Matthieu Lavagna: how to refute bad pro-abortion arguments
The author of "Reason is pro-life" questions myths about the fetus, dismantles simplistic arguments such as 'lumps of cells' or 'my body, my decision', and shows why the discussion about life is not only religious but a matter of reason.
Matthieu Lavagna, a graduate in mathematics, philosophy and theology, in his book "The reason is pro-life" In this interview, he analyzes abortion from a scientific, philosophical and ethical perspective, dismantling the most common myths about the fetus and defending the protection of human life from conception. In this interview he discusses the arguments about abortion, the moral status of the fetus and the urgency of defending human life from conception.
Why write a book on such a taboo and sensitive subject?
Because abortion is a trivialized act in most modern societies. The number of abortions (IVG) is very high every year, and this practice is considered more and more trivial. It is also noted that many of our contemporaries are very poorly informed on this issue. The scientific and biological facts related to abortion are often poorly explained to the public, and in practice, people have rarely really heard the pro-life arguments. This book aims to make up for that lack of information and to objectively instruct the reader on this issue from a scientific and philosophical point of view.
Subscribe to Omnes magazine and enjoy exclusive content for subscribers.
You will have access to all Omnes
In the end, what is at stake is the moral status of the fetus. Why?
Indeed. Gregory Koukl sums it up masterfully with this sentence, "If the fetus is not a human being, there is no need to justify legalizing abortion. Conversely, if the fetus is a human being, no justification for legalizing abortion is adequate."
**NN: I have to begin on an abstract note: it may be interesting for some to learn that what's widely thought by academic philosophers to be the best anti-abortion argument, from philosopher Don Marquis, does not depend on thinking that early fetuses are "human beings," meaning human persons. (Google Don Marquis on abortion if you are interested).
But here what "human being" means is crucial here, and there are two broad meanings that are well-recognized by people familiar with these issues: (1) a very literal meaning, as a biologically human organism and (2) a biologically human person. These meanings are widely thought to be distinct: just because there's a (living) biologically human organism does not mean there's a person: common judgements about many end of life cases show this distinction is common.
Are beginning fetuses biologically human persons? Reasonably answering that requires thinking about what people are, or what makes something a person. Some thinking activities to help with that are here and here.
But, of course, even if the (early) fetus is a person, that doesn't automatically mean abortion is wrong: this is because we are not always obligated to support other people or provide them what they need to live: at least many people think that. (See Thompson on abortion).
In the abortion debate, everyone admits that the fetus is eliminated in the process. But what is a fetus? If it is just a collection of cells, aborting it is no more immoral than cutting one's fingernails or going to the dentist. If the fetus is not a human being, abortion should still be legal. No problem. But if the fetus is a human being, and all human beings have a right to life, there are good reasons to think that abortion is immoral and should be prohibited.
**NN: This is a naive argument. It depends on assuming that (early) fetuses are human persons---not merely biologically human organisms---and it assumes that the right to life is a right to everything needed for one's life to continue.
I explain this in detail in the book.
From the scientific point of view, you show that there is a general consensus that the fetus is a human being.
Yes. The fetus is a human being biologically, because it is a living organism belonging to the species. Homo sapiens. This genetically distinct organism develops continuously until it reaches maturity. From conception, it possesses its entire genetic patrimony, which characterizes it as an individual. Embryology manuals are unanimous in affirming that human life begins at conception.
**NN: This is all obvious, and everyone agrees: yes, mammals' bodies start at conception.
For example, The developing human being says: "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins with fertilization, the process by which a male gamete [...] unites with a female gamete [...] to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
**NN: This is all obvious, and everyone agrees: yes, mammals' bodies start at conception. Why would anyone focus on this, since all thoughtful pro-choice people agree?
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recognized as early as the 1980s: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception is the beginning of the life of a human being - a living being, a member of the human species. There is overwhelming consensus on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific texts."
**NN: This is all obvious, and everyone agrees: yes, mammals' bodies start at conception. Why would anyone focus on this, since all thoughtful pro-choice people agree? It often is because people simply do not understand the issues: they somehow think that embryos and beginning fetuses being biologically alive and organisms somehow is key to thinking that abortion is generally wrong. But, no: everyone acknowledges this. This isn't the issue, or among the issues here.
This is why abortion advocates are forced to acknowledge this fact. For example, Étienne-Émile Baulieu, well-known promoter of the abortion pill RU-486, declared in 1992: "Yes, a zygote is a living human being."
**NN: Yes, nobody disagrees that embryos and beginning fetuses are biologically human organisms. This person is not declaring zygotes to be persons.
Philosopher David Boonin, one of abortion's leading advocates, candidly admits, "A human fetus is simply a human being at an early stage of development."
**NN: Yes, nobody disagrees that embryos and beginning fetuses are biologically human organisms.
Also Peter Singer, a world-renowned pro-choice philosopher, states, "There is no question that from the first moments of its existence, an embryo conceived from human sperm and egg is a human being."
**NN: Yes, nobody disagrees that embryos and beginning fetuses are biologically human organisms.
Thus, serious advocates of abortion rights, scientifically informed, have no problem admitting that the fetus is a human being.
**NN: Yes, nobody disagrees that embryos and beginning fetuses are biologically human organisms.
There is no disagreement about this in the academic debate. The discussion centers on whether all human beings have the same right to life, regardless of their size, level of development or degree of dependency.
**NN: For what it's worth, this SLED mantra assumes or engages things that nobody believes.
Despite this, many object that they are just "lumps of cells".
This argument is so weak that it never appears in the intellectual debate on abortion.
**NN: OK, good!
In biology, a "collection of cells" is an agglomeration without organization or unity. This is not the case with the embryo, which is a complete and unified organism that develops toward maturity if given time, nourishment and a suitable environment.
**NN: Can develop, not will.
On the contrary, if these conditions are given to a simple group of cells, a human being will never be obtained, because these cells are not organisms. The embryo, on the other hand, has all its parts coordinated, forming an organized and autonomous whole.
**NN: Nobody disagrees with this.
Even pro-abortion physician Thomas Verney acknowledged that it was false to tell women that the embryo is just a collection of cells: "I believe that the decision whether or not to have a child should be the woman's [...] But I also believe that a woman should be fully aware that what is at stake is not a collection of cells, but the beginning of a human life."
**NN: Nobody disagrees with this.
How then does one come to defend infanticide?
For decades, many abortion advocates have argued that, while the fetus is biologically human, it is not a person. They redefine the concept of person to exclude the fetus. But these same definitions often exclude newborns as well.
**NN: Some of them do, but most of them don't. Again, people could do better to reflect on what persons are. See the thinking activities above.
Thus, some conclude that infanticide may be morally acceptable. Philosophers such as Tooley, Singer, Minerva, Hassoun, Kriegel, Räsänen, Schuklenk, Warren or McMahan hold similar positions.
The Italians Giubilini and Minerva proposed defining person as "an individual capable of attributing a certain value to his own existence". Since newborns cannot do so, they conclude: "The fetus and the newborn are not persons in the sense of subjects with a right to life. Killing a newborn should be permitted in the same cases in which abortion is permitted, even if it is not disabled."
**NN: So, out of curiosity, when do they exactly say this might be OK? What are the details? Why are they missing?
And what if someone disagrees with them? One can disagree with them and still think abortion is generally not wrong.
Peter Singer goes even further: "If the fetus does not have the same right to life as a person, so does the newborn. [...] The life of a newborn has less value than that of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee." Although this conclusion may seem extreme, it is consistent with his logic: the animals mentioned possess more cognitive capacities than a newborn. Therefore, Singer considers infanticide morally permissible.
**NN: So, out of curiosity, when does he exactly say this might be OK? What are the details? Why are they missing?
And what if someone disagrees with Singer? One can disagree with Singer here and still think abortion is generally not wrong.
Thus, a coherent pro-abortion position ends up defending infanticide, since there is no definition of "person" that includes the newborn but excludes the fetus.
**NN: This is completely false and baseless. One cannot review merely one type of view on what persons are and conclude this. This is completely poor reasoning.
One very simple response here is to think that human persons are conscious beings who are biologically human. Babies are like that, embryos are not. That was easy, and many other proposals are possible: why was this overlooked?
The pro-life position, on the other hand, is coherent and inclusive: it recognizes the dignity of all members of the human species, without discriminating on the basis of strength, intelligence or development.
**NN: So a common error here is to not give any thought to what makes members of the human species valuable or persons, when they are: what it is it about biologically human organisms that makes them have basic rights, when they do? Saying because they are biologically human organisms is a non-answer: it is not explanatory. This comment shows the same type of lack of engagement with the core issues.
How do you respond to the argument, "I am personally against abortion, but I don't want to impose my views on others"?
This argument, very common today, reflects contemporary moral relativism: "Everyone decides what is moral for himself".
**NN: No, almost nobody is a moral relativist. And, no, there are many things where people say, "I wouldn't do that myself, but I wouldn't make it illegal for others."
But this is an incoherent position. Just apply the same reasoning to other cases: "I am against murder, but if someone considers it moral, I will not impose my view on him." "I'm against pedophilia or rape, but if someone thinks differently, let them do what they want." No one would accept that.
**NN: Yes, but the comparison here involves just assuming that abortion is wrong. No good reason was given to believe that here.
If abortion kills an innocent human being with a right to life, then it is a crime that should be banned. You can't be "personally against it" but accept that others practice it.
**NN: Again, this argument is simplistic and naive (and question-begging (meaning assuming its conclusion), with a false premise or two). Also, innocence requires being a person, which cannot be assumed.
And the slogan "My body, my decision"?
It is one of the most well-known feminist slogans, but it is false to think that we are totally free to do whatever we want with our bodies. We cannot use it to steal, kill or torture. There is no absolute right over one's own body, especially if that use harms others.
Even pro-abortion philosophers Nathan Nobis and Kristina Grob acknowledge, "Autonomy is important, but it has limits: it does not justify using your body to kill an innocent person. The slogan 'Women can do what they want with their bodies' is false and does not answer the pro-life argument."
**NN: Yes, this is a bad argument.
If the fetus is a human being with the same value as any other, there is no right to eliminate it in the name of bodily autonomy.
**NN: Note this is a different idea than what's immediately before, and, no, there are burdens that bodily autonomy allows people to not accept, and others are not always obligated to yield their bodily autonomy to others. Again, Thomson needs to be engaged.
And the "no uterus, no opinion" argument?
It is often said that men do not have a say in abortion because "it does not concern them". But this is absurd: I can oppose child abuse without being a child, or racism without being a victim.
If only those with a uterus had a say, the French abortion law (Veil law) would never have been passed, as it was voted for by a majority of men.
Arguments are worth for their content, not for the organs of the person presenting them.
Why is the debate often reduced to a confrontation between Christians and laypeople?
Because many believe that the pro-life stance is religious. But just because the Church condemns abortion does not mean it is a religious issue. It also condemned slavery and racism, and that does not make them "matters of faith."
One does not have to be a believer to accept that "it is immoral to deliberately kill an innocent human being". This idea is based on reason and on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
**NN: This is about human persons: it's not about mere (never been conscious) biologically human organisms: it's also not about (will never be conscious again) biologically human organisms. Again, this is naive and simplistic, especially since most "human rights" organizations argue that banning abortion violates rights. So, again, this naive.
In fact, there are pro-life atheist activists. For example, Terrisa Bukovinac, a progressive and atheist, states, "The unjust killing of unborn children violates our progressive values of equality, nonviolence and non-discrimination. [...] The pro-life position is supported by science and reason, while the pro-abortion position is anti-progressive and discriminatory."
**NN: These are soundbites that merely sound good to unreflective people, who do not or will not think about what being "progressive" and anti-discriminatory are: one common thought here is that this involves considering everyone's interests and well-being, but embryos and beginning fetuses have neither of those.
What is the urgency?
Every year, 73 million unborn children
**NN: To call embryos or beginning fetuses "children" is to assume that they are young people who are wrong to kill. That can't be assumed. This is called "begging the question."
are aborted in the world (more than 250,000 in France, and about 100,000 in Spain). How can we allow such a drama?
In a just society, the stronger must protect the weaker.
The pro-life movement needs more active people to fight against the dehumanization of the innocent.
**NN: This is another soundbite that depends on not learning what dehumanization is or might be:
- Dehumanization: What is it to Dehumanize People? by Dan Peterson
The battle will be long, but it is worth it. Our generation may not see the end of abortion, but we must fight for future generations.
**NN: In sum, to be blunt and direct, what's said here is simplistic, naive, and mistaken. What he has to say about this issue is based on misunderstanding, not careful study of the issues. If anyone would like me to say more about this, let me know. NN
The reason is pro-life
