have a moral objection to abortions, then they should have the right to opt out (and that applies to all the ancillary staff too).

    When I used to be a practicing pathologist, one of my colleagues used to refuse to look at the surgical specimen following a termination (pointless, the termination had already been done) so such specimens were often left to me to look at. Actually, I didn't mind, they're clean straightforward specimens and useful for reminding oneself of what normal embryology looks like, albeit piecemeal.

    I take the view that there's almost an infinite number of different individual humans who could potentially be born (allowing for the almost lunlimited meiotic crossover combinations within chromosomes) so losing 30 million potential humans from elective abortions and a greater number from spontaneous abortions isn't really a big deal considered against the 7 billion humans now living on Earth, many of whom are doing it very tough.

    To have all the humans who could potentially be born you'd have an infinite number of humans and would need an almost infinite number of Earths. But we only have the one Earth.

    Why do you insist on unwanted embryos being carried to term? The resources necessary to nurture that unborn individual has to come from somewhere. You don't have much compassion for the poor countries of the world, beside insisting that they need free politics, free economies and the bible, and then everything will be solved.

    You insist that there's no country that's prosperous that doesn't have all 3. Actually Singapore springs to mind as an example of one that only has the free economy, and is actually very prosperous.

    We tried to impose free politics on Iraq and Afghanistan, and look at the disasters that ensued. Even if the intentions were good, the planning was bad, the execution terrible and the consequences catastrophic, including America being weakened due to Bush waging war on a credit card. Some time ago, I claimed that Iraq cost America $3 trillion. I was wrong. Today it's more likely $5 trillion, money and resources that will never be recovered.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm not too concerned about elective abortions, because I don't regard embryos as children...

    Which is about the strongest possible dogmatic and close-minded position that can be taken regarding abortion. For if there were even the slightest doubt about the personhood of the unborn, then the only morally sane position would be not to abort.

    No doubt, Bachfiend, you regard the Pro-Lifers as the dogmatists, but it is you, sir, who are the hardliner. Any shadow of a doubt as to whether there is an innocent person in the sights of your gun means you do not pull the trigger. Yet you do pull the trigger, which indicates a dogmatic, metaphysical certainty on your part as to the non-personhood of what you are killing.

    It is you who are the dogmatist, not us.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @bach:

    Is a human embryo a human being?

    Is a human embryo a homo sapiens?

    Is a human embryo a person?

    If no to any of the above,

    1) How do you define human being/homo sapiens/person?

    2) At what point does 'it' become those things?

    3) What is 'it' before that?

    4) What criteria confer on 'it' the right to life?

    ReplyDelete
  55. @bach:

    And my question remains:

    Why is it immoral to kill an adult who commits murder, but moral to kill the same individual when he is in the womb and is completely innocent?

    Why isn't the killing of any human being at any stage of life immoral?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Michael and Matteo,

    I regard a human being as being a product of nature (the person's genetic makeup or genome) and nurture (the person's experiences after being born), both of which make up about 50% of a person's identity.

    A genius such as Einstein or Beethoven born into a different environment wouldn't be the same people.

    An embryo is less than half a person. It only has the genetic makeup, but hasn't been born and hasn't acquired experiences, including being wanted by its parents.

    An embryo by definition isn't a child, which is one that has been born. Before that, it is an embryo or a fetus. 'Unborn child' is just an oxymoron used by opponents of abortion to appeal to emotions.

    Michael,

    You still haven't explained why you think capital punishment isn't ethically evil. I think it's ethically evil because we've had too many innocent people convicted and even executed. If we knew with absolute certainty that they were guilty, then execution could be justified, but that hardly ever happens, despite juries being told to convict only when convinced 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

    I can think of occasions when killing of humans is ethical. I personally hope that if I ever reach a state when life isn't worth living, that voluntary euthanasia is legal. But I'd insist on it being voluntary, I'd want to be conscious and making the decision myself, not relying on a 'living will' allowing a doctor to do away with me if I'm in a coma, and I'd want a psychiatrist examine me to make certain that I wasn't suicidally depressed. And I'd want to know that I was terminally I'll anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @bach:

    [You still haven't explained why you think capital punishment isn't ethically evil. I think it's ethically evil because we've had too many innocent people convicted and even executed.]

    I believe that cp is evil (wrong), but not intrinsically evil (wrong in every possible circumstance). I've explained my position clearly.

    [If we knew with absolute certainty that they were guilty, then execution could be justified, but that hardly ever happens, despite juries being told to convict only when convinced 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.]

    Evidence for widespread innocence among death row inmates?

    [I personally hope that if I ever reach a state when life isn't worth living, that voluntary euthanasia is legal.]

    You can always kill yourself. Suicide is never difficult if you want to do it. Why do you want to involve the medical profession in your suicide? Disgusting.

    [But I'd insist on it being voluntary,]

    Yea. Involuntary suicide is... murder.

    [I'd want to be conscious and making the decision myself, not relying on a 'living will' allowing a doctor to do away with me if I'm in a coma,]

    Why bring a doctor into it. The medical profession is a healing profession, not a killing profession. Disgusting.

    [and I'd want a psychiatrist examine me to make certain that I wasn't suicidally depressed.]

    Anybody who supports euthanasia should have the psychiatric consult anyway.

    [And I'd want to know that I was terminally I'll anyway.]

    We're all terminal.

    Involvement of the medical profession in killing is deeply evil. Shame on you. If you want to kill yourself, don't corrupt the healing profession with your sickness.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Michael,

    One innocent person executed for a crime he didn't do is too many. There's no maximum number besides 'zero' that's acceptable.

    You still don't know what 'intrinsically' means. How about looking it up in a dictionary?

    I don't think that a physician assisting a patient to have a comfortable death is disgusting, if requested by the patient and clinically appropriate. I can imagine circumstances when I might want an end but not be physically capable of committing suicide. For example if I were injured and became a permanent quadriplegic.

    Of course, doctors and ancillary staff should be able to opt out if they find it objectionable.

    What is your opinion of doctors assisting in lethal injections in capital punishment? Now that I find beyond the pale. Even teaching prison staff on how to place IV canulae I find ethically repugnant.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @bach:

    [What is your opinion of doctors assisting in lethal injections in capital punishment? Now that I find beyond the pale.]

    Repugnant. The American Medical Association has properly come out against it.

    I don't agree with your 'sometimes yes, sometimes no' approach to killing by physicians.

    Medicine is a healing profession, and killing is never healing. Never.

    Any physician who participates in deliberate killing of a human being-- capital punishment, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, abortion-- should lose his license and be kicked out of the profession.

    Take your killing somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Michael,

    I'm pleased that you don't have any regulatory power in your profession (and are unlikely to ever have any). Your thinking is far too rigid.

    I disagree with your stance on assisted suicide and abortion. You don't have the right to dictate your moral views on others. Abortion is legal. Assisted suicide isn't legal, but I think that it would be acceptable to a majority with adequate controls.

    Recently there was a case in Western Australia where a urologist was put on trial for murder either for assisting one of his patients with terminal skeletal secondaries (I think it was RCC) to commit suicide or assisting the patient's wife to assist. The jury took very little time to render a verdict of 'not guilty'.

    Physician assisted suicide is almost certainly happening today. Making it legal, with safeguards and a strict protocol to be followed, would be an improvement over the present situation.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @bach:

    Killing is not medical treatment, and a physician who kills or assists in killing is not practicing medicine.

    I certainly have no regulatory power on a large scale, but I have quite a bit of involvement in ethics in my hospital and medical school and I am a consultant for the NYS dept of health.

    I have very actively opposed removal of feeding tubes in my hospital, and I think I have made a difference in the practice.

    I will oppose killing by doctors, everywhere and always. I don't want my profession stained by such filth.

    I note an irony in your advocacy: you only oppose killing people likely to be guilty (capital punishment). You have no problem with killing large categories of innocents.

    How about this: next time you consider abortion or euthanasia, just pretend that the victim is a convicted serial killer, instead of a baby or a terminally ill person in need of comfort. It may make you more sympathetic to life.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @KW
    "I’ve had plenty of casual sex without consequences other than a deep physical mutual satisfaction and fond memories. Apparent you haven’t."
    Deep physical mutual satisfaction? LMAO. You could not make that shit up. Your hand does not count, KW.
    Too funny.
    As for the sex I have participated in: Sufficed to say I am married many years and have two children, one an adult.
    I am no stranger to love making. Your assertion there was no consequences is self evidently VAPID. Your tale is not written yet, you may change your position. NO personal consequences so far...
    As for your name: Why not get a blogger login so I can see which monist rote is which.

    @Pépé
    My answer is two with the additional word 'ongoing'.

    ReplyDelete
  63. A foolish empiricism is the hobgoblin of little minds. If you think that the existence of some things cannot be proven via a priori reasoning then you are mistaken.

    Name some. Then prove them with nothing but a priori reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Only a fool absolutely blinded by materialist metaphysics would need "evidence" for such a thing.

    You didn't actually answer the question. The best evidence available is that thoughts are the result of chemical processes in your brain. Do you have evidence that they are actually immaterial?

    ReplyDelete
  65. @anon:

    [prove them with nothing but a priori reasoning.]

    Your assertion that empiricism is the only way to prove things is a logical claim, not an empirical claim.

    Mathematical assertions and assertions of logic are not empirical.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @anon:

    [The best evidence available is that thoughts are the result of chemical processes in your brain. Do you have evidence that they are actually immaterial?]

    Intellect and will are intrinsically immaterial. They clearly are influenced to some degree by matter (ETOH alters will), but the immateriality of reason, logic, etc is beyond dispute among people who understand the issues.

    Simple example: you concieve of triangularity as meaning a closed plane figure with internal angles totaling 180 degrees in a Euclidian frame.

    In the material world, no such object exists. Exact measurements of angles never sum to exactly 180, there are no perfect planes, and space-time in not Euclidian.

    How can your conception of triangularity be material, if triangularity is never exactly true in matter?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Your assertion that empiricism is the only way to prove things is a logical claim, not an empirical claim.

    And you fail to actually answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Intellect and will are intrinsically immaterial. They clearly are influenced to some degree by matter (ETOH alters will), but the immateriality of reason, logic, etc is beyond dispute among people who understand the issues.

    Intellect and will are clearly the result of chemical function in your brain. Your mere assertion that they are somehow something different is unsupported by anything.

    Simple example: you concieve of triangularity as meaning a closed plane figure with internal angles totaling 180 degrees in a Euclidian frame.

    A conception that is the result of chemical action within the brain.

    You lose. The sad thing is that you don't even understand why you lose.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @anon:

    [And you fail to actually answer the question.]

    My observation that your argument is self-refuting is my answer.

    [Intellect and will are clearly the result of chemical function in your brain. Your mere assertion that they are somehow something different is unsupported by anything.]

    Why would one assume that your chemical reaction (argument) had any bearing on truth?

    ReplyDelete
  70. [You lose. The sad thing is that you don't even understand why you lose.]

    Okay, doofus. Answer the following:

    Before consciousness existed in the universe did all arrangements of matter blindly and obediently follow physical law?

    After consciousness arose, did all arrangements of matter continue to blindly and obediently follow the same physical laws?

    If so, then consciousness adds precisely nothing to any event that takes place, and as such, has no explicable reason to exist. With the total inability to affect physical outcomes comes the inability of your false God "Natural Selection" to mold it in any way, shape or form towards the knowing of truth.

    So it is manifestly not the case that it can be shown (or even successfully argued) that "A conception is the result of chemical action within the brain."

    But, if you are like most atheists who have failed, and failed utterly to even begin to think properly about the question, then:

    "You lose. The sad thing is that you don't even understand why you lose."

    ReplyDelete
  71. If so, then consciousness adds precisely nothing to any event that takes place, and as such, has no explicable reason to exist.

    You seem to think this somehow proves some sort of point for you. it doesn't. It just shows that you are entirely narcissistic.

    So it is manifestly not the case that it can be shown (or even successfully argued) that "A conception is the result of chemical action within the brain."

    No brain, no chemical reactions, no concept. Concepts are human constructs. Without humans to construct them they have no existence. The Universe doesn't care one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  72. My observation that your argument is self-refuting is my answer.

    So your answer is to dodge the question. Typical.

    ReplyDelete
  73. [You seem to think this somehow proves some sort of point for you. it doesn't. It just shows that you are entirely narcissistic.]

    Impressive.

    ReplyDelete