Ethics

The Pro-Life position and the Bible

We are currently in the time of the year known as “40 Days for Life.” During these 40 days (as well as the rest of the year), it is important to focus on issues related to the beginning of life. The Bible has much to say about the topic.

A survey of the Bible can reveal many verses which can be used for the pro-life position. I will focus upon a few (verses in ESV). I will outline how they argue for the pro-life position, how a pro-choice Christian might respond to them, and a rebuttal or concession based upon their response.

Jeremiah 1:5- “”Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,and before you were born I consecrated you;I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Here we see that God called Jeremiah to be a prophet before he was born. In other words, even before his birth he was valuable to God, to the point of being called as a prophet. One interesting counter to a verse like this would be to hold that all it is saying is that God knew about Jeremiah from eternity, so the “before” is being used here as logical priority as opposed to temporal priority. I think this objection has some merit, so perhaps this verse isn’t as strong as it seems. I looked up the Hebrew in this verse and it seems to me that the first clause may be referencing pre-ordination, however the verb is not in the right form (Pual) to make this certain, and so the first clause may be referencing a process of forming not yet completed (which would mean the verse suggests God is interacting with a person before that person is born). The word “before” here, however, again could be said to note that the verse is talking about pre-ordination even though the verb doesn’t necessitate that reading. I tend to lean towards the pre-ordination meaning, but not as the only possibility. However, the second clause is even stronger because it talks about “consecrating,” and that word seems to entail the existence of something to be consecrated. Thus, it would mean that Jeremiah would have had to exist in order to be consecrated while in the womb, before being born.

There is a more powerful verse on this topic to be found:

Luke 1:15- “for he [John the Baptist] will begreat before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”

Here there is no question of the verse just being God’s knowledge of John the Baptist’s prophetic call before his birth, rather, God will fill him with the Holy Spirit, even while John is in the womb. In other words, before he is born, John will be empowered by God. I don’t see how a pro-choice response could get around this. That John will be filled with the Spirit before his birth is a powerful argument for the pro-life position from Scripture because it would mean John would have to be capable of being filled. Pro-choice Christians often have to fall back to saying the unborn aren’t “persons”, but that would be impossible here, for why would the Holy Spirit fill a being which is impersonal?

Psalm 51:5 states: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” It would seem to be quite absurd for someone who is not a person to be sinful. Pro-choice Christians who argue that the unborn is not a human person are placed in a very difficult position by this verse. It quite clearly states that from conception a person is sinful. Without personhood, one cannot sin. One must have the capacity to be sinful in order to sin. It would seem very odd for the pro-choice Christian to have to say an impersonal ‘blob of cells’ is capable of sinning.

There are many verses which point to God forming us in the womb (i.e. Job 31:15; Isaiah 44:2; and Psalm 139:13-16). These verses could be seen as supporting the pro-life position. However, the pro-choice Christian may respond by saying that it does not follow that just because God makes us in our wombs, we exist as persons in the womb or that we are inherently valuable in the womb. The counter to this argument is that the verses do not make sense otherwise. For if it were true that all the verses were pointing out were God’s creative activity, then much of the sense of the verse would be lost. In the Isaiah passage, for example, God is talking about His interaction with the nation of Israel, the implication is that because he formed them in the wombs, they are loved by Him–His creative act was an act of love to His people. So it would seem these verses must be understood as pointing towards the value of the baby in the womb, as opposed to a mere observation of God’s action.

But there are more sophisticated arguments against abortion that can be drawn from the Bible. I wrote elsewhere on Exodus 21:22-25, which has interestingly been used by pro-choice Christians to say their position is correct:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Some believers use this passage to state that it shows the unborn fetus has a lesser status of personhood. They state that verse 22 shows that though the woman loses the child, she sustains no injury, and the penalty is but a fine. They say that this, then, shows that the fetus does not demand the same repercussions as hurting a fellow human (Feinberg 63). There are several problems with this interpretation, however. First, it must be stated that even if one is to concede this interpretation [which is incorrect], it does not authorize abortion. The baby is not intentionally harmed in any manner, but only unintentionally hurt. Second, just the fact that there is a penalty shows that there is wrongdoing here. If the fetus something that may be discarded at will, why is there even a fine for its destruction? Third, the reason the fetus’ death does not require the death penalty is in keeping with the Mosaic exception to the death penalty in cases of accidental death (Exodus 21:13-14, 20-21, Numbers 35:10-34, Deuteronomy 19:1-13). Therefore, the fact that there is “merely” a fine does not show that the fetus is less valued. Finally, it absolutely must be noted that Exodus 21 states various penalties for the killing of individuals that cannot be explained away with personhood. For example, verses 20-21 show that one who kills a slave unintentionally has no penalty. No one could argue that the slave is not a “person” (Feinberg, 64).

Further, the correct interpretation of this passage must be seen as the woman giving premature live birth, not a miscarriage. The implication is quite clear. If the mother gives a premature live birth because of the fight, there is merely a fine (despite no serious injury to anyone), but if either the mother or the fetus is injured, the law of retaliation (eye for an eye) is invoked. Thus, if the fetus is killed, the man causing harm is to be killed. This is remarkable, because it is the only place in Scripture where death is required for accidental homicide. It shows the extreme value placed on the life of the fetus (Feinberg, 65). This interpretation is based on the Hebrew verbs and nouns used in this passage… (here)

Given these passages (and there are more where those came from), it seems as though the pro-life position has very solid grounding in the Bible

Image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pro-Life_Demonstration_at_Supreme_Court.jpg

Feinberg and Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1993).

SDG.

Abortion: Is It Justified as Non-intentional Killing?

A recent innovation within the pro-choice repertoire of arguments doubles as perhaps the most chilling argument to date: namely, that abortion is justified as non-intentional killing of an infant.

Judith Jarvis Thomson is a proponent of this view. She argues that while the fetus has a right to life, that does not mean that permissibly kill it (“A Defense of Abortion”, 174-175). She argues that “[t]here is a distinction between intentional killing… and bringing about death as a side effect, and instances of choosing not to make a great sacrifice [carrying the fetus to delivery], rather than refusing to make a small one. Thus, many abortions are morally right” (Patrick Lee, 11o).

Thomson infamously uses an analogy of a violinist and the violinist appreciation society. Suppose there is a famous violinist who is dying, and the violinist appreciation society discovers you are the only living match for her blood type. While you’re sleeping, they hook your vitals up to the violinists in order to keep you both alive. You only need to stay in this bedridden state for 9 months, and then she’ll have recovered. Would you be culpable for cutting off the treatment?

Intuitively, the answer seems to be no. The problem is when Thomson uses this analogy for pregnancy. For one, pregnancy is the result of a choice (other than in the case of rape), whereas the violinist was hooked up against someone’s will. Second, mothers have a duty to protect their children. Thomson agrees that the fetus is a human person, but then seems to think that the mother has no duty to protect this human person. Third, “…the child is committing no injustice against [the mother]. The baby is not forcing himself or herself on the woman, but is simply growing and developing in a way quite natural to him or her. The baby is not performing any action that could in any way be construed as aimed at violating the mother” (Patrick Lee, 129).

There are other problems with this view, of course. For example, what if caring for a three year old is deemed a “great burden”; perhaps even a burden which is as great as pregnancy. Should mothers and fathers be allowed to cut off care, thus leading to the “side-effect” death of the toddler?

Another problem is that Thomson’s view depends totally upon the distinction between “intentional killing” and causing death as a “side-effect.” Thomson argues that it is permissible to bring about death as a “side effect” as opposed to intentionally killing an infant. There are two ways to argue against Thomson. The first is to deny her major premise, namely, that abortion is non-intentional killing. One could argue that in every case, abortion brings about the intended death of an infant. Such an argument has initial plausibility, but mostly falls apart when one considers that in at least some cases the death of the infant really is a “side-effect.” Consider the case in which a woman “dislikes the prospect of bodily changes due to pregnancy” (Lee, 115). In such a case, the woman’s intent is to prevent the bodily changes. That the infant is killed in the process is an unintended, but known side-effect of terminating the pregnancy.

In light of this, a more fruitful counter is to deny that Thomson’s conclusion follows from her argument. One could argue that abortion is morally wrong for, among other reasons: 1) the parent has a responsibility to the child (again, contra Thomson’s scenario) and  2) the harm of destroying one’s life is significantly greater than the harm of things such bodily changes.

Justifying 1) should be intuitively obvious, but consider Patrick Lee’s example in Abortion and Unborn Human Life:

Suppose I am in a motorboat in a lake and speeding past the pier I knock… four children into the lake…. I am responsible for their being in a dependency condition [like that of the fetus upon the mother], and… I owe it to them to go back and try to help them out of the water, lest they drown. However… I might also claim that I was only responsible for their being in the water, not for their being in an imperiled condition. It is not my fault… that they do not know how to swim… But clearly, it is specious to distinguish between my causing them to be in the water (for which I am responsible) and their being in a dependency condition due to their inability to swim… (Patrick Lee, 122-123)

Thomson would have us believe that we should draw such distinctions, which are indeed specious. The mother is responsible for her child.

Similarly, 2) also defeats Thomson’s argument. Lee points out that “Death is not just worse in degree than the difficulties involved in pregnancy; it is worse in kind” (128). To kill an infant in order to avoid pregnancy is to confuse not only the degree of “difficulty” but also the kind of difficulty involved.

If either 1) or 2) is correct, Thomson’s argument fails. In order to deny 1), the advocate of abortion must deny that parents have responsibility for their children. In order to deny 2), the advocate of abortion must show that killing someone is no better or worse than putting them in the state of pregnancy. Either alternative is totally implausible. Therefore, abortion is not justified as non-intentional killing.

Sources:

Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion” in The Problem of Abortion, ed. Joel Feinberg (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984), 173-187.

Patrick Lee, Abortion and Unborn Human Life, 2nd edition (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 2010).

———

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation and provide a link to the original URL. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Pro-Life Resources

Abortion is killing millions of children a year. We need to stand together to speak for those who cannot. Biola University recently had a seminar called “Ethics at the Edge of Life” during which they had several speakers come to make the case for life. They’ve offered this fantastic resource free online. I cannot stress how awesome this is. It is available in video and audio. Please take the time to download this programs and listen to them, as they will equip you for making the case for life. I listened to them on my way to and from work for about a week and a half, and I gained so much practical knowledge. Ethics at the Edge of Life: Video //// Audio.

Another fantastic resource is the Life Training Institute. There are free articles which will give you useful arguments against abortion, as well as educate you on the issue itself. For just one great article, check out “Are Embryos Constructed or Do They Develop?” Also available are the lecture notes from “Ethics at the Edge of Life” for free.

There are tons of great websites out there. LifeNews.com features news stories related to right-to-life issues. National Right to Life has news stories as well as several resources. Americans United for Life is one of my favorite sites. I recommend subscribing as their e-mails keep you updated with news and information about the legislation having to do with abortion.

Don’t forget to check out the many great books on the topic. Two of my favorites are Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn and The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf.

Life: Defining the Beginning by the End- A great article on the question of when life begins.

The case against abortion: Medical Testimony– a series of quotes from textbooks, pro-choice advocates (including Peter Singer), and others showing that life begins at conception.

Does the case for pro-life rest only on religious foundations? No, it doesn’t. Check out a fascinating article on the topic, here.

Also,  stop by my page which features all the pro-life posts I’ve written. It is accessible here.

Book Review: Abortion and Unborn Human Life by Patrick Lee

There are few ethical topics more controversial than abortion.Finding books on the topic is not very difficult, one needs only to search “abortion” on Amazon to find more than 10,000 results in the books category. Patrick Lee’s Abortion & Unborn Human Life (hereafter AUHL) stands out as one of the better pro-life books I have read, despite one major flaw.

AUHL starts with a syllogism:

1) Intentionally killing an innocent person always is morally wrong

2) Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person

3) Therefore, abortion is always morally wrong.

The rest of the book (164 pages of content) serves to defend this syllogism.

Chapter one argues against the idea that unborn human beings become persons after birth. Lee’s arguments are very good until he starts to argue by going against substance dualism to make his case. I think that this is a major flaw of Patrick Lee’s book. Substance dualism serves as a powerful argument against abortion. Not only that, but to argue against substance dualism primarily for the sake of an ethical position doesn’t make a lot of sense. Lee does introduces several philosophical arguments against dualism, but they fail to make a sufficient case against the position. This makes the rest of his case seem weaker than it is, had it been bolstered by substance dualism rather than arguing against it. It is really unfortunate, because readers may walk away thinking that the case against humans becoming persons after birth is weaker than it is.

In chapter two, Lee argues against the idea that human beings become persons during gestation. This chapter is particularly strong, and Lee introduces many arguments I hadn’t thought about before. Particularly important to this argument is what it means to have “moral standing.” Often, pro-life advocates forget that we sometimes don’t share the same basic presuppositions as the pro-choice advocates. Lee helps to bring the focus back to the basics (I have focused on this elsewhere myself, see here).

Lee argues in chapter 3 that individual human beings come to be at the moment of fertilization. This is another very strong chapter in which Lee offers scientific and philosophical reasons to accept this position.

Chapters 4 and 5 address the particularly chilling (and more recent) arguments that abortion can be justified as non-intentional killing of human beings (4) or that preventing certain consequences permit the killing of human beings (5).

Overall, AUHL is a fantastic read. Lee produces a compelling and powerful case that abortion is morally wrong, no matter what. Despite the rather large flaw of arguing against substance dualism, the book is a must-read for those interested in a philosophical defense of the pro-life position.

Abortion and Unborn Human Life

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation and provide a link to the original URL. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Abortion: The Struggle Between Objectivity and Subjectivity

I’ve noticed in the past that as I debate the moral issue of abortion, it seems as though people tend to ignore reason in lieu of emotional appeals. Upon further examination of the issue, I am even more convinced that this is the case. But what is at the bottom of this appeal? Why is it that something which must have an objective answer is treated like subjective, lukewarm hogwash? The reason, I believe, is because the issue of abortion is involved in the overarching debate of subjective (relative) versus objective ethical theories.

What reasons do I have for making this claim? First, we must examine the most prominent pro-choice arguments. Pro-choice arguments generally fall into two broad categories:

1) Devaluing the fetus

2) Pointing towards the value of personal choice/control over one’s own body

Now, 1) fails miserably on a number of logical and scientific levels. See my other posts on the topic for discussions of these reasons (notably, this post and this one). But if 1) is rejected, then 2) may be the only way for pro-choice advocates to argue for their position. Unfortunately, 2) boils down to a kind of subjectivism about morality which ends up being self-defeating.

I am reminded of the echoing catch-phrase popular with politicians, “I am pro-choice, but against abortion.” What does this mean? Often, those who say such things generally mean that whatever someone else wants to do is fine with them. We shouldn’t try to limit the choices others make. We don’t have any reason to regulate what choices someone else can make or can’t make. And sure, I think abortion is wrong, but what right do I have to force my morality on others?

Initially, such arguments seem to make intuitive sense. The problem is that while the argument is trying to avoid forcing any “ought” statements, it has one huge “ought” planted right in the middle of its train of thought. That is, that “We ought not limit the choices of others.” But why should this be the case? There are certainly a huge number of cases in which I would limit the choices of others. Rape, for example, would be one instance where I would say this choice is not to be allowed. Perhaps the argument could be modified, then, and say that as long as one’s choice doesn’t harm anyone else, we ought not limit it. But then this pushes the burden of proof back onto argument 1), which is becoming ever more difficult for the pro-choice advocate to uphold.

Not only that, but having an “ought” statement like any of those above goes exactly contrary to what such statements are asserting. What if I choose to disagree with the statement that we “ought not limit the choices of others”? Should my choice to disagree be limited?

Furthermore, what reasons are their to argue that one should have absolute and total control over one’s own body? For if we do think that this is the case, we should then cease efforts in trying to limit substance abuse, cutting, anorexia, suicide, bulimia, and the like! These are all cases in which someone is simply making choices about his/her own body! If I want to cut myself, that should be my choice! If I want to starve myself, that should be my choice!

No, the bottom line is that the pro-choice camp wants to advocate total relativism. On this view, that which is ethically right for one person is okay for that person. There are innumerable difficulties with such a view (I’ve only touched on these above).

Thus, it seems to me that the pro-choice advocate has insurmountable difficulties with his or her position. First, this view cannot accurately measure when one’s “personhood” begins objectively. Second, it desires to claim an objective “ought” statement which ultimately defeats itself. Third, it runs contrary to scientific advances in measuring the stages of life of the human. Fourth, it stands on shift philosophical soil, for it is unable to accurately define “personhood” in any sufficient manner.

Thus, I conclude, as I’ve done so many times before, that to be pro-abortion is to hold a view that is positively irrational.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

Problems With Evolutionary Morality

Recently, i discussed the problems atheism has with establishing a base for moral discussions (see here). Now it is time to delve into the problems with one of the most commonly used ethical theories of non-theists–evolutionary morality (or, to use a phrase coined by Koukl, “monkey morality”).

Evolutionary Morality generally argues that our moral beliefs arose by some kind of naturally-selected process. Notably, ethical judgments which benefited the survival of the species tended to be favored (thus, murder was frowned upon), while those judgments which prevented the spread of one’s genes tended to be disfavored (hence the reason rape is not permitted, for now it makes one stigmatized socially, thus leading to difficulties propagating genes).

Without much further ado, I find numerous problems with this ethical theory. Here, I shall present only a few.

1) How can we get an “ought” from matter in motion? Ultimately, evolutionary moralists assert that all there is in the universe is the physical realm. As such, a “person” is reducible to matter in motion. But then how exactly is it that there can be a moral “ought” if everything is matter in motion. Evolutionary morality reduces ethical decisions to the point of being mere wishes at best. There is no “ought” or “should” in evolutionary morality, for there cannot be. Ought’s can only be issued from sources to which one has obligations. It is hard to see how a person owes obligation to one’s species or matter.

2) Evolutionary Morality assumes that what is best for a being is the survival of the species. How is it that we can say what is best for an individual being is to insure survival of the species? What is it that makes it “good” or “right” to propagate genes? Furthermore, what if an individual does not wish to help insure survival of his/her species. Suppose there is a species of sentient beings, the Plargons, who are in all ways horrible. They travel the galaxies, taking over lush worlds, burning them to the ground and using every available resource until it is depleted, and then move to the next planet. Suppose now that Judy, a Plargon woman, decides it would be better for her species to be eradicated from the galaxy, for they are without capacity for reform. She therefore manages to destroy all other Plargons, and then retires to a corner of the galaxy alone until she dies, exterminating the Plargon race. Would this be a good or bad thing? Such a hard question should take much consideration from any thinking person, but evolutionary morality circumvents the hard question and simply delcares that Judy has done the greatest evil imaginable, for she has gone against the survival of her own species.

3) Evolutionary Morality assumes that all beings “should” desire the continuity of the species, yet this assumes a higher morality. Again, what makes it “good” or “right” to do things for the survival of our species. Humanism suffers from this glaring problem. It’s all well and good to say that what is good for humanity is what we should strive for. But whence does this “should” come?

4) Evolutionary Morality destroys altruism. Altruism, on evolutionary morality, is generally stupid. For to sacrifice oneself to save another (or several others) is to destroy one’s own place in the gene pool, thus eradicating one’s very reason for existence. Yet it seems intuitively as though altruism is a great good. Evolutionary morality therefore goes against our common sense notions of morality.

5) Evolutionary Morality is arbitrary. That which is good for the species may change over time. Recall the case of rape. I have heard it said that at one time rape was considered “okay” or “good” because it was one way to ensure the survival of the human race. Now, however, due to societal constraints, rape is “bad” or at least “stigmatized” and therefore is viewed negatively. But it seems intuitively that rape is a great horror, no matter what the circumstances! This is another case of Evolutionary Morality violating our moral senses. Furthermore, suppose the nuclear apocalypse happens, leaving only a few hundred humans alive. Evolutionary Morality could allow for rape to once more be a great good, for after all, we would need to repopulate the earth! Why should the feelings of some women or men get in the way of the survival of the species!? Again, the bankruptcy of Evolutionary Morality shines through.

It seems to me that the problems with moral systems which do not include God are endless. Without a lawgiver, anything can be right. Without a lawgiver, there are no “oughts”. Morality therefore dies.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

Morality and Atheism

I am continually baffled by atheistic accounts of morality.* What, on atheism, gives us the grounds for stating that an action is wrong?

Morals can be either objective or subjective. The thrust of the following argument is intended to show that atheism cannot have objective morals. In other words, an atheist has no way to condemn some action as wrong, other than that it is wrong “in my opinion”.

There are only a few ways I have seen it argued that atheism can have objective moral values. These are:

1) Platonistic Atheism- Morals exist necessarily independently, as abstract objects (such as numbers).

2) Humanism- Humanity first. Humans are to be valued objectively, so morals can be based on what benefits the human race.

3) Science can answer moral questions, somehow.

There are horrendous difficulties with all three of these views.

Platonism about morality could be the best way for atheists to have a “way out”, if you will, for accepting objective morality. The existence of moral values such as “Justice” can be posited as brute facts of our existence. They just exist, and that’s all. The problems with this view are numerous.

First, on this view, the moral values of “Sloth”, “Hedonism,” “Masochism” are also platonic forms existing as brute facts. What reason can be given for choosing to prefer “Justice,” “Uprightness”, etc. over “Masochism,” “Hedonism,” etc.? If all of these things are simply brute facts, then why is it that some should be preferred over others? I see no non-question begging method for determining which values should be favored.

There is no reason, on atheism, to value one over the other. Second, how is it that (granting naturalist evolution) natural selection managed to line us up so wonderfully with what appears to be correct moral cognitions? Again, given that the morals themselves are brute facts of existence, it is utterly remarkable that we evolved in such a way as to line up with what appears to be the “good side” of the moral values (one might object by arguing that we don’t know either way, but then they would have to accept that somehow being a sadomasochist could be a moral good. I doubt very much this is a position worth even considering). Third, there is the thus-far ignored question as to what makes the idea of moral facts existing by brute fact even close to intelligible?

Given the huge problems with 1), and the fact that I consider this the strongest position for the atheist wishing to argue for objective morality, it seems these are dire straits indeed for the atheist ethicist.

2) is equally problematic, however, for a number of reasons. First is that humans often do not agree on what exactly is best for humanity. Which humans are allowed to determine what is right for the whole of society? Furthermore, 2) doesn’t actually provide objective morality at all. It merely sets an arbitrary line for morality–it is moral to act for the good of humanity. What basis is there for taking this assertion as truth? We are humans, but this doesn’t, on atheism, entitle us to any kind of superior ethical or cognitive status. Why is it that humans are objectively valued? It just pushes the problem of objective morality up one level.

FInally, 3) is utterly bankrupt as an explanation for objective morality. I have discussed this position before in more detail (see my discussion of Sam Harris’ attempt at articulating this unintelligible position). 3) basically asserts that somehow, we can empirically detect what is moral by figuring out what makes people happy. Surely, this is no way to detect objective morals, for even if the pool of test subjects is the entire human race, one day the entire human race may determine it makes us happy to kill other humans at will, and then this would be objectively, empirically, moral. It makes us happy, so it is moral! Clearly this is no way to save objective morality, for 1) it makes moral values arbitrary, which is clearly not objective, and 2) it falls victim to the same problems of either position 1) or 2) above, for it must grant one of these positions to pursue some background for determining reality. Sam Harris, in his discussion of this position, simply asserts that “Values are… facts” (see video cited in my link above). Wonderful! I agree that values are facts. But simply saying this doesn’t magically explain their existence.

The massive problems with any atheistic position which attempts to give credence to objective moral values show that the atheist really only has two positions open to him/her: 1) abandon the existence of objective moral values (a route not often taken, but when it is traveled, it leads to subjectivity of morals–which of course means we cannot condemn any action as “wrong” other than as a preference) or 2) abandon atheism and accept a position with better explanatory power for the objective moral facts. I suggest theism as one clear possibility.

*I am not suggesting that atheists cannot be moral people. Indeed, some great examples of moral people are friends of mine who are atheists. The point of this post is, instead, that atheism has no grounds for morality, other than total relativism.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

Abortion: The Minority Rules

A Gallup Poll last year indicated that more Americans self-identify as pro-life than pro-choice. The more interesting results, however, indicate that 40% of all those surveyed believe that abortion should only be legal in a “few circumstances”. I would be interested to see a breakdown of specific circumstances and see where those who hold this view would restrict abortion.

Those who favor the pro-choice stance should be alarmed by these results, however. In a society that is increasingly utilitarian as far as ethical values are concerned, it appears as though the pro-life stance is gaining steam (interestingly enough, the Gallup Poll linked above suggests this may be due to President Obama’s stance as a firm advocate of the “pro-choice” side). We live in a democratic society, and it is clear that for some reason, the minority rules when it comes to abortion. The tides are turning.

But the problem with an issue like abortion isn’t so much getting a majority when it comes to voting, it comes down to what is right and wrong. Again, a utilitarian society has trouble acknowledging this, but the bottom line is that abortion commits murder. It is the willful destruction of a human being. I’ve issued challenges before for any pro-choice advocate to provide some kind of logical argument for abortion which can stand up under scrutiny. Despite hundreds of views, I have yet to have one solid argument for the pro-choice side advocated. Mostly, it boils down to name-calling and appeals ad misericordiam. In light of strong arguments against abortion and the failings of arguments for abortion (noted here, here, and here, for some examples), the pro-choice position falls by the wayside.

So it appears to me that the pro-choice position is the rule of the minority in more ways than one. On the one hand, the position is losing popular support, and on the other, it lacks logical justification.

[Author’s Note: I will be away for about a week, so any new comments will be approved when I get to them]

Pro-Choice, unless you’re a man

Recently, I posted a list of quotes from advocates of abortion. There was one in particular which struck me as being particularly odd. The quote was from Stella Ramsaroop, who wrote an article entitled “Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue.” I’ve placed it, in its entirety, after my discussion below.

While it is telling that the people who call themselves “pro-choice” say things such as “men, your opinion [choice?] just doesn’t matter”, it is equally interesting to see the context such a quote was in. Ramsaroop writes that “when men start choosing to be fathers, that’s when they will have the right to pipe in on whether women can choose to be mothers.” I’m curious as to whether she’d actually follow through on such claims. The entirety of her article is based on premises such as these. She writes in her introductory paragraph, “unless he is the father of the fetus, what he says really doesn’t matter because he’s a man.”

My question for Ramsaroop, and any others who would argue in such a manner, is: Do you really mean what you say? There are certainly instances in which the man does want to be a father. He wants to have the child. Should he then have a “say” in the matter? According to Ramsaroop, he should. I sincerely doubt she is consistent in this, however.

Ramsaroop also writes, “a man can just impregnate a woman and walk away, which is exactly what many have done. If a man can have the right to choose whether he wants the responsibility of fatherhood, shouldn’t the woman have the same choice concerning motherhood?” (Let us ignore the fact that the baby has no choice in the matter either way, apparently.) Seemingly, Rasmaroop is disregarding the fact that men are required to pay child support [yes, each word is a different link]. So a simple fact check shows that the man does not have the right to choose whether he wants the responsibility of fatherhood–he faces jail time if he doesn’t support his child–even if he doesn’t want the child himself.

The problem is that I seriously doubt that Rasmaroop would say that if a man truly, really wanted a child, but the mother wanted an abortion, that the man’s choice matters. This stance of “pro-choice” is really only pro-abortion. It endorses abortion at any cost–the life of the child and the pain and broken heart of the mother and father. Rasmaroop doesn’t care what men have to say, and I doubt very much that she’d care even if the man did fulfill the conditions she set. The bottom line is abortion at any cost.

There are good reasons, both scientific and philosophical for being against abortion. I’ve outlined them in my other posts on the topic (click here and simply scroll down for many other posts arguing against abortion). Those who argue for abortion are inconsistent, illogical, and unscientific.

Article:

By Stella Ramsaroop

Abortion Advocate Quotes

Rather than offer commentary, I’ll let the quotes speak for themselves. Read these quotes, they will challenge you to decide for yourself if this is the logic you’d like to use.

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” – Margaret Sanger.

“We are failing to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . a dead weight of human waste . . .an ever-increasing spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” -Margaret Sanger

“”We really need to get over this love affair with the fetus and start worrying about children.”- Jocelyn Elders

“…A pro-choice advocate sees abortion as a decision to be made in accordance with the best scientific opinion as to when the beginning of life, as we know it, occurs.”

…followed by “I should have known better. Pro-life arguments are now based on scientific evidence and the pro-choice arguments are not. That is a cultural, historical fact.” -Stanley Fish

“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.” -Peter Singer (emphasis mine)

“The status of her fetus and any moral value accorded to it is entirely her call. A fetus becomes a human being when the woman carrying it decides it does. ” –Joyce Arthur (her emphasis)

“…what he says really doesn’t matter because he’s a man…  In short, when men start choosing to be fathers, that’s when they will have the right to pipe in on whether women can choose to be mothers. Until then men, your opinion just doesn’t matter.” -Stella Ramsaroop (emphasis mine, here, an article entitled “Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue”)

“I do think abortion is murder–of a very special and necessary sort”- Magda Denes

“Not everybody is meant to be born. I believe, for a baby, life begins when his mother wants him.” -Jim Newhall

“As a woman who is staunchly pro-choice I have never denied ‘personhood’ to the fetus… One might then make the leap of logic that I would agree that abortion is murder. I do not. The killing of another human being, murder if you will, is judged by degrees based on intent. There is first degree murder, which is considered the most heinous and premeditated. There is second degree murder which is less heinous than first degree but will still get you life. There is manslaughter which is a heat of passion defense and, in this society, punished to a lesser extent than first or second degree murder. Then there are those catagories [sic] of killing that are not considered ‘crimes’ at all. These include killing during times of war or killing in self defense. I contend that abortion is always a killing done in self defense, and, therefore, morally justified.” – A customer review of a pro-life book here.

“Abortion liberates women from the life of a whore/slave and allows her to control her own life and decide for herself when and with whom she will have children. ” Here