Posted by: bridget | 4 June 2007

Debunking the Pro-Choice Argument, Part V

Pro-choicers love to say that pro-lifers are hypocrites: elective abortion happens less frequently than spontaneous abortion (i.e. where the embryo cannot survive due to extreme abnormalities or the body rejects it). Therefore, if we were really concerned with fetal life, we would work on methods to save those babies, too.

If you were really pro-life, you would want to save the babies who are spontaneously aborted. Look at that loss of life! Furthermore, if God puts a soul into the babies at the moment of conception, why does He then allow them to die?

Like most pro-abortion talking points, it fits well on a bumper sticker but doesn’t hold much weight upon closer scrutiny. As usual, let’s analogise:

Imagine that the polio vaccine had never been invented; as a result, half of all children die from the disease. Further imagine a society in which half of the remaining children are tortured and killed. Would it be acceptable to condone the torture and killing under the theory that more of them die from natural causes? Would it be acceptable to rape all young women and condemn their champions as hypocrites for not eliminating another threat to their health?

Under the Leftist theory of “You can’t be for life unless you eliminate natural causes of death,” they should have no interest in protecting senior citizens. After all, those people often die from natural causes, so there should be no problem murdering them until we can eliminate the natural causes of death. First of all, it’s obviously amoral and absurd. Moreover, the math doesn’t work out. If we eliminate most causes of death in the 80-90 year old group, those people will live to be centenarians. We then must either be content with allowing murder of the 100+ club, or we must find ways to eliminate natural causes of death for that age bracket. If it’s the latter, the cycle will continue ad infinitum.

As the Onion once said, human mortality is holding steady at 100%. We will all eventually die; yet, all civilisations have prohibited us from expediting the deaths of its members. Centuries of criminal law have punished the deliberate taking of human life, without any desire to stop all causes of death before doing so. The fact that people die does not give us any right to kill them.

As for souls: This atheist will attempt to tackle the theological question; she sincerely hopes that the Christians among her blog-readers can provide her with insight.

Back in the days of high infant mortality rates, CS Lewis contemplated this very issue. He wrote that, between those who die in utero and those who die before experiencing much life, God intends for His kingdom to be peopled mostly with those who have not had to withstand the temptations of the devil. This is still true today, albeit less so due to advances in medical science.

Perhaps those who die in utero or in infancy are the souls that He creates and intends to have in Heaven, but does not want exposed to Satan. Perhaps he uses miscarriages to test his people, to bring them to Him, or to, in their suffering, make them understand the suffering of Christ on the cross.

Such would be His prerogative and, more importantly, His choice. It would not be for humans to presume to know which souls He had created to live for a short while; it is not for us to determine which ones may never see Earth. We would not presume to know which souls should die young and have limited time on Earth – thus, we do not murder our fellow man. That prohibition against destroying the creation of the Lord is no less true simply because the creation happens to be part of a group that is routinely called to Heaven. (Under this theory, it would also be acceptable to murder senior citizens: after all, He must not intend them to live much longer, anyway.)

Related Posts:

  1. Part I: If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child? And, It’s wrong to bring unwanted children into the world.
  2. Part II: Why should a blob of tissue have more rights than a woman?
  3. Part III: If you don’t support abortion, you don’t support women.
  4. Part IV: Pro-lifers want to legislate morality; you can’t be pro-life and libertarian.
Advertisements

Responses

  1. What I don’t get is that as atheists these folks know life is a one shot deal. Seems like that makes it even more important NOT to kill a soul/life that never gets another chance. At least the Christian can take comfort to know that their loved ones will meet them on the otherside so to speak, but the atheist thinks that their act is final and decisive.

  2. Good points briget (both theological and the first one).
    You hit the nail on the head on both.
    God is the one who decides when people die… he has all of our days nubmered. I am nothing compared with God so why would I assume I have the complete understanding and eternal perspective he does to make these decisions?
    The original sin was “I can be like God” and it is the basic gist of every sin still today. Being Pro-Choice is once again saying “i can be like God”. How far from the truth.

  3. Excellent analysis, Bridget. The pro-choice argument is somewhat of a strawman as well because it implies we are against research for reducing miscarriages (we went through five, so believe me when I say I’m against miscarriages).

    The Bible doesn’t explicitly say what happens with miscarriages and young children who die, but there are several indirect verses that lead many (including me) to believe they are in Heaven. And I’m looking forward to meeting them all!

  4. TT ~

    Great point – if live is a one-shot deal, why deny it to anyone?

    Zabs,

    Thank you for some theological insight. It is senseless to say, “God has our days numbered, so why can’t I decide what those numbers are?”

    Neil,

    I didn’t think of the fact that such an argument is a strawman – although I’ve been meaning to address that in a future post. (The Left claims that we are against anything that would help children once they are born, mostly because we aren’t socialists. Sometime or another, I do want to address this point – everything from the conservative positions on reducing crime and drug use, to giving school vouchers — you know, all those things that help children once they are born. ;) )

    The Bible does not explicitly say what happens to young children, but it doesn’t really need to in order for anyone to be against abortion. “You were mine before you were born” and “thou shalt not kill” cover it pretty well. :)(I would even consider the former to be an indication that some souls may have never been given over to Earth before they die… thoughts?)

    Thank you all for your comments. :)

  5. Same applies to the death penalty Theo. The atheist has a strong argument in favor of the DP, since killing someone is the ultimate in finality and the worst possible action any human can take. You take EVERYTHING from your victim- they have no afterlife and nothing left to them. I would think that atheism requires the death penalty [for those who murder].

  6. Wait, maybe I should clear that up.

    “I would think that atheism requires the death penalty.”

    Add the words “for those who murder” between the word penalty and the period.

  7. Good point, TT. It seems as if the pro-choice, anti-death penalty crowd sees human dignity and the right to life as things that are gradually earned through various stages of existence (usually starting at birth, unless we accept the philosophy of Peter Singer, where human dignity is the sole province of Ivy League professors), and, once earned, cannot be removed.

    Pro-life, pro-death penalty types believe that human dignity and the right to life attach at conception and cannot be removed from a person except by his own doing (i.e. by denying another the same).

    This pachyderm has the power to edit comments. Isn’t it pretty? :)

  8. I just wanted to make sure that it didn’t appear that I was advocating the death penalty for atheism. The people over at FSTDT.com (“Fundies say the darndest things”) have taken more innocent comments out of context.

    http://www.fstdt.com/

    They picked up on one comment of mine and said some of the most hateful and disgusting things I have ever read. All based on one sentence.

  9. Babe, you’re not part of the Islamic religion, so I don’t think you’re advocating the death penalty for atheism (and dhimmitude for Christians).

  10. “If you were really pro-life, you would want to save the babies who are spontaneously aborted. Look at that loss of life! Furthermore, if God puts a soul into the babies at the moment of conception, why does He then allow them to die?”

    What another stupid argument from the baby killers. This type of inane argument has been around since the beginning. It is formally called the problem of evil and it has a lot to do with the fall of man (mz), free will, and the role Christ has provided to deliver us from it. All while they like to blame it on him while rejecting him. Regardless of their religious convictions, lets call a spade a spade instead ot defending their act of killing by saying it must be ok with God. Might as well say “the Devil made me do it.” ….. Next Stop Lauderdale

  11. True, Steve.

    “Thou shalt not kill” is pretty clear. If you aren’t killing someone via abortion, there’s no need for an abortion, because there’s no living human baby that will result from the situation.

    I can’t help but think that taking their “logic” to it’s inevitable conclusion leads to some pretty nasty results. If people in war zones are going to be raped and killed anyway, and God permits such raping and killing to happen, then why not rape and torture to your heart’s content? The consequence would be to allow any sort of atrocity against a group that is at risk for having the atrocity committed against them by others. In short, so long as nature or enough other people are doing it, it’s okay.

  12. […] Part V: Since so many babies die of spontaneous abortion, how can you be pro-life unless you want to save th…? […]

  13. Again, I’d like to argue for a middle ground here, because I think you have misrepresented the basis of the pro-choice argument to make it more polarizing than it needs to be. The allegation of hypocrisy isn’t that pro-lifers aren’t running around trying to save babies from miscarriage, it is that when miscarriage is compared with losing a child there is clearly a difference in the way most people react. Miscarriage can be a very traumatic event, but not usually a life altering one – most people are sad for a while and then try again. Losing a child, on the other hand, is devastating to a parent, and often is a defining event in the person’s life. I’m not going to stand up for everything pro-choicers say (there are incendiary and irrational voices on both sides, and I think that they help nobody), but I do believe the difference in natural sentiment between miscarriage and losing a child indicates there is a fundamental difference between a fetus and an actual kid, and that we should explore these feelings more to see what light they might shed on the abortion argument.

    I might try to flesh out the argument like this: when a woman has a miscarriage what she (and her partner) have lost is the hope of having a child. The actual child, at this point, is nebulous. Women recover from miscarriage because they know they are able to fully replace this hope with another pregnancy, or adoption, most of the time (this is shown by the increased rates of depression among women who miscarry who cannot have another child when compared with those who can). My mother had a miscarriage before becoming pregnant with me, and has always said she is so happy it happened, because otherwise she wouldn’t have had me. In this instance I am the actual, tangible child, a thing which is irreplaceable. You would never hear a mother saying she is glad her 2 year old died (whether of polio or murder or whatever), because otherwise she wouldn’t have decided to have more children. So, accepting (if you will) that what is lost in miscarriage is the hope to have a child (setting aside the religious contention that each fetus has a soul, an argument that is outside of the realm of logical reasoning), you will see that there is a difference between a miscarriage of a wanted child and the decision to abort one that is not wanted – there is no lost hope in the second instance, and therefore no small tragedy for the parent. There is no such difference between the child lost to polio and the child lost to murder, and therefore the analogy does not hold.

    This is not the only argument in the abortion debate, but I believe that the differences between abortion, miscarriage, and loss of a viable child should be a part of the discussion.

    I would also like to take umbrage with the term “baby-killers”. It is inflammatory and insulting. I am a physician-in-training who recognizes that abortion is sometimes the best choice for a young woman, and would perform abortions if asked. I would never kill a baby.

  14. but I do believe the difference in natural sentiment between miscarriage and losing a child indicates there is a fundamental difference between a fetus and an actual kid, and that we should explore these feelings more to see what light they might shed on the abortion argument.

    I, on the other hand, get incredibly squeamish when we allocate human rights based upon feelings. Well, whites in the South got a lot more upset about losing a neighbour than losing a slave, so I guess slaves aren’t really people?

    Incidentally, my “debunking” series (of which there is also a VI and VII) are all based upon conversations I’ve had with pro-choicers. While it may seem polarising, these are arguments that I’ve been presented with.

    I might try to flesh out the argument like this: when a woman has a miscarriage what she (and her partner) have lost is the hope of having a child.

    Again, to quote Neil, pro-choicers don’t seem to understand that they already HAVE reproduced, albeit in smaller form.

    The differing pain is simply one of knowledge: a woman who has a surrogate gestate her child and give birth would not feel the same pain, if it did not survive delivery, as she would if she were pregnant herself. Likewise, a woman who gives birth at 30 weeks, bonds with her child in the NICU, and loses her child two weeks later will feel a greater grief than one who loses her child at 32 weeks pregnancy.

    The fact that we are more attached to people we know is the basis for the increased pain, not the fact that those whom we do not know are not really humans, children, or people.

    Please think through the basis and ramifications of what you are saying. A lot of it sounds, at first blush, to be very convincing: it’s not a child yet, the pain of miscarriage means that it’s not really a kid, etc.

    In a few days, I’m coming out with Part VIII, which will be about the viability argument. It is actually the weakest of the pro-choice arguments, although few realise it.

    I am a physician-in-training who recognizes that abortion is sometimes the best choice for a young woman, and would perform abortions if asked. I would never kill a baby.

    Personally, I find the last sentence to be fundamentally opposite to the penultimate one.

    As a physician-in-training (my best to you, by the way), at what point would you decline to perform an abortion? How much of that is influenced by fetal development?

  15. […] Part V: Since so many babies die of spontaneous abortion, how can you be pro-life unless you want to save th…? […]

  16. “I, on the other hand, get incredibly squeamish when we allocate human rights based upon feelings. Well, whites in the South got a lot more upset about losing a neighbour than losing a slave, so I guess slaves aren’t really people?”

    On the contrary, I can’t think of a moral that doesn’t eventually come down to feelings – I think it is wrong to kill because I feel I would be hurt if someone killed me, and being hurt is bad because I feel it is. I feel that love and kindness are good things because they make people happy, and happiness is good because…there is a consensus among people that it is. I am not saying that every feeling is equal – however, when a feeling is shared among almost all people (such as the difference between the loss of a child and the loss of an embryo), I think it is worth looking at the reasons people feel that way (reasons which fundamentally come back to shared feelings anyway, but at least those upon which all people can agree, such as “happiness is good” rather than more debatable feelings such as “slaves aren’t people” or, admittedly, “embryos aren’t people.”) The reasons behind a slave owners racism are for the most part social and economic, and were not shared among most people (the slaves in particular objected, I think).

    As for your question about fetal development and performing abortions, that is of course a slippery slope and any chosen date would be an arbitrary one. Therefore, I would follow the medical guidelines and laws of the state in which I am practicing. These are usually based on the date after which the fetus would be viable outside a woman’s body, a designation which is fraught with moral landmines.

    In your next installment I do hope you will address the moral difference between separate gametes and a fused embryo. Also, I would be interested in your comments on IVF and the creation of many embryos to increase a couple’s chances of becoming pregnant. Is there a philosophical difference between creating 5 embryos with the intention of having one baby and creating one embryo with the intention of having none? How about between creating embryos for IVF and destroying them (or using them for research) versus not destroying, but putting them in a freezer with no intention of ever implanting them?

  17. In your next installment I do hope you will address the moral difference between separate gametes and a fused embryo.

    I won’t, because it’s too stupid to contemplate. Gametes = not human. Blastocyst = human. My skin cells, likewise, are not human, while an ova and a sperm cell would, when they meet, immediately produce a human. It’s a common pro-choice red herring – omigod, if embryos are human, so are gametes! What is the difference?!?!?

    Sorry if I sound harsh, but I presume that any reader of this blog has passed seventh-grade biology.

    I’ve written about IVF elsewhere… but I can repost.

  18. On the contrary, I can’t think of a moral that doesn’t eventually come down to feelings

    Congratulations, you’ve just justified every single atrocity that man can commit. If Hitler didn’t “feel bad” about murdering Jews, it must have been okay, right?

    Do we take a survey of people’s feelings before deciding what is right and wrong? Is there no natural law? Is there no justification for labeling certain behaviours as “wrong” aside from our wittle fweelings? If people disagree, which route do we take? Thomas Aquinias said that we are to take the morally safer route, when there is doubt. Or, we could take a majority vote. Well, more than 50% of people in the slave-owning South didn’t think it was wrong, so rock on. More than 50% of drunk men in frats probably think it’s okay to rape women. Would you volunteer yourself as a means for them to achieve sexual pleasure?

    See, thing is, more than half of people think that abortion is wrong after there is a heartbeat. That occurs at five weeks past the last missed period – approximately the time a woman takes a pregnancy test.

    On the question of whether abortion should not be permitted after the fetal heartbeat begins, 65.5% of 18-29 year-olds agreed, 46.9% strongly so.

    The human heart begins to beat 18-21 days after fertilization, before most women realize they are pregnant.

    From: Zogby International. http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8087

    Is 65% not enough? When is it enough to decide that an action is morally wrong and should not happen?

    —–

    Our morals are deeply rational – at least so if you are a rational human. If you believe in human dignity – because anything else is an atrocity – then your morals will flow from there. You will, like it or not, slowly come around to the pro-life perspective, because human dignity and abortion are mutually exclusive.

    If, however, you believe in Anne-dignity, it won’t matter what people do, so long as you could never visualise it being done to you.

    Talk to me about your “feelings” about this:
    https://helvidiuspachyderm.wordpress.com/2007/01/26/not-a-sophies-choice/

    Let me guess: your “feelings” about performing surgery on a severly retarded child probably aren’t a good basis for determining the morality of an action. Peter Singer’s take might strike you as intuitively horrible, but your rational mind alone can tell you why it is so. The feelings do not provide the justification nor the mechanism for morality. Rather, they are but an imperfect compass.

    Note, by the way, that you wouldn’t like to have your brains suctioned out, your body dismembered, or your being shredded through a blade on the end of a vacuum… so why inflict that upon fetuses? Oh, wait – because you’ll never be a fetus again, so you don’t have to worry. Wow, that’s compassion for you! What next, racism, because you’ll never have to worry about being black?

    The reasons behind a slave owners racism are for the most part social and economic, and were not shared among most people (the slaves in particular objected, I think).

    Yeah, and the fetuses would object to being shredded as they go through the blade on a suction aspiration machine, but they can’t, so we do it anyway. Well, gee, people in comas can’t object, so let’s hack ’em up and start an organ donation party.

    What do you do about abused women who are too scared and mentally beaten down to object? Those who are suffering from Stokholm Syndrome? People who just don’t know any better and accept bad treatment? Our feelings are far too informed (or uninformed) by our society to be reliable indicators of morality. They are even worse for determining a legal system.

  19. I think we have encountered a conflict of terminology. What I call “shared feelings” – those emotions all people agree on, such as happiness is good – you called natural law. The concept is the same – there are certain things which are true, or right, or wrong, because they are shared by all people and are not altered by society or community.

    To clarify – what I was suggesting was not basing our legal system on majority feelings or opinion. I was saying that when the majority of people share a natural feeling that appears contradictory – such as valuing a newborn over a fetus – it is a worthwhile line of thinking to explore the natural law upon which those feelings are based. I explicitly said that not all emotions and feelings are equal. However, all rational arguements must begin with assumptions, and the usual basic assumptions about good and bad are based on inherent feelings – what you call natural law.

    I would also like to address the assertion that I somehow indicated that only groups that are able and willing to object to maltreatment should be protected. Of course I don’t think abused women should be ignored because they are scared to speak out – but I also know that they do object to the treatment, if only in silence. Your claim that fetuses would object to being shredded etc. is different, as fetuses do not have the capacity to object since they do not have functioning cerebral corticies. To use an analogy of my own, that would be like saying the chicken I ate for dinner last night would have objected to being roasted for 2.5 hours at 400 degrees. Except it wouldn’t, because a chicken does not have the mental capacity to anticipate or understand maltreatment, and a fetus does even less so. Now you might ask if I would now object this having been done to me as a fetus. Of course I would! I would also object to the concept of never having been conceived in the first place. But we do not give moral status to the billions of possible combinations of eggs and sperm, and nor should we give the same moral status to a post-fertilization group of cells as we do to a cognizant, self-aware human being.

  20. What I call “shared feelings” – those emotions all people agree on, such as happiness is good – you called natural law.

    No…..

    The concept is the same – there are certain things which are true, or right, or wrong, because they are shared by all people and are not altered by society or community.

    Nooo…. I don’t take a census before I decide if something is right. You do. I don’t care if 99% of people disagree with me. Maybe it takes an explanation of the other side to get people to see your way.

    However, all rational arguements must begin with assumptions, and the usual basic assumptions about good and bad are based on inherent feelings – what you call natural law.

    No. Natural law is not a fancy way of talking about feelings. Start with Aristotle, and that will give you an idea of what I’m talking about. It flows from logical reasoning, not feelings. They are what normal people call “opposites.”

    Of course I don’t think abused women should be ignored because they are scared to speak out – but I also know that they do object to the treatment, if only in silence.

    That’s not what I meant. After a while, they cease to even mentally object. The point of abuse is to break someone down mentally so that she cannot object, even to herself.

    What do you think about the murder of a suicidal person?

    I would also object to the concept of never having been conceived in the first place. But we do not give moral status to the billions of possible combinations of eggs and sperm, and nor should we give the same moral status to a post-fertilization group of cells as we do to a cognizant, self-aware human being.

    Logical fallacy. Let’s break this down. By definition, you can have no right to yourself when “yourself” doesn’t exist. It’s beyond absurd. It’s like talking about the rights of unicorns.

    You like to bypass this critical point at which sperm and egg fuse to become a human being. I think it’s fundamental.

    If an infant is not self-aware, may we kill it? Should science determine human dignity? If science says, “Infants are not self-aware until the age of 2,” should we slaughter them?

    Most importantly, why do you place more emphasis on past self-awareness (i.e. a comatose person) than future self-awareness? If anything, it should go the other way – after all, dead people had been self-aware.

    Consider that we do not allow humans to desecrate the dead, but allow horrible things to be done to fetuses. What gives?

    I love the “post-fertilisation group of cells” argument. You are a group of cells, Anne. Once a woman has missed a period, there is a heartbeat. You mentioned that on the other one, so I’ll address it there….

  21. Here is an important point about gametes that I think you are failing to address. You compare them to any other cell in your body, such as a skin cell. However, there are two crucial differences between sperm or eggs and all the other cells we have. 1) Gametes are haploid, not diploid, meaning they contain only one copy of each of the 23 chromosomes it takes to be human, rather than two. This means they are the only cells in your body that could ever become another person. 2) Through the process of meiosis something called crossing over happens while gametes are formed. During crossing over genes get shuffled in between the two copies of the parent cell chromosomes. That means that although every other cell in your body is genetically identical to you (until you get cancer, which is not really relevant here), gametes are genetically different. The egg that would eventually become me, with half my genetic makeup, was in my mom from the day she was born. The sperm that would eventually become me probably became a gamete a few weeks to a month before I was conceived. So biologically it is not a stretch to say that my potential to become me occurred not at the moment of my fertilization, but at the moment that two gametes bearing my unique genetic makeup began to coexist in the world. And, before I was ever given the opportunity to become aware of this real potential of mine to come into the world, why is it different to rob me of this potential before the moment of fertilization rather than after it? If the Anne sperm and Anne egg were in pitri dish and someone washed them down the sink in the split second before the sperm penetrated the egg, would that not be denying me life just as much as if someone flushed the resulting morula of 12-24 cells?

  22. Anne honey,

    I have a degree in chemical engineering. I can assure you that I am well aware of the genetic differences between gametes and normal cells.

    Fact is, gametes are not and will never be humans. Embryos will – they are no different from infants, toddlers, or the elderly. They are in the process of both developing and dying as humans.

    Enough with the patronisation.

  23. Again, I didn’t mean to patronize – I just wanted to make the assumptions underlying my argument explicit.

    As we were discussing earlier about rational thought, you need two things – a logical argument and assumptions from which to base that argument. In moral thought those assumptions are the universal truisms that your refer to as natural law and I talked about as inherent feelings. Descartes started with “I think therefore I am”. Mill began with happiness as a universal good. Kant had several categorical imperatives. These are the kinds of feelings I was talking about – the ones that are shared between all people and which can neither be proved nor disproved. In scientific thought it’s good to start with the basics as well, which is why I outlined my understanding of what makes gametes special.

    I have a question for you, not one I pose because I think I know how you will answer but because I am genuinely curious to hear your point of view. Why is it that we make such a big deal of not being around in the world after we are dead but most people don’t care as much about not having been around in the world before we were born?

    Also, where can I find your post on IVF? I would love to read it.

  24. In moral thought those assumptions are the universal truisms that your refer to as natural law and I talked about as inherent feelings.

    When you took geometry, you didn’t build from the ground up, based on feelings. There are axioms and postulates, which are logically deduced; from there, everything else is derived.

    Yes, feelings inform this – we do believe in human dignity, intuitively – but those feelings are also deeply rational. Imagine a world without human dignity. We wouldn’t be here – we would destroy each other. Heck, as organisms, we wouldn’t have evolved far enough to have this conversation via internet connection: we would be too busy murdering each other at will. So it’s in our rational best interests to value each other (and ourselves). I won’t do the chicken-egg thing in parsing out which one came first, but reductio ad absurdum also gets us there.

    I will write about IVF soon, but cannot find it in a quite search.

  25. This is the argument many pro-lifers seem to take.

    Embryos are human beings.
    All human beings have equal moral status.
    Therefore, embryos have full moral status.

    If you accept this claim, consider this:

    THEN: Each of these deaths must have just as much weight as an adult human (which you so frequently harp on about). Spontaneous abortion (roughly 220 million a year) is by FAR the greatest killer of them all.

    IF you contend that an embryo has full moral status as a human being, then you must agree that spontaneous abortion is clearly the greatest problem facing humanity.

    Furthermore, Cancer in all forms kills 7.6 million people per year, while spontaneous abortion kills 30 times this number. Finding a cure means to save even 5% of embryos from spontaneous abortion would save more lives that a cure for cancer. To remain consistent in your views you must accept the following:

    The embryo has the same moral status as a adult human life.
    Medical studies show that more than 60% of all people are killed by spontaneous abortion (a biological fact).
    Therefore, spontaneous abortion is one of the most serious problems facing humanity, and we must do our utmost to investigate ways of preventing this death – even if this is to the detriment of other pressing issues. (See the current pro-life loonery)

    The only way to avoid this conclusion is to abandon the premise that full moral status begins at conception.

    That is the argument you need to ‘analogise’ and refute.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: