Were You Ever an Unborn Child?

It doesn’t seem to make sense to say you once were a sperm or an egg.  Does it make sense, though, to talk about yourself before you were born?  Did you turn in your mother’s womb or kick when you were startled by a loud noise?  Did you suck your thumb?  If so, were those your experiences or someone (or some thing) else’s?

If you were once the unborn child your mother carried, then you must accept an undeniable truth:  Killing that child through abortion would have killed you.  Not a potential you.  Not a possible you.  Not a future you.  Abortion would have killed you. 

This is why abortion is tragic.  It kills more than a human body.  It kills a valuable human being.

Comments

[Tony Montano]

"It doesn’t seem to make sense to say you once were a sperm or an egg"

.
.
.

Why not?

.
.
.

[Wes]

Mr. Koukl,

I happened to catch part of your conversation with Hank Hanegraaff about your opposition to a woman's reproductive freedoms.

On the program, you presented a syllogism that you felt supported your position.

You said something like,

It is wrong to take an innocent life unnecessarily
Abortion is taking an innocent life unnecessarily
Therefore, abortion is wrong

[Forgive me if I didn't get your exact phrasing, but it's not really that important to my point.]

Of course, your argument hinges on the word "unnecessarily," (or whatever term you used to recognize that sometimes innocents are killed for the sake of the many) but let's say that I grant the entire thing, both premises and the conclusion. Is that all there is to say about the issue?

What are your thoughts on another syllogism:

It is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo
Giving birth involves a medical procedure
Therefore, it is wrong to force someone to give birth.

This can be stated in a number of different ways:

It is wrong to force someone to undergo physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else
Carrying a child to term causes physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else
Therefore, it is wrong to force someone to carry a child to term

etc.

Both of these syllogisms (and the many other simliarly worded ones) are technically valid by the same formal logic as your statement. If the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily so.

In your discussion with Hannegraaf, you noted that your first premise was a moral premise that most people accept. My first premises are also moral premises that most people accept.

You said that your second premise was "science" not religion. I would say the same about both of my premises. [Perhaps, one could argue that giving birth is not a medical procedure, but rather a "natural" one, but one could not argue that carrying a child to term does not involve pain and suffering (and the argument that birth is not a medical procedure is not very convincing given the cutting of umbilical cords, etc.)].

So, now we have two competing moral claims that are both perfectly valid. Your syllogism (and mine) fails to tell the whole story.

The question to answer, at this point, is "Which competing moral claim takes priority over the other?"

This is a discussion that I don't have the time to develop now. If I were to do so, I would discuss "moral bargaining" and the relative power of women in bargaining compared to that of unborn children. This would also push us into an argument over metaethics which you and I would understand very differently.

Suffice it to say, your syllogism is an oversimplification of the issue. It would be intellectually dishonest for you to continue using it without reference to other valid syllogisms like the ones I point out above.

One valid argument does not prove your point. The issue is about comparative values. You are perfectly free to argue that the moral law that one refrains from taking an innocent life necessarily takes precedent over the moral law that one does not force another to undergo a medical procedure or endure pain and suffering for the sake of another. It would be irresponsible of you, however, to continue using your simplistic argument above as if it universally demonstrated your point.

[Tony Montano]

Wes,

That's just a repackaging of Judith Thomson's Violinist argument from the 70's bra.

There is a crapload of Christian responses to those questions - googlize it.

[Tony Montano]

AND ANOTHER THING. YOU RUINED MY COOL QUESTION WITH THAT BIG POST OF YOURS.

GO AWAY. I'M THE ONLY NON-BELIEVER HERE! GO FIND YOUR OWN WEBSITE!

.
.
.
kidding... :)

[Wes]

Tony,

I did my writing sample to get into my philosophy PhD program on JJ Thomson's ethics. I'm very familiar with her violinist argument. Also, when I was a Christian, I taught Christian ethics at a seminary and a Bible College (I have two master's degrees from two very well-known evangelical seminaries), so I'm also pretty familiar with the Christian responses to the argument. I'll save myself the google on it.

The real issue is competing moral claims. This is what Mr. Koukl has failed to acknowledge in his argument.

[Randall]

Greg,

I listened to your conversation with Hank Hanegraaff and offer my prayerful support and encouragement in contrast to those who attempt to deceive and distract by every means possible, with intentions evidenced by self praise against your true intentions which are to follow the will of God.

[TK]

Wes, I don't think that it is Gregs responsibility to unpack everything for his audience. Still, your objection is a weak one because it doesn't become OK to kill someone because it will relieve you of personal discomfort.

Tony, I think I've discussed this with you before. A human egg and human sperm are wholly human but neither are a whole human.

[Wes]

TK,

You wrote: "I don't think that it is Gregs responsibility to unpack everything for his audience."

Intellectual honesty demands that one does not misrepresent an issue in order to prove a point. That is exactly what Greg did in his interview. He made it sound as if the issue of reproductive freedoms could be settled by a single syllogism. He failed to mention that the issue actually relies on competing moral claims.

You wrote: "your objection is a weak one because it doesn't become OK to kill someone because it will relieve you of personal discomfort."

You didn't read my post carefully. I didn't actually make an argument against Koukl's opposition to reproductive freedoms. I simply pointed out the error of his presentation of the argument (i.e. that he failed to acknowledge that it is a matter of competing moral claims).

Had you read more carefully, you would have noticed my admission, "Your syllogism (and mine) fails to tell the whole story." I noted that my argument was not meant to make a positive case for reproductive freedom, but only to note how the argument should properly proceed.

I did give hints at how I would support my argument for reproductive freedoms (i.e. by reference to "moral bargaining"), but this in no way constitutes the argument itself. It, therefore, makes no sense for you to say that my "objection is a weak one" and then present my "objection" as saying that it is "OK to kill someone" because of "personal discomfort." My "objection" was only regarding Koukl's presentation.

Tony seems to have made the same mistake when he said that I was "repackaging" Thomson's violinist argument. While my actual argument (which I have not presented) does, in fact, borrow an idea from Thomson (viz. that there are competing moral claims involved in a discussion of reproductive freedoms), the next stage of my argument takes a radically different route (one that Thomson would very much disagree with because of her commitment to moral objectivity). My argument would involve a metaethical discussion followed by a normative ethic discussion that would demonstrate the importance of "bargaining power" in constucting societal law.

Both of you seem to have read more into my comment than was actually there.

[John Stauffer]

Concieved! Was done it is. But with what joy do we speak of when we learn that we love an unborn child. Our media shouts loud when the right to abort or euthanize is supported by lack of response by the courts. Maybe it is because they are reading the news not understanding what they read.

[Steve]

Wes said: "The question to answer, at this point, is "Which competing moral claim takes priority over the other?"

Is it really that hard to figure out in this case? Hmmm... Life vs. temporary discomfort/pain/inconvenience. You're making this more difficult than it has to be.

I think C.S. Lewis said it best:
"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved"

[Wes]

Steve,

You wrote: "Is it really that hard to figure out in this case?"

Yes, and the fact that you do not see the difficulty only demonstrates that you do not have a developed understanding of the issues at stake when discussing metaethics.

Your strawman construction, "Life vs. temporary discomfort/pain/inconvenience." also misrepresents the relevant issues. Ultimately, the issue would boil down to life vs. social order. This is a much more complex construction that is ignored by your strawman.

[Dustin]

Wes, I'm trying to figure out if you're actually trying to figure out a solution to a problem. From what I've read, it looks like you analyzed one thing Greg said and have made a lot of noise to prove how smart you are.

The opposite of the first line of reasoning you used -- "It is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo" -- could be "It is right to let someone have a medical procedure they want to have". Is that necessarily true? For you to make statements, as such, you need to make sure the "opposite" statement holds. I don't have much more time so I'll end with this syllogism:
You don't know Greg's full stance on the issue.
Greg has a number of articles on this website explaining his full stance.
You should read his articles in order to know his full stance.

[TK]

Wes, I addressed the objection that you gave as an example because it was the one that you gave as an example. If you had given a real one, then I would have address the real one.

Still, you have presented no compelling reason that Greg should have to explain his position in the detail that you seem to be demanding. I listened to his interview and it doesn't seem to me that he is overstating his position.

[Paul]

Wow, I'm really surprised that I'll be the first to point out Wes's mis-step. Please forgive me if that sounded arrogant, but it seems obvious... his first argument:

"It is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo
Giving birth involves a medical procedure
Therefore, it is wrong to force someone to give birth."

If I grant your first statement, then couldn't abortion then be a "medical procedure" that the unborn child (probably) doesn't want to undergo? So now what? We have to decide who has the more morally weighty reason to oppose a procedure. Seems like an obvious choice, unless the unborn isn't a person -- which is really the only question we need to decide.

Next Wes said:
"It is wrong to force someone to undergo physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else
Carrying a child to term causes physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else
Therefore, it is wrong to force someone to carry a child to term"

Again, I'll grant your first point, and then point out that the unborn, during an abortion procedure, "undergo(es) physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else" (in this case, the mother and father, who then wouldn't have the inconvenience of bearing and caring for a child). Once again, we have competing moral claims. Someone is going to be "forced" to undergo a procedure and incur some pain -- who is it going to be?

[Paul]

As a side-note, on Greg's argument:
It is wrong to take an innocent life unnecessarily
Abortion is taking an innocent life unnecessarily
Therefore, abortion is wrong

When I have heard his more lengthy treatment (which is sometimes hard to give when you are the guest on someone's national radio show), the "unnecessarily" part of the second statement is expanded to "for the reasons most people have abortions." I think Greg recognizes the difference between deciding to have an abortion because the mother's life is truly in danger and deciding to have an abortion because "I'm just not ready to have a baby."

[Tony Montano]

TK,

"A human egg and human sperm are wholly human but neither are a whole human."

Can you write down the definition of a "whole human" and tell me who gave it to you?

[Tony Montano]

Wes,

Well a phd in philosophy and 5 bucks will get you a cappuccino at starbucks.

These arguments work fine in the case of stranger-helping-stranger. But they don’t work in the case of mother-helping-child.

What if a couple had a toddler that tended to run up the food bill that his parents toiled in the minds to pay for - and one day they decided to abandon him down at the bus stop in the middle of winter.

When the cops come to ask about the frozen dead kid, I guess they could say “Hey, neither you nor anyone else has the right to require me to suffer to take care of my child.”

Or (as you stated above)

“It is wrong to force someone to undergo physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else”

Ha. That ain’t gonna work with the popo at least.

[Tony Montano]

Wes,

They should let mom go right:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1995482,00.html

Mom wasnt required to do anything at all for her kid right? And this noble women in the least gave her daughter a place to sleep and a dog bowl to eat from.

"...and then a hero comes along. With the strength to carrrry onnnn..."

nevermind - Mariah Carey sucks

[Wes]

Whew, where do I begin.

TK,

You wrote: "I addressed the objection that you gave as an example because it was the one that you gave as an example."

Re-read my first comment. My objection is that Koukl misrepresented the case for opposing reproductive freedom. He made it sound as if there is only one moral issue at stake (i.e. taking an innocent life). In fact, there are two moral issues at stake (i.e. (a) taking an innocent life and (b) forcing someone to undergo pain and/or a medical procedure).

If there are two moral issues at stake, then the question becomes which takes priority.

I simply left my argument at that. I did not argue one way or the other which one should take priority. You are all right in assuming that I think the latter is a priority, but I never gave the reasons why this is so. Perhaps, I will get around to that, but so far, all I have argued is that Koukl's presentation was a misrepresentation of the issue.

If you take my example syllogisms (i.e. "It is wrong to force someone . . .") as my objection, you have missed the point. This should have been clear to you when I wrote, "Your syllogism (and mine) fails to tell the whole story."

See that? I said that my syllogism fails to tell the whole story. The whole story would be to give reasons why the moral claims in my syllogism should be valued over Koukl's. That, I have yet to explain.

You wrote: ". . . you have presented no compelling reason that Greg should have to explain his position in the detail that you seem to be demanding."

I have repeated this several times. IT IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO MISREPRESENT AN ARGUMENT TO PROVE YOUR POINT. Koukl made it sound as if only one moral issue was at stake and there are two. He should not misrepresent in order to prove a point.

Dustin,

You wrote: "From what I've read, it looks like you analyzed one thing Greg said and have made a lot of noise to prove how smart you are."

Thanks for the profound insight into my motives.

You wrote: "The opposite of the first line of reasoning you used -- 'It is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo' -- could be 'It is right to let someone have a medical procedure they want to have'. Is that necessarily true?"

No, it is not necessarily true.

You wrote: "For you to make statements, as such, you need to make sure the 'opposite' statement holds."

That makes absolutely no sense. I think you are trying to make a point about the logical rule of denial. While it is true that denying a statement has to have a truth value opposite the other, you didn't deny my statement; you formed another.

My statement was "It is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo." The denial of my statement is "It is NOT wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo." That statement has a truth value (it is false). You actually made a new statement about medical procedures that has a truth value (a false one that you and I both agree on).

Are you actually saying that you disagree with my first premise? Do you think it is okay to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo (and, yes, I was hoping someone would say that we do this with children because then I could show that you think women are like children and can't make their own medical decisions, but none of you bit)?

You wrote: "You don't know Greg's full stance on the issue."

I don't need to know his full stance. I am not arguing about his full stance. I am arguing about his presentation on a radio program. That is all that I have ever claimed.

Paul,

Thank you for proving my point exactly! You are the only one who has gotten my point (even if it is by accident).

My point has always been that a syllogism on one side of the issue does not settle the matter. That is why I admitted in my original post that my syllogism "fails to tell the whole story."

There are TWO sides to the issue. There is the side of the unborn child and his/her moral rights and there is the side of the woman.

Koukl only presents the side of the child. THAT IS MY OBJECTION. I have no problem with Paul's new syllogisms (although, I think an argument can be made about an unborn child's ability to will something).

Paul said he could, for the sake of argument, grant my argument, but that there are other competing moral claims (i.e. that of the unborn child. After contrasting my syllogisms with his new ones, he said, "So now what? We have to decide who has the more morally weighty reason to oppose a procedure."

Sound familiar? CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT!? In that first comment, I wrote, "So, now we have two competing moral claims that are both perfectly valid . . . The question to answer, at this point, is 'Which competing moral claim takes priority over the other?'"

I never unfolded my reasons why I think the woman's moral claim is superior to the unborn child's. The answer is rooted in my theory of metaethics and a normative ethic that I think is derived from that. Your answer for the priority of the unborn child is rooted in your deontological normative ethic.

As I have repeatedly stated. I'm not making a point of whether women should have reproductive freedom or not. I am only arguing that Koukl's presentation was a misrepresentation, just like Paul misread my argument as a misrepresentation and tried to correct me the same way I have attempted to correct Koukl.

Paul, you are the only one who has restated my argument correctly, and you aren't even aware of it. Everything that you just said is what I said in my original comment.

[Wes]

Tony,

You wrote: "Well a phd in philosophy and 5 bucks will get you a cappuccino at starbucks."

Your point?

In your original reply to me, you assumed I was uninformed about Thomson's violinist argument because you thought I was making a similar one (you still seem to suffer from this disillusion). The only reason I gave you my "credentials" was to show you that you were being presumptuous, and you didn't know enough about me to trivialize my comment. Nowhere have I tried to suggest that my education makes what I say correct. I will let my arguments (properly understood) stand on their own.

You wrote: "These arguments. . ."

Perhaps, it would be a better idea to understand my argument before you trivialize it.

Nowhere in my original comment (or in subsequent ones) have I tried to make the one-sided argument that you keep trying to ascribe to me. In fact, that is what I criticized Koukl for. That is why the violinist argument doesn't work either.

You seem to think that I am saying that only a woman has a moral claim in the issue of reproductive freedoms. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN MY ARGUMENT!!! From the very beginning I have argued that there are competing moral claims.

I can (and do) agree with all of your hideous (and ridiculous) examples.

No where in any of my posts have I given my reasons for supporting women's reproductive freedoms. This was never my intention here. Normally, I would blame myself for my own lack of clarity, but in light of my statements from the outset that I had no intention of answering the question, "Which competing moral claim takes priority over the other?" I can only blame your careless reading.

[Wes]

I really don't know how else to state this any more simply.

1) In no place above do I give the reason why I support a woman's reproductive freedoms.

2) The syllogisms (i.e. examples) I gave above are only to demonstrate that there are two competing moral claims in this debate. THEY ARE NOT MY REASONS FOR SUPPORTING A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMS!

3) My actual reasons for supporting a woman's reproductive freedoms are rooted in my deeper ethical commitments.

4) I only one to demonstrate that Koukl misrepresents the issue when he makes it sound as if there is only one moral claim involved.

Is this getting through to anyone yet?

[Tony Montano]

Wes,

Nah still sounds like more violinist crap to me.

[Wes]

Then, Tony, I think you are a hopeless case in this instance.

If you would like, I can give you the names of some good resources on elementary logic.

[Wes]

If any of you want to actually talk about whether or not my original comment is valid, I would love to discuss that.

I'll help you organize the discussion.

1) Koukl made it sound as if there were only one party who had a moral claim at stake in the issue of a woman's reproductive freedoms.

2) There are, in fact, two parties that have a moral claim at stake.

3) There is the unborn child (for the reasons all of you have given) and there is the pregnant woman (which I mentioned and all of you have ignored).

4) The question is which moral claim takes precedent in making laws, the woman's or the unborn child's.

5) I have, no where, attempted to answer this question in any of my comments. I have never attempted to argue for a woman's reproductive rights one way or the other.

6) I have only attempted to argue that a pregnant woman has a moral claim in the matter.

Now, if you want to argue against what I have said, you can:

1) Argue that there is only one party with a moral claim in this issue. To do this, however, you must demonstrate why a woman has no moral claim given my syllogisms (note, I am not asking you which party you think has the "highest" moral claim, but only whether or not you believer there ARE moral claims).

2) The only other argument I think you could have against my comment is that it is okay to misrepresent an issue in order to prove a point (which is what Koukl has done by making it sound as if only one party has a moral claim in the issue).

Let's say that you want to make an argument against my first claim (viz. that there are two parties with moral claims at stake). To do that, I think it is appropriate to demonstrate why my syllogisms are false.

As I stated above, both Koukl's and my syllogisms are technically valid. As you should know, however, "valid" syllogisms are not necessarily "true." These are two different states.

My first syllogism was:

It is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo

Giving birth involves a medical procedure

Therefore, it is wrong to force someone to give birth.

Formally written, this is the same as Koukl's from the radio:

~((P.Q).~A)

["It is not the case that P and Q are true and A is not true."]

If my first two premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily so as well.

You can now move on to decide if my first and second premises are true.

Let's look at my first premise: "It is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo."

Does anyone disagree with this statement? Is anyone willing to argue that it is not morally wrong to force an adult to undergo a medical procedure they do not want to undergo? Would any of you be okay with a government official ordering you to undergo a medical procedure that you did not want to undergo?

In this country, a patient is given the right to refuse any medical procedure they want. A person can, of course, be quarantined, but they cannot be forced to receive treatment unvoluntarily.

If you have no objections to my first premise, look at the next one: "Giving birth involves a medical procedure."

As I stated above, one could possibly argue this point. One could say that this is a biological procedure, not a medical one.

On the other hand, however, an umbilical cord has to be cut, stitches are often involved, and caesarean births are often needed. I would think that one would really have to stretch it in order not to think of giving birth as a medical procedure.

Feel free, however, to disagree.

If those two premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily so (as I showed above in my formal expression).

How about the next syllogism?

My first premise is, "It is wrong to force someone to undergo physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else"

While it is certainly "heroic" (to use Thomson's word) to endure pain and suffering for someone else, it is not morally required. It is, therefore, immoral to force someone ELSE to undergo pain and suffering for the sake of another.

Does anyone disagree with this statement? If the government were to choose your child to undergo pain on behalf of a national figure, would you object? Would you let them hurt your child for the sake of another?

Carrying a child to term causes physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else

If any of you disagree with this, I want you to talk to tell it to the first pregnant woman you see tomorrow. [And yes, of course, almost every mother will say that the birth of their child was worth the pain and suffering. That's not my point.]

Again, if the two premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily so.

**Now, please pay careful attention here. Conceding both of these syllogisms DOES NOT commit you to a pro-reproductive freedoms position. As I stated at the outset, one can recognize that it is wrong to take the life of an unborn child AND it is wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term. The only thing that conceding these syllogisms does is cause one to admit that there are two parties with legitimate moral claims at stake.

Where you go from here is another issue. Most of you, will claim that the unborn child has a more powerful moral claim than the pregnant woman. Your reasons will be varied, but will have something to do with the basis of your deontological ethic. I claim that a pregnant woman has a more powerful moral claim than an unborn child because of my metaethical foundation and my resulting normative ethic. My reasons, however, I have kept to myself because they involve deeper issues in moral philosophy.

Before I could even consider moving forward about reasons, I would have to know that everyone, at least, agrees about how the argument should proceed.

Seriously, does anyone understand what I'm doing here?

[Dustin]

Thanks for clarifying, Wes. I want to apologize for not reading everything written because I was in a hurry to get out of work! I knew that my point didn't make a whole lot of sense at the time, but I was in a rush to leave work and was hoping you'd figure out what I meant :) The basic thing that I wanted to say is that it's good to challenge someone concerning what they say about their view, but I don't think that one statement is Greg's complete argument concerning this issue.

Syllogisms are nice summaries, but you're right, they don't tell the whole story, especially if the premises are majorly in question. Anyway, even if yours and Greg's syllogisms are "perfectly valid", that doesn't automatically put them on equal ground. We use moral judgments to figure out which course of action is the "most moral" and we do it.

To conclude, I'm glad that you posted what you did. It's inspired a lot of discussion, and I'm impressed by your knowledge. It adds to wealth of knowledge that Greg and others have put on here. (now I sound like an advertisement...sheesh)

[Dustin]

I posted that before I saw your last comments. My arguments would be:
1. It is wrong to force someone to have a medical procedure... - what about children who don't want to have lifesaving procedures? They might not know enough to recognize the pain is worth it to keep living. What about people who are schizophrenic/delusional and don't have normal control of their faculties?

2. "It is wrong to force someone to undergo physical pain and suffering for the sake of someone else" -- So if we're attacked by terrorists, is it wrong to fight back in order to save our families or our nation? Can we not force suffering upon them? Do we just roll over and let Hitler conquer the world?

[Wes]

Dustin,

Thanks.

You wrote: "Anyway, even if yours and Greg's syllogisms are 'perfectly valid', that doesn't automatically put them on equal ground. We use moral judgments to figure out which course of action is the 'most moral' and we do it."

I feel like cutting and pasting your comment a thousand times (but I won't).

Congratulations, you are the first to completely understand what I am saying!

I think both Koukl's and my syllogisms are both equally valid and equally true, but contradictory. I, therefore, think we must do exactly like you say and "figure out which course of action is the 'most moral.'" Perfectly stated!

I have reasons for thinking that it is "most moral" to protect a woman's reproductive freedoms and you have reasons for thinking it is "most moral" to protect an unborn child's life. Neither of us, however, have stated our reasons.

This is EXACTLY where I think the real debate over reproductive freedoms begins.

This was what I was trying to point out about Koukl's argument on the radio. He made it sound as if there was only one moral claim to be made. There are two moral claims, though, and we now have to decide which is "more moral."

Deciding this is a very complicated issue. It is a question of normative ethics. Normative ethics, however, usually rely on a particular metaethic.

The whole conversation of a woman's reproductive freedoms is an ethical conversation. It is really a debate over which metaethic is more valid and which normative ethic makes the most sense within the realm of the most valid metaethic.

I can't tell you how good it feels to finally be understood.

[Wes]

Dustin,

You wrote: "what about children who don't want to have lifesaving procedures? They might not know enough to recognize the pain is worth it to keep living. What about people who are schizophrenic/delusional and don't have normal control of their faculties?"

I predicted your response in several of my comments above. In my first response to you, I wrote, ". . . and, yes, I was hoping someone would say that we do this with children because then I could show that you think women are like children and can't make their own medical decisions, but none of you bit." I guess you did bite. Are you saying that pregnant women are like children and other people without their facilities?

My statement was actually a trap that I was hoping to set. I, more appropriately, could have written "It is wrong to force an adult with reasonable faculties to undergo . . ." I was hoping, though, that someone would make the child analogy.

If you'll notice in the statement that you are replying to, I added "an adult" as a qualifier.

Reconstituted with my qualifiers (i.e. an adult with reasonable faculties) do you still disagree with that first premise?

Secondly, you wrote: "So if we're attacked by terrorists, is it wrong to fight back in order to save our families or our nation?"

There is a difference between inflicting pain and forcing someone to undergo pain. Even though I am a pacifist, I recognize a difference between the two. In the one case, you are forcing someone to undergo an avoidable pain for someone else. You are demanding that that person act heroically. In the other, you are redressing an evil by inflicting pain.

Would you say that it is okay to force someone to act heriocally?

[Pony Boy]

Wes,

I've been following this whole discussion from the beginning and have understood your point(s). I appreciate your clarity.

You mentioned that your argument (which you haven't actually given) departs from Thomson at a certain point because you don't share her commitment to moral objectivity. If you have the time and energy, I'm interested in hearing your perspecitive on my following questions. What do you mean by "It is 'wrong' to force someone to undergo a medical procedure" or "It is 'wrong' to force someone to undergo physical pain or suffering for the sake of someone else"? What is your definition of "wrong"? If there is no outside, objective standard by which to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of a particular action (like forcing someone to undergo pain or suffering for the sake of someone else), does it not leave us with only opinions and the option to either convince or coerce others to get in line with our opinions? Are people OBLIGATED to support the "reproductive freedom" of women? If no objective moral standard exists, can you say that one absolutely SHOULD support reproductive freedom? You may say to not do so would be bad for society, but why SHOULD one care what's good for society?

[Wes]

PB,

It's a rather detailed explanation that I really can't spend a lot of time developing. It also is a little off-topic.

If you'll grant me a little leeway, however, I'll give you a brief overview.

I'm a graduate student. Let's say that one day, in class, I stand up and start screaming, "My pencil is moving! My pencil is moving!" The entire class looks around and sees my pencil lying perfectly stationary on my desk. The professor, says, "Calm down, Wes, your pencil isn't moving."

Which one of us is "correct"? Is my pencil moving or isn't it? The answer is "yes."

How can this be? It is true that my pencil is not moving relative to the other objects on my desk, but the continents are drifting, the earth is rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun. The Milky way is a spiral galaxy that revolves around a dense center and we are in an expanding universe. My pencil is moving relative to any of those other spatio-temporal frameworks.

The answer to the question, "Is your pencil moving?" is yes and no. It is moving relative to some spatio-temporal frameworks and not moving relative to other spatio-temporal frameworks.

Motion is relative to a framework.

Mass is also relative. Einstein wrote, "For the purposes of assigning truth conditions, a judgment of the form, the mass of X is Y, has to be understood as elliptical for a judgment of the form, in relation to spatio-temporal framework M, the mass of X is Y."

You can state this better as weight. I could ask, "Do you weigh under 300 lbs?" Your answer is likely "yes" (sorry if it isn't). If you could somehow survive Jupiter's atmosphere and if there were something you could stand on with scales, then you would probably weight more than 300 lbs.

Weight is relative to a framework.

Speed is another instance. You can say something is moving very quickly, but you have to posit something else to judge it by. If your 5 year-old won a race, you could say, "She ran very fast," meaning that relative to the other runners in her class, she ran very fast, but you could not say that relative to an Olympian, she ran fast.

Speed is relative to a framework.

Notice, though, that even though all of these subjects are relative to frameworks, I can still make objective statements. I can say that something is moving objectively. I can say that something weighs a certain amount objectively. I can say that something is fast or slow objectively. My objective statements are relative to a framework, however.

Now, here's where I can't spend a lot of time, but if you really want to understand my position, read Gilbert Harman and JJ Thomson's _Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity_.

What if I believed that morality was relative to moral frameworks?

[I've read some of Koukl's articles on relativism and he, again, misrepresents the issue. NO MORAL RELATIVIST WITH ANY PHILOSOPHICAL CREDENTIALS DEFINES MORAL RELATIVITY AS THE BELIEF THAT ANYTHING GOES!]

Koukl often commits a fallacy of the excluded middle. He says something like, "Yes or no, is it okay to burn babies for fun?" This question, however, is akin to the question, "Yes or no, is your pencil moving?" A third option in the argument is excluded. Yes, my pencil is moving according to certain spatio-temporal frameworks and no, my pencil is not moving according to another spatio-temporal framework. Similarly, no it is not okay to burn babies for fun according to my moral framework and yes, it is okay to burn babies for fun according to another moral framework (a sadistic one).

Now, before you get excited and commit the same error that countless Christians have committed, recognize that just because I can accept that a horrible practice is justified by reference to another moral framework, I can also recognize that I do not have to accept that other moral framework and am required by my own moral framework to do something to stop anyone attempting to burn a baby for fun.

PLEASE re-read that again if it wasn't clear. A MORAL RELATIVIST *CAN* CONDEMN AND FIGHT AGAINST CERTAIN MORAL ACTS even if they believe that a moral act is justified by reference to another moral framework.

Moral relativists can also disagree with the moral actions of a society. Just because most people in society hold one belief does not mean that a moral relativist must accept that.

My moral framework, for instance, determines that it is a great wrong to burn a baby for fun. My moral framework also obligates me to do whatever I can to stop people from burning babies for fun. I recognize that some people may have a different moral framework in which it is okay to burn babies for fun, but that does not mean that I must submit my moral framework to theirs. I must still act on my moral framework and try to stop them.

Christians repeatedly fail to acknowledge this possiblity for moral relativists. Read through any of Koukl's writings on his website about this and he completely misrepresents moral relativism. He, and other Christians make a straw-man moral relativism and go about tearing it down.

So, PB, this is an EXTREMELY oversimplified explanation. To truly understand this position, read Princeton's Gilbert Harman or Duke's David Wong (though Wong doesn't state it quite the way I have and I am more comfortable with Harman). You would also have to read Foucault on "power structures" to understand why a moral relativist does not have to simply accept other peoples' morality. (I'm not suggesting that you haven't read any of these, only that they actually explain the case in much more detail).

So, you asked how I can make moral judgments like "wrong," "obligated," and "should." I make these judgments the same way people make judgments about motion, mass, weight, and speed. My judgments are elliptical for judments in the form of "ACCORDING TO MORAL FRAMEWORK M, it is 'wrong,' 'obligated,' and therefore 'should.'"

I'm very hesitant to post this because it is so oversimplified. Please see the other philosophers I cited above before you feel that you have enough information to really critique anything that I've said here. There are so many more issues at stake, but hopefully this gives you the slightest intimations about my thinking.

[TK]

Wes,

I understood your point from your first post. I just disagree with you. I can understand your point and still disagree. Do you get that?

You have said repeatedly that Greg should have been more specific, but you state no reason for that except calling him intellectually dishonest if he doesn't. If he was actually misrepresenting his position, then calling him intellectually dishonest would be appropriate... but I don't think he misrepresented his position.

Your first pro-abortion argument doesn't work because giving birth doesn't have to involve a medical procedure. (fei. this includes cutting the umbilical cord. It will fall off on its own.)

Your second syllogism actually misrepresents what elective abortion is. That premise should read, "It is wrong to withhold relief of pain and suffering from someone for the sake of someone else." Who's gonna agree with that premise?

[TK]

"Can you write down the definition of a 'whole human' and tell me who gave it to you?"

Tony, we both know that sperm or an egg don't qualify as a whole human. We also know that you and I are whole humans. We also both know that there are areas where we cannot tell if someone is whole or not. I like Tony, but not enough to beat dead horses with you.

[Wes]

Okay, so classes start back on Monday and I need to start preparing for that. So, I'm sure to most of your delight, I'm going to let this be my last comment. I'm not even going to allow myself to respond to anyone's critiques (which is next to impossible for me!).

Earlier, though, Dustin wrote, "I'm trying to figure out if you're actually trying to figure out a solution to a problem."

I have actually spent some time thinking about a possible solution to this problem.

The way I see it, two parties have legitimate moral claims: 1) the unborn child, 2) the pregnant woman. I've stated that we must determine which claim takes priority over the other.

My statment, however, might be guilty of the same fallacy I accused Koukl of in my last comment, the fallacy of the excluded middle. What if there is a way to respect both moral claims.

Now, I'm a philosopher, not a scientist, so despite what I have implied about Tony Montano's philosophical abilities, it is obvious that his scientific knowledge far exceeds mine, so he is a better authority to consult as to whether my "solution" is theoritically possible.

Christians spend millions, if not billions, of dollars every year on legislation that takes away reproductive freedoms. Let's say their dreams come true and abortion is made illegal (the-absence-of-God forbid!).

I would think that even the most naive Christian would understand that making abortion illegal will not end all abortions any more than making drugs illegal has stopped drug use or making speeding illegal has stopped people from driving fast or making drunk driving illegal has made people stop driving drunk. The BEST the people who oppose reproductive freedoms can hope for is a REDUCTION in the number of abortions.

Now, is there any way that Christians can get their desired reduction without oppressing peoples' reproductive freedoms?

I offer two "solutions":

1) Christians and other opponents of reproductive freedoms can take the money they would be spending on legislation and spend it, instead, on amenities that might help a woman decide to go through with a pregnancy. They could open free housing for pregnant mothers, a school for them to go to, employment help, etc. [I do realize that there are already some organizations that do this, but it must be admitted that there could be more.] Perhaps this would convince more mothers to keep their children.

2) [Now, this is where Tony M's scientific knowledge will be useful in determining if my idea is even theoretically possible.] My second idea is for opponents of reproductive freedoms to take the money that they were spending on legislation and to fund technology that might help eliminate much of the problem.

What if it were possible to extract an unborn child from a woman and either implant it into a willing infertile woman, or to grow it outside of a womb, or to cryogenically freeze an unborn at any stage of pregnacy.

I know that I'm sounding a little crazy, here, but indulge me for a second.

The main reason women terminate pregnancies is that they do not feel it is the "right time" for them to be pregnant or to have a child. If it were possible to extract an unborn child--with as little intrusiveness as possible--without the child dieing, that might make a major difference in the number of women who decide to abort a pregnancy.

For instance, let's say a woman discovers she is pregnant a few weeks into her pregnancy. She does not feel she is in a position to have a child at that time. She goes to the doctor and the doctor says something like, "You have several options. You can abort the pregnancy or you can undergo a minimally invasive procedure in which we extract the unborn child and either cryogenically freeze it, implant it into an infertile mother, or grow it outside of the womb and let it be adopted by you or another parent."

I know that technology is nowhere near this stage right now. I'm just wondering if it is, at least, theoretically possible. If it is theorectically possible, then this seems like a much better use of money than trying to legislate a reduction in abortions.

If one could extract an unborn child with minimal invasiveness and, thereby, respect the moral claims of both the pregnant woman and the unborn child, it seems like a win-win situation.

Abortions will always take place whether it is legal or not (watch the movie Vera Drake if you haven't yet). All the opponents of reproductive freedoms can hope for is a reduction in the number of abortions. If this theoretical extraction is possible, then there would probably be a dramatic reduction in the number of abortions (maybe even more dramatic than making abortion illegal). Both the moral claimes of the pregnant woman and the unborn child can be respected.

Okay, so I'm ending my run here with two horribly simplistic comments.

Thanks, everyone. It's been something.

[TK]

Wes, now you are assuming that there is no moral obligation for parents to care for their children. Good luck proving that one.

No need to reply. I hope you have a good semester.

One thing if you don't mind, are you a professor? If so, what do you teach? If not, what are you studying? (I work at a college)

[Justin]

I'm a graduate student. Let's say that one day, in class, I stand up and start screaming, "My pencil is moving! My pencil is moving!" The entire class looks around and sees my pencil lying perfectly stationary on my desk. The professor, says, "Calm down, Wes, your pencil isn't moving."

Which one of us is "correct"? Is my pencil moving or isn't it? The answer is "yes."

How can this be? It is true that my pencil is not moving relative to the other objects on my desk, but the continents are drifting, the earth is rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun. The Milky way is a spiral galaxy that revolves around a dense center and we are in an expanding universe. My pencil is moving relative to any of those other spatio-temporal frameworks.

The answer to the question, "Is your pencil moving?" is yes and no. It is moving relative to some spatio-temporal frameworks and not moving relative to other spatio-temporal frameworks.

Motion is relative to a framework.

Mass is also relative. Einstein wrote, "For the purposes of assigning truth conditions, a judgment of the form, the mass of X is Y, has to be understood as elliptical for a judgment of the form, in relation to spatio-temporal framework M, the mass of X is Y."

You can state this better as weight. I could ask, "Do you weigh under 300 lbs?" Your answer is likely "yes" (sorry if it isn't). If you could somehow survive Jupiter's atmosphere and if there were something you could stand on with scales, then you would probably weight more than 300 lbs.

Weight is relative to a framework.

I think that this argument misses the fact that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the SAME TIME in the SAME SENSE.

So, you asked how I can make moral judgments like "wrong," "obligated," and "should." I make these judgments the same way people make judgments about motion, mass, weight, and speed. My judgments are elliptical for judments in the form of "ACCORDING TO MORAL FRAMEWORK M, it is 'wrong,' 'obligated,' and therefore 'should.'"

Judgments about motion, mass, weight, and speed are all scientifically calculated with a reference point- an absolute standard. (Even if you say weight has a different "framework" on Earth than Jupiter, the formula for calculating weight remains the same. It is absolute.) What is the absolute moral reference point aside from your "framework?" No matter how many moral "frameworks" there might be, there still must be an absolute moral standard in order to even speak of "wrong" or "right."

[Justin]

There were supposed to be some italics up there, but there weren't. Sorry. The mojority of my post was quoting Wes, with a short response from me below. Kind of confusing as it is...

Sorry for the triple post. My comments two posts ago were:

I think that this argument misses the fact that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the SAME TIME in the SAME SENSE.

and

Judgments about motion, mass, weight, and speed are all scientifically calculated with a reference point- an absolute standard. (Even if you say weight has a different "framework" on Earth than Jupiter, the formula for calculating weight remains the same. It is absolute.) What is the absolute moral reference point aside from your "framework?" No matter how many moral "frameworks" there might be, there still must be an absolute moral standard in order to even speak of "wrong" or "right."

[Pony Boy]

Wes,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions. I really appreciate it. And thanks for the recommended readings.

[Paul]

Wow... neglect a blog for a few days and you guys go and write "The Iliad". Forgive me for stopping reading after Wes' response to me -- I have to get to my grading.

Wes, it sounds like I missed your original point, because your original post was so long. I should have read the whole thing before responding -- apologies. I'll just say that when one is a guest on a national show like the B.A.M., there isn't a great deal of time to flesh out ideas.

Greg understands there are competing moral claims, but it's not his job to use his brief time to present his opposition's claims. On his own show, he might do that so he could show how his "side" has the moral high ground, but cut him some slack considering the conditions he was under.

Finally, the other reason he doesn't probably feel the need to present the opposing case is because it is morally intuitively obvious which wins between:
1) It is wrong to kill innocent people; and
2) It is wrong to a) "force" a medical procedure, b) cause discomfort, c) cause pain.