tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59045463098226811432024-03-16T14:51:22.555-04:00Thinking Critically About AbortionWhy Most Abortions Aren’t Wrong & Why All Abortions Should Be Legal<p>by Nathan Nobis & Kristina Grob, Open Philosophy Press, 2019</p><p>
An Open Educational Resource</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger137125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-16517793151602062532024-03-16T11:20:00.003-04:002024-03-16T11:20:43.782-04:00Defending Abortion Philosophically: Dr. Kurt Liebegott’s Response to Trent Horn’s 5 Non-Religious Arguments Against Abortion<p>Reposted from here: <a href="https://realatheology.com/defending-abortion-philosophically-dr-kurt-liebegotts-response-to-trent-horns-5-non-religious-arguments-against-abortion/" target="_blank">https://realatheology.com/defending-abortion-philosophically-dr-kurt-liebegotts-response-to-trent-horns-5-non-religious-arguments-against-abortion/ </a> </p><header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><h1 class="entry-title" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Merriweather; font-size: 30px; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: 8px; line-height: 45px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: center;">Defending Abortion Philosophically: Dr. Kurt Liebegott’s Response to Trent Horn’s 5 Non-Religious Arguments Against Abortion</h1><div class="entry-meta" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; font-family: Lato, "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial; font-size: 17px; margin: auto auto 5px; padding: 0px 20px; text-align: center; width: 714.516px;"><div class="blog-data-wrapper" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; margin-bottom: 10px; min-height: 24px; position: relative; width: 674.516px;"><div class="post-data-divider" style="background: rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: inherit; height: 1px; left: 0px; margin: auto; max-width: 480px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 14px; width: 480px; z-index: 1;"></div><div class="post-data-positioning" style="box-sizing: inherit; left: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 0px; z-index: 1;"><div class="post-data-text" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; margin: auto auto 5px; padding: 0px 20px;"><span class="posted-on" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Posted on <a href="https://realatheology.com/defending-abortion-philosophically-dr-kurt-liebegotts-response-to-trent-horns-5-non-religious-arguments-against-abortion/" rel="bookmark" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: black; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.1s linear 0s;"><time class="entry-date published" datetime="2024-02-25T03:03:35+00:00" style="box-sizing: inherit;">February 25, 2024</time></a></span><span class="byline" style="box-sizing: inherit;"> by <span class="author vcard" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a class="url fn n" href="https://realatheology.com/author/anon/" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: black; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.1s linear 0s;">Anonymous</a></span></span></div></div></div></div></header><div class="entry-content" style="box-sizing: inherit; counter-reset: footnotes 0; font-family: lato, lato, "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><figure class="wp-block-image size-full" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 1em 0px;"><img alt="" class="wp-image-3556" data-attachment-id="3556" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-caption="" data-image-description="" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="image-2" data-large-file="https://realatheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-2.png" data-medium-file="https://realatheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-2-300x150.png" data-orig-file="https://realatheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-2.png" data-orig-size="983,490" data-permalink="https://realatheology.com/defending-abortion-philosophically-dr-kurt-liebegotts-response-to-trent-horns-5-non-religious-arguments-against-abortion/image-2-2/" decoding="async" height="490" sizes="(max-width: 983px) 100vw, 983px" src="https://realatheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-2.png" srcset="https://realatheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-2.png 983w, https://realatheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-2-300x150.png 300w, https://realatheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-2-768x383.png 768w, https://realatheology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-2-850x424.png 850w" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; max-width: 100%; vertical-align: bottom;" width="983" /></figure><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">This is a guest post by Dr. Kurt Liebegott, who earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Purdue University, specializing in Ethics, Logic, and Philosophy of Religion. We asked Dr. Liebegott to apply his training as an analytic philosopher towards evaluating some Pro-Life Arguments from a friend our channel: Catholic Apologist Trent Horn. You can learn more about Dr. Liebegott’s work at the end of the article, as well as review a brief suggested reading list he put together for those interested in philosophical defenses of Abortion.</em></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">This essay is a response to and critique of the position that the philosophical case against abortion rights is rooted in arguments that are both good arguments and independent of religious assumptions. The project of defending abortion rights through philosophy and reason is especially important now that we are living in the aftermath of <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</em>, where abortion rights are constantly under attack and defenses of abortion rights are more important than ever. This particular response and critique will be focused on an exemplar piece of writing that tries to popularize and defend this position: <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/five-non-religious-arguments-against-abortion" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: black; transition: all 0.1s linear 0s;">5 Non-Religious Arguments Against Abortion</a> by Trent Horn</p><hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity" style="background-color: #cccccc; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-width: initial; border-right-width: initial; border-style: solid none; box-sizing: content-box; height: 1px; margin-bottom: 1.5em;" /><blockquote class="wp-block-quote" style="background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-left: 6px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0.5em 10px;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Recently, I was given the opportunity to defend the pro-life position in a formal debate at a prominent medical school. My opponent was a skilled philosopher who has published several critiques of the pro-life position, and I told the audience that my opponent was right—at least about some things. For example, he said that simplistic arguments for abortion either assume what they try to prove (“Abortion is wrong because it kills babies”) or they bring up issues that are irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is right or wrong (“What about adoption?”).</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px;">That’s why I wanted to offer a robust case for the pro-life position that withstands philosophical scrutiny. In order to do that, I offered the following five, non-religious philosophical arguments for the claim that abortion is gravely immoral.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Mirroring Mr. Horn’s initial claims to start, it is indeed true that there are a lot of overly simplistic arguments in the debate over abortion rights. It is also true that a philosophically robust defense of the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong requires good arguments that are independent of religious assumptions. It is important at the outset that we make especially clear why this is the case.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">There are three main reasons why a philosophically robust defense of the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong requires good arguments that are independent of religious assumptions:</p><ol style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em 25px; padding-left: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Any philosophically robust defense of any position requires good arguments, as philosophical argument is rooted in logic.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">If an argument relies on an undefended assumption, then that argument can and should be dismissed on the grounds that the premise of the argument containing the undefended assumption may well be false (at least without further argumentation providing a reason to accept the assumption). This includes religious assumptions, which is why an argument that relies on religious assumptions cannot be a part of any philosophically robust defense (again, at least without further argumentation providing a reason to accept the assumption).<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">For debates regarding ethics, the position that says that a given action is morally wrong begins with the burden of proof. In the case of the debate over abortion rights, this means that the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong begins with the burden of proof. As such, those who defend this position are required to put forward a philosophically robust defense to discharge or overcome the burden of proof.</li></ol><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Reasons #1 and #2 should not be controversial, as they follow from basic logic and argumentation. Reason #3 requires some explanation. First, consider this excellent explanation of the burden of proof by Dr. C. M. Lorkowski from Page 4 of his 2021 book <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Atheism Considered</em>:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">“[E]qual plausibility of theses need not (and in many cases should not) be assumed in a given discussion… [T]he burden of proof represents a disadvantageous starting position that must be overcome in order to even get the debaters to a fifty-fifty point. As such, before we can determine how much our views change based on the evidence presented, we must first determine who, if anyone, possesses the burden of proof, and how much of a disadvantage it entails.”</em></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">So, who possesses the burden of proof in the debate over abortion rights? Those who defend the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong do not often address this particular topic, but when they do they usually appeal to something along the lines of the principle of credulity. The principle of credulity, as explained in Chapter 13 of Richard Swinburne’s 1979 book <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">The Existence of God</em>, says that if X seems present to a person, then X is most likely present. The equivalent in ethics would be something like “if X seems obviously severely morally wrong to a person, then X is most likely morally wrong.” After all, actions like mass murder, torture, slavery, and the like are so morally wrong that it is hard to even imagine what a case for those actions being morally permissible would look like. The thought process here is that some actions are so obviously morally wrong, and that the case for their moral wrongness is so simple, that the burden of proof must be on the position that those actions are morally permissible. [Probably the clearest version of this can be seen in the “Devil’s Advocate Debate” between Ben Watkins and Trent Horn about abortion. “My “Devil’s Advocate Debate” on Abortion” by Trent Horn, 12/11/2021 (available at <https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/my-devils-advocate-debate-on-abortion> as of 15 January 2024)]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The problem with the thought process being used here is that it is addressing a different issue than the burden of proof. Remember, the burden of proof is solely about prior probabilities and the starting positions of competing views. Actions like mass murder, torture, slavery, and the like are obviously morally wrong, but this obviousness is not a product of prior probability. Rather, these actions are obviously morally wrong because the case against them is so overwhelming – every plausible moral theory condemns them, every piece of relevant evidence indicates their extreme moral wrongness, every argument concludes that they are morally wrong, and so forth – that we cannot conceive of a viable alternative. This is a product of the posterior probabilities, not the prior probabilities, and so has no bearing on the burden of proof. A reasonable comparison might be to something like the position that gravity is real: it is glaringly obvious that gravity exists, but that is entirely due to argument, evidence, and analysis, and has nothing to do with prior probability or burden of proof.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Let’s return to the question of who possesses the burden of proof in the debate over abortion rights, keeping in mind that answering this question requires focusing only on issues relating to prior probability. It turns out that logic and Bayesian probability require that in all debates over the moral permissibility or wrongness of an action the burden of proof should always start on the position that argues for moral wrongness (in this case, the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong). There are three main reasons for thinking this. [This paragraph and the following paragraphs explaining the three main reasons are all derived from pages 31-32 in Chapter 1 of the author’s doctoral dissertation: <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">A New Defense of Abortion</em> by Dr. Kurt Liebegott, originally published in 2010.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">First, there is the widespread ethical intuition that if an action is morally wrong then there must be a specific reason why that action is morally wrong, such as that it causes certain harms or violates certain rights. There does not appear to be a corresponding intuition that if an action is morally permissible then there is a specific reason why that action is morally permissible other than that it does not appear to be morally wrong. This indicates that the position that argues for moral wrongness requires more evidence to justify belief in the truth of the position, which just is to say that the burden of proof must start on the position that argues for moral wrongness.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Second, there are many more morally permissible actions than morally wrong actions that are actually performed by moral agents in our experience. In fact, the overwhelming majority of actions appear to be morally permissible. To see why, consider that the most common action you probably take is breathing, which is both morally permissible and far outnumbers any other individual type of action that you will ever take. Even if you don’t consider breathing to be a proper action in a morally relevant sense (perhaps because it is automatic), you certainly take minor but clearly morally permissible actions like consciously adjusting your position in a seat, adjusting your clothes, or trying to remember various things orders of magnitude more often than you have ever considered making a possibly morally wrong choice. This means that the position that argues for moral wrongness is statistically more likely to be incorrect simply due to sheer numbers and so requires more evidence to justify belief in the truth of the position. Hence, the burden of proof must start on the position that argues for moral wrongness.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Third and most importantly, assuming that the burden of proof should always start on the position that argues for moral permissibility implies that ethical reasoning, along with everything else, is more likely to be morally wrong before we examine any particular evidence, reasons, or arguments. We are supposed to avoid performing morally wrong actions, which means that we should avoid performing any ethical reasoning or any other action until and unless we have good reason to think that said action is morally permissible. But providing good reason to think that any action is morally permissible requires using ethical reasoning, yet ethical reasoning itself must be avoided until and unless we can use ethical reasoning to provide these good reasons for thinking it morally permissible. This is an impossible condition to meet, with the result that no actions should ever be taken. As this is clearly incorrect, the burden of proof must always start on the position that argues for moral wrongness.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">These three reasons show that logic and Bayesian probability require that the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong start with the burden of proof in the debate over abortion rights. For practical purposes, this means that the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong should only be believed to be true if defenders of that position can provide a philosophically robust defense of the position that overcomes this initial deficit in epistemic probability from starting with the burden of proof.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Let us now turn to Mr. Horn’s five arguments to see how they fare in providing this philosophically robust defense of the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote" style="background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-left: 6px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0.5em 10px;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1. The humanity argument</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">My first argument is simple: it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent biological human beings; a fetus is an innocent biological human being; abortion intentionally kills a fetus; therefore, abortion is wrong.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The world’s leading pro-choice philosophers agree that unborn children are biological human beings. David Boonin, author of <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">A Defense of Abortion</em>, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Homo sapiens</em>. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Now, some philosophers object to the premise “It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent biological human beings.” They say it’s incomplete because it doesn’t account for the wrongness of killing certain non-human beings, such as intelligent aliens if they happen to exist. And it’s true that if there were intelligent aliens, it would be wrong to kill them, because they would be rational creatures (a point I’ll return to shortly). But this objection does nothing to refute the truth that “It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent biological human beings.”</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">If you believe that truth, then you are morally obligated to oppose abortion.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Another objection is that we do intentionally kill innocent human beings when we, for example, take a permanently comatose person off life support. But in these cases, we do not intend to kill an innocent person. Instead, we intend to remove disproportionate means of keeping a dying person alive, since they are no longer helping the person.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">For example, if we took someone off a ventilator, and he started breathing on his own (which happens occasionally), then we would not proceed to smother him to death, because killing him wasn’t our intention. However, killing is intended in every abortion. Some abortion providers are even sued for “failed abortions” if the child is born alive.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px;">So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">In standard form, the main argument in the philosophical literature against abortion rights is roughly as follows:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1) Killing an innocent adult, P, is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2) The fact that P has a set of properties X is what makes killing P wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3) A fetus, Q, has X.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4) Abortion A kills Q.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">C) Abortion A is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">It is important to note that this argument does not actually work unless, in particular, X is filled out in a robust way. X is basically going to be what constitutes personhood, or at least a relevant subset thereof.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Translating into main argument form, Mr. Horn’s first argument is as follows:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1) Killing an innocent adult, P, is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2) The fact that P is an innocent biological human being is what makes killing P wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3) A fetus, Q, is an innocent biological human being.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4) Abortion A kills Q.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">C) Abortion A is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The concept of “biological human being” is doing the heavy lifting in this argument. This concept is being put forward as the thing that makes killing someone morally wrong. Yet, this term is vague and not really defined. The closest we come here is the quote from Boonin, implying that “biological human being” means something like “living members of the same species, <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Homo sapiens</em>.” But why is this what makes killing someone wrong?</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">This problem rears its head immediately in Mr. Horn’s writing, as he correctly claims that one of the main objections to this argument is that it does not explain why killing certain non-humans is morally wrong. Mr. Horn’s response to this objection is basically that it is irrelevant, as a separate argument can cover non-humans and this argument can just cover humans. This misses the point of the objection: if there are (or even potentially are) innocent non-human adults that it is morally wrong to kill, then premise #2 of this argument is false and the argument fails. The fact that someone is an innocent biological human being cannot possibly be what makes killing them wrong if there are innocent non-humans that are also wrong to kill.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">In particular, the argument seems to be either circular or arbitrary. If premise #2 is limited to humans and non-humans have their own parallel arguments for their species, then these arguments seem to boil down to “it is wrong to kill humans because they are humans” and “it is wrong to kill non-humans because they are their non-human species.” These arguments are circular and unhelpful, and there is no reason to accept them. On the other hand, if premise #2 is limited to humans but all relevant non-humans have an entirely separate argument that does not rely on premise #2 – which appears to be the option endorsed by Mr. Horn in the text when he mentions “rational creatures” – then humans should also be covered by this separate argument. The limiting of premise #2 to humans seems to be arbitrarily separating out humans for no particularly good reason. Why would being biologically human be an extra reason for not killing someone above and beyond the reason that applies to any and all other species? We can even imagine situations where someone undergoes a transition where everything about them remains the same <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">except</em> that they become a species other than human.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Common literary examples would include being transformed into a vampire or having one’s consciousness uploaded into a robotic body, and in the philosophical literature Dean Stretton uses a thought experiment where we transplant the brain of a human into a non-human animal such that the non-human animal is now a rational moral agent capable of performing all of the actions we normally associate with persons. [See pages 238-239 of: Stretton, Dean. “The Argument from Intrinsic Value: A Critique.” Bioethics 14.3 (July 2000): 228-239. See page 277 of: Stretton, Dean. “Essential Properties and the Right to Life: A Response to Lee.”] It seems clear that the non-human animal with the human brain, the robot with an uploaded consciousness, and the newly-turned vampire are all beings it would be morally wrong to kill and seem morally equivalent in this sense to when they were human. Why, then, should they suddenly fall under a different argument for why it is morally wrong to kill them simply because of a change of species but no other changes? It is hard to see how this question can be answered affirmatively without being entirely arbitrary.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Furthermore, we still are not clear on what it means to be a “biological human being,” and since this is supposed to be what makes killing wrong, it should be noted that many ways of specifying this term lead to further problems. Does “biological human being” simply mean being a member of <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Homo sapiens</em>? If so, that seems to potentially include human corpses and definitely include humans who never developed a brain or consciousness, and seems to exclude relevant non-humans. Does “biological human being” mean something like having human DNA? If so, that seems to include cancer cells and skin grafts, and still excludes relevant non-humans. Does “biological human being” mean having a human-like form? If so, that seems to include statues and corpses, but potentially not amputees and definitely not relevant non-humans. Without a clear specification about what exactly is and is not covered by the term “biological human being,” premise #2 appears to be an undefended assumption at best.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">For these reasons, Mr. Horn’s first argument should not be accepted. Let us now turn to his next argument.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote" style="background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-left: 6px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0.5em 10px;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2. The personhood argument</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons and that anyone reading this article is a person. But many other humans who don’t understand this article—such as infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons. We also agree there are many beings that are not persons, or at least are not persons in the sense that you and I are persons. For example, most people would agree that rats and pigeons, for example, are not persons.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">So, any definition of personhood must account for clear examples of personhood such as in the case of you, me, infants, and disabled humans and not include clear examples of non-persons such as rats and pigeons that do not have a <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">right </em>to life.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">That means we can’t merely say a person is any being that can feel pain, is aware of the outside world, or is sentient. That definition would include non-persons such as rats and pigeons. But we also can’t say a person is simply any being that is capable of rational thought, because that definition would exclude infants.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">And if we say a person is any <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">human being</em> that can feel pain, then we are being arbitrary, because if feeling pain didn’t make a rat a person, why would it make a human being a person? Instead, the requirement that a person be human and also able to feel pain seems designed to exclude unborn children instead of providing a consistent definition of personhood.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">A better definition of a person would be <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">an individual member of a rational kind</em>.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">In this view, you, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">current</em> functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are). This definition also excludes non-human animals such as rats and pigeons because they are not members of a rational kind. Finally, this definition is species-neutral and could include rational aliens if it were discovered that they exist.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">This definition accounts for views of personhood pro-life and pro-choice advocates share when it comes to uncontroversial cases such as newborns and rats. The definition also isn’t <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">ad hoc</em>, or it isn’t arbitrarily designed to include unborn children. Instead, the inclusion of unborn children naturally flows from the definition’s emphasis on rational capacity.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px;">Since there are no good reasons to reject this definition of personhood, and there are no alternative definitions of personhood that just as easily account for the uncontroversial examples I mentioned, it follows that we should adopt this definition, which includes unborn humans. And if unborn humans are persons, then it follows that abortion is wrong, because abortion directly kills innocent persons.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Translating into main argument form, Mr. Horn’s second argument appears to be as follows:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1) Killing an innocent adult, P, is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2) The fact that P has an innate capacity for certain functional abilities related to rationality is what makes killing P wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3) A fetus, Q, has an innate capacity for certain functional abilities related to rationality.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4) Abortion A kills Q.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">C) Abortion A is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Much like the term “biological human being” in the first argument, this argument relies on something like “an innate capacity for certain functional abilities related to rationality.” Mr. Horn claims that “an innate capacity for certain functional abilities related to rationality” is a reasonable specification of what is meant by personhood, or that which grants a right to life. Let’s call this claim R.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The problem with R is that it is vague as stated. What exactly does it mean to have “an innate capacity for certain functional abilities related to rationality” in this context? Let’s examine a thought experiment called the nanoworld in order to figure out R in more detail and make it less vague. [The nanoworld is derived from pages 144-151 in Chapter 3 of the author’s doctoral dissertation: <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">A New Defense of Abortion</em> by Dr. Kurt Liebegott, originally published in 2010.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Imagine that scientists create nanobots that end up escaping from the lab, self-replicating, and infesting everything on Earth. Of particular note is that these nanobots were programmed to infest an object, wait a random amount of time, and then analyze the object they infest to determine if it is a non-conscious human foodstuff. If the object does not meet this description, for example if the object is an innocent human adult or a shard of jagged broken glass or a continent, then the nanobots do nothing. If the object does meet this description, then the nanobots restructure the object so that it continues to function as before except that it integrates into the object a working nano-scale computer that stretches throughout the object and requires the object to remain substantially intact to remain functional. This working nano-scale computer creates a conscious artificial intelligence that is a rational moral agent. The particulars of the nano-scale computer, and therefore the artificial intelligence that will result, is uniquely determined for each object. This means that each object will eventually become a different and unique person, and destroying an object will destroy the rational moral agent within. This is the nanoworld, and the relevant question that must now be asked is: from the standpoint of R, is it morally wrong or morally permissible to eat food in the nanoworld?</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Remember, R says that everything with “an innate capacity for certain functional abilities related to rationality” is a person, and therefore morally wrong to kill according to premise #2 of Mr. Horn’s second argument. So, is every foodstuff a person in the nanoworld, even if the nanobots have not yet granted a foodstuff artificial intelligence? It does not seem immediately obvious which answer R requires if it is true, and this is because R is vague. However, the answer must be either yes or no. If the answer is yes, then it is morally wrong to eat food in the nanoworld. If the answer is no, then it is morally permissible to eat food in the nanoworld.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">There is good reason to think that the answer must be no. If eating any food at all is morally wrong – which must be the case if the answer is yes – then it appears that all human beings are morally obligated to starve to death in the nanoworld. If every foodstuff is a person in the nanoworld, then every act of eating is morally equivalent to murder and therefore must be avoided if the term “morally wrong” is to mean anything and have any motivational force. But it is, at best, highly implausible to think that each and every human being could be morally obligated to starve to death, much less that this could be the result of what amounts to a freak accident or force of nature rather than anyone’s conscious choice. It is much more plausible to think that the answer to the question “is every foodstuff a person in the nanoworld?” must be no.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">This has important implications regarding R. If it is morally permissible to eat food in the nanoworld, then it seems reasonable to think that the food that is morally permissible to eat is the food that has not yet become a person due to the nanobots. This shows that no foodstuff is a person just because it is infested with nanobots, but rather a foodstuff does not become a person until and unless the nanobots have granted it artificial intelligence. However, now let us turn back to the issue of abortion. What relevant differences are there between a foodstuff in the nanoworld prior to artificial intelligence and a fetus? A fetus that will be aborted is exactly like a foodstuff in the nanoworld that will be eaten before gaining artificial intelligence regarding mental properties, meaningful stages and types of development, relevant future prospects, rational moral agency, and dispositions and capacities. After all, neither one will be able to actually achieve or possess any of these things. The nanoworld seems to show that, just like a foodstuff in the nanoworld does not become a person until and unless the nanobots have granted it artificial intelligence, a fetus does not become a person until and unless it develops the brain “hardware” necessary for actualizing personhood. [This is very similar to David Boonin’s personhood criterion of organized cortical brain activity. For example, see pages 79-81 of: Boonin, David. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">A Defense of Abortion</em>. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.] As such, the nanoworld shows that R does not apply to fetuses, premise #3 of Mr. Horn’s second argument is therefore false, and Mr. Horn’s second argument should be rejected.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote" style="background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-left: 6px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0.5em 10px;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3. The personal identity argument</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The next arguments I’ll share against abortion don’t rely on defending either the humanity or even the personhood of unborn children. For example, we can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:</p><ol style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em 25px; padding-left: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">I am an organism.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li></ol><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Notice I’ve qualified premise four with the term “generally speaking,” because sometimes it isn’t wrong to kill me. If I’m trying to kill Fred, then Fred has the right to use lethal force to protect himself from my attack. But if we aren’t in a nitpicky, philosophical mood, we all know what it means when we say it is wrong to kill us.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">With that out of the way, let me defend the most controversial premises of the argument. For example, some philosophers deny that you and I are organisms. They might say we are simply minds that exist inside organisms. But that leads to several implausible conclusions.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">First, if people are only minds and not physical organisms, then you have never been slapped or kissed. Someone may have slapped your body or kissed your body, but no one slapped or kissed <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">you</em>, since you are an immaterial mind and not a physical organism, at least if these philosophers are right. (They aren’t.)</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Second, if I am only a collection of thoughts in a mind, then I don’t think. After all, can a thought think? No more than a book can write. But <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">I do think</em>. In fact, if you’re trying to understand what I’m talking about, then there is a “thinking animal” sitting in front of an online article at this very moment.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Now, here is the question: who is that thinking animal? Once again, <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">you</em> are the thinking animal sitting in front of this online article. So it is not true that I am just a collection of thoughts. I am an organism (specifically, an animal) with the power to think.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px;">Finally, if I am only a collection of thoughts, then where am I when I am asleep? Do I stop existing? If I exist because I will presumably wake up tomorrow, then what if I fall into a coma and we don’t know if I will ever wake up? It would be odd if my current existence depended on some fact about my future existence. But if I am a living organism, then as long as that organism exists, I exist, and this has been true from the moment I was conceived in my mother’s womb.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">There are actually two different arguments that are being made here. Let’s start with the argument that follows the main argument form:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1) Killing an innocent adult, P, is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2) The fact that P is an organism (or a continuous organism over time, or an organism of a certain kind) is what makes killing P wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3) A fetus, Q, is an organism (or a continuous organism over time, or an organism of a certain kind).</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4) Abortion A kills Q.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">C) Abortion A is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The problem with this argument should be obvious, as it is the exact same problem with Mr. Horn’s first argument. Why is being an organism (or a continuous organism over time, or an organism of a certain kind) what makes killing someone wrong? On its face, this seems like just another wording of the humanity argument, and should be dismissed as easily.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The second argument Mr. Horn makes here is the one he numbered in his text, repeated here for ease of reference:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">“1. If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2. I am an organism.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3. Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4. Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">5. Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">6. What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">7. Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.”</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Mr. Horn seems to think that the only weak premise in this argument is premise #2, as he spends most of this section arguing against alternative views that deny that we are organisms and does not specifically defend any other premise. While it is not clear that premise #2 is true in any relevant and meaningful way since the term “organism,” by itself, is vague and can be fleshed out in different ways, let’s assume that premise #2 is true for the sake of argument. What about the other premises?</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Premise #1 appears to be false. This is because it assumes that death is the only way that an organism can cease to exist, and there are good reasons to think that this assumption is false. We covered some of these when we reviewed Mr. Horn’s first argument, namely that we can imagine situations where someone undergoes a transition where everything about them remains the same <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">except</em> that they change from a human organism to a non-human organism, or possibly even into something that is no longer an organism. Examples of this include being transformed into a vampire or undergoing a brain transplant. In these cases premise #1 would be false even though premise #2 is still true and no death occurred.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Premise #3 appears to be misleading and potentially false. This is because it is assuming – as Mr. Horn makes clear at the end of this section – that organisms begin to exist at conception. While this may be true, it is not obvious and as it stands is an undefended assumption. After all, it can just as easily be claimed that organisms only begin to exist after twinning becomes impossible, or after they can consistently metabolize independently of constant physical parental attachment, or after all of their organ systems are completely formed and functional. While each of these claims would still be valid for human organisms in their mother’s wombs, they would each have very different timeframes for how long the organism was in the womb and as such very different implications for abortion ethics.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Premises #4 and #5 together appear to be misleading, and in particular premise #5 appears to be false. Premises #4 and #5 together are basically saying that if it is wrong to kill person-organism P now, and person-organism P has persisted through time and was the same person-organism in the past, then it should be just as wrong to kill the past version of P. The problem with this is that it is assuming that it is the throughline of being the same organism that makes killing P wrong. To see why, imagine for the sake of argument – even though this is clearly false – that it is having memories that actually makes killing someone wrong. In this case, it would be true that P is the same organism in the past and in the present, but false that because killing P in the present is wrong that killing P in the past is wrong because there will be a point in the past where P does not have memories and therefore killing P is not wrong even though it is the same organism. Premise #5 in particular includes this hidden and undefended assumption, because premise #5 being true does not follow from premises #3 and #4 – even if both of these premises are true, which itself is questionable – unless it is specifically being a continuous organism (or organism of a certain kind) over time that <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">makes</em> killing someone morally wrong. Considering that being an organism and variations thereof have already been shown to be deeply problematic at best as criteria for personhood, premise #5 should be dismissed as false.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Since both of the arguments that Mr. Horn is making in this section appear to be riddled with premises that are either false or extremely questionable, the “personal identity argument” against abortion rights should be rejected in either of its forms. In addition, it should be pointed out that all of Mr. Horn’s arguments thus far rely on vagueness and undefended assumptions for an initial appearance of plausibility, and in each of these arguments the core point that is hidden by vagueness or assumed without argument boils down to the contention that fetuses are persons from the moment of conception. This contention is a religious assumption, at least in the sense that it is overwhelmingly held by religious people for religious reasons. [For example, the statement “Human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” was held to be true by 71% of Protestants and 64% of Catholics in the U.S., but only held to be true by 29% of the religiously unaffiliated and 8% of atheists. Pew Research Center, May 2022, “America’s Abortion Quandary.” Page 60. <https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2022/05/PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_.fullreport.pdf> Accessed on 15 January 2024.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">As such, we can call this statement a religious claim. Note that this religious claim is meaningfully different from the claim “human life begins at conception” by itself without rejoinders about rights or ethics. This claim can be consistently held as a statement of biological fact or something similar without holding that all human life has a right to life or something similar, so we can call this statement a biological claim. This leads to a lot of bad arguments along the lines of “human life beginning at conception is not a religious assumption but an agreed-upon biological fact,” which conflate the biological claim with the religious claim by ignoring that the scientific agreement with the biological claim does not imply scientific agreement with the religious claim.] As we covered at the outset, religious assumptions should be rejected as false until and unless evidence and arguments are provided such that it is no longer an assumption but an argued-for point. As we have seen, thus far the evidence and arguments for the contention that fetuses are persons from the moment of conception is not forthcoming.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote" style="background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-left: 6px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0.5em 10px;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4. The “future-like-ours” argument</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The “future-like-ours” argument says that what makes killing anything wrong is that it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours” (FLO). Rats don’t have a FLO, so it isn’t wrong to kill them. But you and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Some philosophers have claimed that fetuses do not have a FLO because they are not psychologically connected to their futures. They aren’t aware of anything in the womb (at least early on in pregnancy), and so they don’t carry any personal experiences into the future as do you and I. Nathan Nobis writes, “There is no (even broken) chain of experiences from the fetus to that future person’s experiences. Babies are, at least, aware of the current moment, which leads to the next moment; children and adults think about and plan for their futures, but fetuses cannot do these things, being completely unconscious and without a mind” (<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Thinking Critically About Abortion</em>, p. 45).</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">But if fetuses don’t have a FLO because they don’t have a psychological chain connecting them to their futures, how could newborn infants have a FLO when Nobis admits they are connected by a <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">broken</em> psychological chain of experiences? A lamp will come crashing to the floor if it is missing some chains. Similarly, if a newborn does not maintain psychological continuity over time, even for brief intervals, then a newborn would not have a FLO, and killing it would not be immoral.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px;">But killing newborns is immoral. And if what makes killing newborns wrong is that it deprives them of a “future like ours” (even if they don’t have a self-conscious personal experience that will continue into the future), then this will also make it wrong to kill nearly all unborn humans, because they have a FLO as well. Granted, it may not explain why it is wrong to directly kill terminally ill unborn children who will die shortly after birth (and not have a FLO), but it would explain why almost all abortions are immoral.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Translating into main argument form, Mr. Horn’s fourth argument appears to be as follows:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1) Killing an innocent adult, P, is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2) The fact that P would have a valuable future with valuable experiences if they continue to live is what makes killing P wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3) A fetus, Q, would have a valuable future with valuable experiences if they continue to live.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4) Abortion A kills Q.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">C) Abortion A is morally wrong. [This argument originally comes from: Marquis, Don. “Why Abortion is Immoral.” <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">The Journal of Philosophy</em> 86.4 (April 1989): 183-202.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Mr. Horn seems to think that the main objections to this argument are psychological continuity theories of personhood, as he spends most of this section arguing against those views. However, there are at least three major problems with this argument (hereafter referred to as the FLO argument) that need to be considered. The first two problems with this argument are the two most common objections in the philosophical literature to the FLO argument. The first common objection is put forward by, for example, Bonnie Steinbock. Steinbock argues that the FLO proposal – basically premise #2 in the FLO argument – entails that sperm and eggs have a FLO and it is therefore wrong to kill them. The FLO proposal would then have the obviously incorrect implication that actions such as using contraception and engaging in male masturbation are, just like abortion is supposed to be according to the FLO argument, the moral equivalent of murder. To see how this objection works, consider the comparison Mr. Horn makes between a newborn and a fetus: since a newborn has a FLO, a fetus also has a FLO since it is the next developmental stage backwards from the newborn. Steinbock simply goes back another developmental stage and makes the exact same claim. If fetuses have a FLO since they will become newborns, then why don’t sperm and eggs have a FLO since they will become fetuses which will become newborns? [See page 476 of: Steinbock, Bonnie. “Why Most Abortions are Not Wrong.” Steinbock, Arras, and London, eds. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (Sixth Edition)</em>. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. 471-482.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The second common objection is put forward by, for example, David Boonin. Boonin argues that only beings with a conscious life can have a FLO. According to Boonin, a FLO is a set of ideal dispositional desires for the future. In this case, ideal desires are desires that are corrected for faulty information or reasoning as opposed to actual desires that you just have in your mind, and dispositional desires are those that you clearly have but are not presently before your mind as opposed to occurrent desires which you have presently before your mind. A FLO must be a set of ideal dispositional desires for the future, or else the FLO proposal would have obvious counterexamples. For example, the suicidal have actual desires and occurrent desires to end their existence and not have a future, so the FLO proposal would say that the suicidal do not have a FLO if a FLO included actual or occurrent desires. However, Boonin notes that ideal desires are actual desires that are corrected for imperfect or incomplete information, which means that you cannot have ideal desires unless you also have actual desires. Since only beings with a conscious life have actual desires, it follows that only beings with a conscious life can have ideal desires, including having a FLO. Fetuses, at least for the majority of their development, do not have conscious lives since they do not have the brain development necessary for consciousness. This means that fetuses cannot have FLOs, which in turn means that it is not wrong to kill them any more than it is wrong to destroy an inanimate object that does not have a FLO due to not being able to have a conscious life. [See pages 60-81 and 115-129 of: Boonin, David. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">A Defense of Abortion</em>. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The final problem with the FLO argument is that it is fundamentally incompatible with the nature of time or, more specifically, the main plausible views of what times are real. [This argument is derived from pages 190-202 in Chapter 4 of the author’s doctoral dissertation: <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">A New Defense of Abortion</em> by Dr. Kurt Liebegott, originally published in 2010.] The three main plausible views of what times are real are called presentism, growing block theory, and eternalism. Presentism says that only the present is real (and therefore only entities that exist in the present are real), while the past and future are not real. Growing block theory says that the present and the past are real (and therefore only entities that exist in the past or present are real), while the future is not real. Eternalism says that the past, the present, and the future (and the entities that exist in each) are all equally real. Of course, there is much more to all three of these views, as well as the philosophical debate over which of them is correct and why, but this is unnecessary to cover in detail. All that is needed for the purposes of the argument is that these are the three main plausible views about the nature of time, and that these three views have the above implications concerning which times – and therefore entities – are real.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The important question to now ask is: what can a FLO be on each of these views? For presentism and growing block theory, a FLO cannot be an actual future in any way because the future is not real on either view. This means that, on these views, if a FLO exists and means anything at all it must be a property or set of properties entirely in the present. What properties are available that are entirely in the present, can reasonably be considered to be a FLO, and show that abortion is morally wrong? We know that it cannot be a present action or immediately exercisable capacity or the like. This is because these sorts of properties seem to imply that it is morally permissible to kill sleeping people and temporarily comatose people due to their being unable to act. Likewise, it cannot be a present valuation or the like, because this would seem to imply that it is morally permissible to kill suicidal people because they do not value their lives at the present. In addition, it seems that it cannot be a present relation because it is difficult to see what present relations could possibly grant a right to life. It appears that the only real options that remain for what a FLO can be if either presentism or growing block theory are true are dispositions or capacities, since all other possibilities have been exhausted.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Claiming that what it means for a being to have a FLO is that the being has a dispositional property or inherent capacity to perform valuable activities in certain situations or become a rational moral agent or the like means that the FLO argument is basically just Mr. Horn’s second argument – the personhood argument – in disguise, or a minor variant thereof. Remember, the personhood argument says that “an innate capacity for certain functional abilities related to rationality” is what makes killing someone wrong. If a FLO must be a disposition or capacity entirely in the present that is supposed to be equally possessed by innocent adults and fetuses, then it is hard to see how a FLO is going to be different from personhood in the personhood argument in any meaningful way. This creates two problems for the FLO argument. First, the FLO argument is not actually a unique and separate argument, and therefore should not count as a separate point in favor of the position against abortion rights even if the argument works. Second, and more importantly, the FLO argument boiling down to the personhood argument means that the FLO argument is subject to all of the same problems and objections as the personhood argument. In particular, since the nanoworld thought experiment gave us good reason to reject the personhood argument, it also gives us a good reason to reject the FLO argument.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">But what about if eternalism is true instead? Since the future is real on eternalism, a FLO can be the actual valuable future of a being or the relationship between a being and its valuable future or something similar. This means that, if eternalism is true, then the FLO argument is a unique argument separate from the personhood argument and avoids the issues the FLO argument had if presentism or growing block theory were true. However, a new problem arises for the FLO argument if eternalism is true. To see why, we must first review an important point about eternalism. Eternalism holds that all times are equally real, or in other words that all entities with a temporal location exist regardless of what the temporal location is. For example, Abraham Lincoln (who at this time exists only in the past), the Lincoln Memorial (which at this time has existed in the past, exists in the present, and will exist in the future), and the first clone to visit the Lincoln Memorial (who at this time exists only in the future) all exist if eternalism is true. This is part of what it means when eternalism claims that the past, the present, and the future are all real. What is important about eternalism holding that all times are equally real is that this implies that truths about the future have the same ontological status as truths about the past and present and have always been true: all truths are eternally true and tenselessly true on eternalism, including future truths. For example, the proposition “at time t1, X has property P” is tenseless. Regardless of how it is filled out, this proposition is true or false at all times if eternalism is true, including at times that appear to us to be present while t1 is in our future. [For a comprehensive explanation of this, see Sections 13 and 14 of: Dowden, Bradley. “Time.” <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</em>. Fieser and Dowden, eds. <https://iep.utm.edu/time/> Accessed on 15 January 2024.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">But when we consider the implications of this important point, it turns out that if eternalism is true, then it has always been true that every aborted fetus was going to be aborted and had no future afterwards. In other words, for any given fetus F and time of abortion t1, the proposition “at time t1, F is aborted” has a truth value at t1 and at all times. Let’s call this proposition X. For every version of X that is true, X entails the truth of the proposition – let’s call this one Y – that “there is no time later than t1 at which F would value anything or possess anything that is of value.” But since a FLO on eternalism is supposed to be either a future state or a relation to a future state, the fact that Y is true for every aborted fetus F shows that every aborted fetus lacks a FLO. In other words, if eternalism is true, then abortion never deprives a fetus of a FLO because it has always been true that the fetus was going to be aborted before having a valuable existence. This means that, if eternalism is true, then the FLO proposal actually shows that all abortions are morally permissible because an abortion can never deprive a fetus of a FLO, and the FLO argument should be rejected.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Thus, having examined what a FLO can be on the three plausible accounts of the nature of time, the FLO argument is caught in a dilemma. The first horn of the dilemma is that if either presentism or growing block theory is true, then the FLO argument is just a rewording of the personhood argument and therefore vulnerable to the same objections. The second horn of the dilemma is that if eternalism is true, then the FLO argument does not show that abortion is morally wrong because no fetus that is aborted ever had a FLO. Either way, we have good reason to reject the FLO argument, and therefore should reject Mr. Horn’s fourth argument.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote" style="background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-left: 6px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0.5em 10px;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">5. The impairment argument</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">One final argument against abortion I’d like to share with you is similar to the “future-like-ours” argument and is called the “impairment argument.” It goes like this:</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Imagine that if Mary conceives a child in the month of July, she will give birth to a child named Bob with a mild mental handicap. Most people would say Mary has not done anything wrong, nor has she harmed Bob, because if Mary had waited to conceive a child in August, she would not have conceived Bob. There would have been different sperm and egg, so Mary would have conceived Bob’s brother, Bill.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">We can’t say Mary harmed Bob, since, if she had not had relations in July, it would not be the case that Bob would exist without a mental handicap. Bob would simply not exist at all.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">But suppose Mary waits a month and conceives Bob’s healthy brother, Bill, in August. She then takes a drug that causes Bill to have the same mild mental handicap. Did Mary do something wrong in this case?</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Most people would say she did and that this is quite different from the Bob case. Mary harmed Bill because she <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">impaired</em> Bill’s healthy development. In the Bob case, Mary could not have made it so that Bob would exist and not have a handicap. But in the Bill case, if Mary had not taken the drug, then a healthy, non-impaired Bill would have existed. Mary did something wrong because she performed an act on an <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">already existing individual</em> that impaired his development.</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">And if it is wrong to cause a minor impairment, then it is wrong to cause a major impairment to someone’s development. And most people would agree that death is the most severe impairment a person can suffer (since it impairs all development).</p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px;">Therefore, if it was wrong for Mary to cause Bill to be born with a mild mental handicap, it would also be wrong for her to cause Bill not to be born at all, or for Mary to abort Bill.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">There are actually two different arguments that are being made here. Let’s start with the argument that follows the main argument form:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1) Killing an innocent adult, P, is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2) The fact that P would be impaired by being killed is what makes killing P wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3) A fetus, Q, would be impaired by being killed.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4) Abortion A kills Q.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">C) Abortion A is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The problem with this argument is that causing impairment, by itself, does not appear to be something that makes actions wrong. It is certainly true that some actions, such as murder, are morally wrong and also cause impairment. But there are also actions that cause impairment that are morally permissible. For example, running a marathon or other strenuous exercise can certainly cause impairment to someone in the form of things like exhaustion and muscle cramps, but these exercises still appear to be generally morally permissible. As such, it seems implausible that it is simply the fact that murder causes impairment that makes murder morally wrong. Perhaps the claim is more that the particular nature of the impairment is what makes murder morally wrong, since the impairment of death is much more severe and permanent than that of exercise. But why should the severity or permanence of the impairment matter? For example, getting a pacemaker or getting a tattoo can also be considered severe and permanent impairments, but are considered generally morally permissible. If the real issue is that murder causes someone’s death, then that is not an issue of impairment but an issue of personhood and a violation of one’s right to life, and that is a separate argument that has already been addressed. As it stands, this argument should be rejected as premise #2 is an entirely undefended assumption.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The second argument Mr. Horn makes here is something like the following:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1) If impairing an individual’s healthy development is morally wrong, then killing an individual is morally wrong (because killing is an extreme impairment).</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2) Impairing a fetus’s healthy development (such as by taking a drug to purposely inflict a mental disability) is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3) Therefore, killing a fetus is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">4) Abortion is killing a fetus.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">C) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.</p><span style="background-color: white;">[The original version of this argument, which focused on the wrongness of causing fetal alcohol syndrome, comes from: Hendricks, Perry. “Even if the fetus is not a person, abortion is immoral: The impairment argument.” </span><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit;">Bioethics</em><span style="background-color: white;"> 33.2 (2019): 245–253.]</span><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">This second argument attempts to bypass the problem with the earlier argument from this section in that it does not directly address what makes killing someone morally wrong. Rather, this argument is saying that regardless of what makes killing someone morally wrong in normal circumstances, killing someone has another property – impairing an individual’s healthy development – and that property can make killing someone morally wrong for a different reason, namely the degree and intensity of that property.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">There are at least two major problems with this second argument. First, as has been mentioned before, there are plenty of examples of morally permissible actions that cause impairment, such as strenuous exercise, so simply causing impairment by itself is not enough to make something morally wrong. This is not solved by specifying that it is only impairments of an individual’s healthy development that are morally wrong, or even extreme levels of this kind of impairment, as there are actions that cause this specific kind of impairment – sometimes even to extreme levels – that are morally permissible. Some potential examples here include drinking alcohol, getting cosmetic surgery, playing American football, extensive computer use, and having a physically taxing job. The fact that there are so many examples of morally permissible actions that cause impairment indicates that impairment is not a morally relevant factor, but rather that when impairment is morally wrong that it is something else related to the impairment that makes it morally wrong in that circumstance. This is a problem for this second argument because it gives us reasons to reject premises #1 and #2. Premise #2 can be rejected as an entirely undefended assumption until and unless there is a reasonable systemic explanation for what makes some impairment morally permissible and other impairment morally wrong, because without that systemic explanation premise #2 could well be false. Premise #1 can be rejected as false for the same reason, because there are times where the antecedent is true because the impairment in question is morally wrong but the consequent is false because the killing is wrong for a reason other than it being an extreme impairment. As such, this second argument should be rejected.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">This second argument has a separate second problem, which is that it is easy to construct a parallel argument but in support of abortion rights. Consider the following:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">1) If impairing an individual’s healthy development is morally wrong, then impairing an individual’s healthy development in the same way but to a more severe degree is also morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">2) Forcing an individual to carry a tapeworm impairs an individual’s healthy development and is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">3) Forcing an individual to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term impairs an individual’s healthy development in the same way as forcing an individual to carry a tapeworm, but to a more severe degree.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">C) Therefore, forcing an individual to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is morally wrong.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Premise #1 of this argument must be true if premise #1 in Mr. Horn’s argument is true, and on its own is more likely to be true because it has a less specific consequent, so it should be accepted as true by any supporter of the impairment argument. Premise #2 is true: there is no doubt that carrying a damaging parasite such as a tapeworm is an impairment to healthy development, and it is the <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">forcing</em> part that makes it morally wrong since that violates the individual’s bodily autonomy and rights, causes more harm than good, violates the duty not to inflict unnecessary harm on others, is not what a virtuous person would do, and so forth. Premise #3 is also true. Carrying an unwanted pregnancy is orders of magnitude more likely to kill the individual than carrying a tapeworm.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Within the US, there were 777 maternal deaths in 2021 alone. [GAO’s October 2022 report entitled “MATERNAL HEALTH: Outcomes Worsened and Disparities Persisted During the Pandemic,” GAO-23-105871. Available from <https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105871.pdf> as of 15 January 2024.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">By comparison, there were only 221 cysticercosis deaths – deaths caused by tapeworm – in the entire timespan from 1990 to 2002. [Sorvillo FJ, DeGiorgio C, Waterman SH. Deaths from cysticercosis, United States. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2007 Feb. Available from <http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/13/2/230.htm> as of 15 January 2024.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Worldwide, about 50,000 people die each year from cysticercosis as of 2021. [Texas Department of State Health Services Infectious Disease Prevention Section. “What you should know about: Taeniasis.” Available from <https://www.dshs.texas.gov/idcu/disease/taeniasis/faqs.aspx> as of 15 January 2024.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Worldwide maternal mortality, on the other hand, is about 810 deaths per day as of 2021. [World Health Organization. “New global targets to prevent maternal deaths.” Available from <https://www.who.int/news/item/05-10-2021-new-global-targets-to-prevent-maternal-deaths> as of 15 January 2024.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">This is almost 300,000 deaths per year, or about six times as deadly as tapeworm even if you ignore the fact that anyone can get tapeworm while not everyone can become pregnant and therefore pregnancy is actually far deadlier as a percentage of the people it can possibly affect. Even setting aside death, pregnancy forever changes one’s body and can result in a wide variety of potentially lifelong complications, which is much more severe in both scope and intensity to the complications caused by tapeworms. [For more info on cysticercosis and resulting tapeworm complications, visit <https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/cysticercosis/gen_info/faqs.html> available as of 15 January 2024. For more info on complications from pregnancy, visit <https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/pregnancy-complications> available as of 15 January 2024.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">A quick glance over these introductory sources should make the disparity in impairment between these two conditions obvious.] But if all 3 premises are true, and the argument form is good as supporters of the impairment argument claim, then the conclusion must follow that forcing an individual to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is morally wrong. If forcing an individual to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is morally wrong, then that gives at least <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">prima facie</em> evidence that abortion is morally permissible since denying abortion is equivalent to forcing an individual to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. At the very least, this parallel argument in support of abortion rights gives us reason to reject the impairment argument until and unless this parallel is fully explained away.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Since both of the arguments that Mr. Horn is making in this section appear to either contain false or deeply questionable premises, or have problems with their argument form, the impairment argument should be rejected in either of its forms.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote" style="background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-left: 6px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0.5em 10px;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">I have offered five different arguments to show abortion is so wrong that it ought to be illegal:</p><ol style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em 25px; padding-left: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">The unborn are persons with a right to life.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">You and I were once embryos, and it [is] always wrong to kill us.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit;">Abortion unjustly impairs a being’s development.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" /></li></ol><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px;">These arguments show that the pro-life position can be defended with a variety of powerful philosophical arguments. It behooves pro-lifers to learn these arguments so they can engage even the most sophisticated defenses of abortion.</p></blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">As we have seen, Mr. Horn’s claim that “[t]hese arguments show that the pro-life position can be defended with a variety of powerful philosophical arguments” is incorrect. These five arguments each have fundamental problems as demonstrated above. Now, remember the discussion of the burden of proof: the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong should only be believed to be true if defenders of that position can provide a philosophically robust defense of the position that overcomes this initial deficit in epistemic probability from starting with the burden of proof. If each of these five arguments that abortion is almost always morally wrong are deeply flawed as we have seen, then the position that abortion is almost always morally wrong has not met its burden of proof, and as such should not be believed to be true.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">There is another issue here, however. Note the wording that Mr. Horn uses here, with emphasis added: “I have offered five different arguments to show abortion is <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">so wrong that it ought to be illegal</em>.” This needs to be called out, as it does not follow from an action being morally wrong, or even being extremely morally wrong, that that action should then be made illegal. There are actions that are morally permissible that have been or are illegal, such as jaywalking or non-whites using a “whites only” water fountain under Jim Crow. Likewise, there are actions that are morally wrong that have been or are legal, such as serial lying or selling snake oil as medicine. In some of these cases, ethics and legality should line up: Jim Crow should never have happened, and selling untested medicines should never have been allowed. In other cases, though, ethics and legality should stay separate because they are doing separate things. For example, while there is nothing inherently wrong with jaywalking, there is an argument that making jaywalking illegal discourages jaywalking and thereby improves public safety. On the other hand, serial lying is extremely immoral, but making serial lying in and of itself illegal would violate free speech rights, flood the legal system, and would be completely impractical.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">These examples show that Mr. Horn’s claim that “abortion is so wrong that it ought to be illegal” is an undefended assumption at best. [In fact, one could make a variant of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous violinist argument to this effect. The original violinist argument – where you wake up to discover that you are now a living kidney dialysis machine for a world-famous violinist against your will and you cannot be removed from the violinist without killing the violinist – basically shows that a fetus having a right to life does not make abortion immoral because the right to bodily integrity effectively makes abortion not an unjust killing equivalent to murder. The variant would use the same situation to say that even if abortion is immoral that it should not be illegal because banning abortion would violate all kinds of legal rights and principles such as the legal rights to bodily integrity and self-defense. For the original violinist argument, see: Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Philosophy and Public Affairs</em> 1.1 (Autumn 1971): 47-66.]</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">The point of this essay was to provide a response to and critique of the position that the philosophical case against abortion rights is rooted in arguments that are both good arguments and independent of religious assumptions. As we have seen, this position is incorrect. The philosophical case against abortion rights is actually composed of deeply flawed arguments, often with hidden religious assumptions, that do not meet the burden of proof that the position that abortion is morally wrong must meet. As such, until and unless a much better philosophical case against abortion rights is forthcoming, the position that abortion is generally morally permissible must be the rational position to hold for anyone who cares at all about philosophical arguments.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: underline;">Brief Bio:</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Dr. Kurt Liebegott earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Purdue University specializing in Ethics, Logic, and Philosophy of Religion. His 2010 dissertation was <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">A New Defense of Abortion</em>. He comes from an extensive background in Lincoln-Douglas Debate and other speech and debate events as both a competitor and coach, including coaching an NCFL National Champion in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. He is currently working in middle and high school History education.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: underline;">Brief Suggested Reading List:</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Boonin, David. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">A Defense of Abortion</em>. 2003.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Manninen, Bertha. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Pro-Life, Pro-Choice: Shared Values in the Abortion Debate</em>. 2014.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Silverstein, Harry. “On a Woman’s “Responsibility” for the Fetus.” <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Social Theory and Practice</em> 13.1 (Spring 1987): 103-119.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Steinbock, Bonnie. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Life Before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses</em>. 1992.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Stretton, Dean. “The Argument from Intrinsic Value: A Critique.” <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Bioethics</em> 14.3 (July 2000): 228-239.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Philosophy and Public Affairs</em> 1.1 (Autumn 1971): 47-66.</p><blockquote class="wp-block-quote" style="background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); border-left: 6px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0.5em 10px;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px;"></p></blockquote><div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; clear: both;"></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-17839458672552142282024-03-04T16:37:00.002-05:002024-03-04T16:38:46.247-05:00Why is it especially wrong to murder pregnant women? Again, on extremists losing touch with common sense. <p>Why is it especially wrong to murder pregnant women? </p><p><i>Another </i>discussion of extremists losing touch with common sense.
</p><blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7342200475556810030" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7342200475556810030" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> Is harming pregnant women especially bad? Yes, of course, argues almost everyone, including pro-choice people. On losing common sense due to ideology. <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ideology?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ideology">#ideology</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/polarization?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="polarization">#polarization</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/commonsense?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="commonsense">#commonsense</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7342200637188967210?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<br /><br /><br /><p></p><p>For earlier discussion, see </p><div class="MjjYud" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif;"><div class="g Ww4FFb vt6azd tF2Cxc asEBEc" data-hveid="CB0QAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQFSgAegQIHRAA" jsaction="QyLbLe:OMITjf;ewaord:qsYrDe;xd28Mb:A6j43c" jscontroller="SC7lYd" lang="en" style="border-radius: 0px; border-width: 0px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin: 0px 0px 30px; position: relative; width: 600px;"><div class="N54PNb BToiNc cvP2Ce" data-snc="FUj1gd" style="-webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-box-pack: start; contain: layout paint; display: flex; flex-direction: column; justify-content: start; overflow: hidden; position: relative;"><div class="kb0PBd cvP2Ce jGGQ5e" data-snf="x5WNvb" data-snhf="0" style="contain: layout paint; flex: 0 0 auto; overflow: hidden;"><div class="yuRUbf" style="font-size: small; line-height: 1.58;"><br /></div><div class="yuRUbf" style="font-size: small; line-height: 1.58;"><span jsaction="rcuQ6b:npT2md;PYDNKe:bLV6Bd;mLt3mc" jscontroller="msmzHf"><a data-ved="2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQFnoECA4QAQ" href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2022/11/extremism-abortion-extremism-and-losing.html" jsname="UWckNb" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.abortionarguments.com/2022/11/extremism-abortion-extremism-and-losing.html&ved=2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQFnoECA4QAQ" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); color: #1a0dab; outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;"><h3 class="LC20lb MBeuO DKV0Md" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 20px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.3; margin: 18px 0px 3px; padding: 5px 0px 0px;">Extremism, Abortion Extremism and Losing the Ability to Listen</h3><div class="notranslate HGLrXd NJjxre iUh30 ojE3Fb" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 12px; left: 0px; line-height: 1.3; padding: 0px; position: absolute; text-size-adjust: none; top: 0px;"><div class="q0vns" style="align-items: center; display: flex; padding: 0px;"><span class="H9lube" style="align-items: center; background-color: #f1f3f4; border-radius: 50%; border: 1px solid rgb(236, 237, 239); display: inline-flex; height: 26px; justify-content: center; margin-right: 12px; vertical-align: middle; width: 26px;"><div aria-hidden="true" class="eqA2re NjwKYd Vwoesf" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0px; vertical-align: middle;"><img alt="" class="XNo5Ab" data-atf="1" data-csiid="11" src="" style="display: block; height: 18px; width: 18px;" /></div></span><div class="GTRloc"><span class="VuuXrf" style="color: #202124; display: block; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; text-wrap: nowrap;">Thinking Critically About Abortion</span><div class="byrV5b" style="-webkit-box-align: center; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><cite class="qLRx3b tjvcx GvPZzd cHaqb" role="text" style="color: #4d5156; font-style: normal; line-height: 18px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; text-wrap: nowrap;">https://www.abortionarguments.com<span class="ylgVCe ob9lvb" role="text"> › 2022/11 › extremi...</span></cite></div></div></div></div></a></span><div class="B6fmyf byrV5b Mg1HEd" style="-webkit-box-align: center; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row; height: auto; position: absolute; text-wrap: nowrap; top: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><div class="HGLrXd iUh30 ojE3Fb" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.3; padding: 0px; text-size-adjust: none;"><div class="q0vns" style="align-items: center; display: flex; padding: 0px;"><span class="H9lube" style="align-items: center; background-color: #f1f3f4; border-radius: 50%; border: 1px solid rgb(236, 237, 239); display: inline-flex; height: 26px; justify-content: center; margin-right: 12px; vertical-align: middle; width: 26px;"><div class="eqA2re NjwKYd" style="height: 18px; margin-right: 0px; width: 18px;"></div></span><div class="GTRloc"><span class="VuuXrf" style="display: block; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"></span><div class="byrV5b" style="-webkit-box-align: center; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><cite class="qLRx3b tjvcx GvPZzd cHaqb" role="text" style="color: #4d5156; font-style: normal; line-height: 18px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis;"><span class="ylgVCe ob9lvb" role="text"></span></cite></div></div></div></div><div class="csDOgf BCF2pd ezY6nb L48a4c" style="display: inline; height: 18px; margin-left: 8px; margin-top: 16px; position: relative; visibility: visible;"><div data-id="collectionitem-web-desktophttps://www.abortionarguments.com/2022/11/extremism-abortion-extremism-and-losing.html" data-viewer-group="1" jsaction="rcuQ6b:npT2md;aevozb:T2P31d;vcOT6c:C6KsF;k7WJpc:beCLof" jscontroller="gOTY1"><div data-ved="2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQu5wMegQIDhAJ" data-viewer-entrypoint="1" jsaction="rcuQ6b:npT2md;h5M12e;jGQF0b:kNqZ1c;" jscontroller="RJ1Nyd" jsdata="ReQo8;_;Bm8mVI" jsshadow="" role="button" style="outline: 0px;" tabindex="-1"><div jsslot=""><div aria-label="About this result" class="MJ8UF iTPLzd rNSxBe eY4mx lUn2nc" jsname="I3kE2c" role="img" style="cursor: pointer; left: 0px; line-height: 16px; outline: 0px; padding-bottom: 20px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 12px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 28px; z-index: 1;" tabindex="0"><span class="D6lY4c mBswFe" jsname="czHhOd" style="border-radius: 11px; height: 22px; position: absolute; width: 22px;"><span class="xTFaxe z1asCe" jsname="Bil8Ae" style="color: #4d5156; display: inline-block; fill: currentcolor; height: 18px; line-height: 18px; position: relative; top: 2px; width: 18px;"><svg focusable="false" viewbox="0 0 24 24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path d="M12 8c1.1 0 2-.9 2-2s-.9-2-2-2-2 .9-2 2 .9 2 2 2zm0 2c-1.1 0-2 .9-2 2s.9 2 2 2 2-.9 2-2-.9-2-2-2zm0 6c-1.1 0-2 .9-2 2s.9 2 2 2 2-.9 2-2-.9-2-2-2z"></path></svg></span></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="kb0PBd cvP2Ce" data-sncf="1" data-snf="nke7rc" style="contain: layout paint; flex: 0 0 auto; overflow: hidden;"><div class="VwiC3b yXK7lf lVm3ye r025kc hJNv6b Hdw6tb" style="-webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-line-clamp: 2; color: #4d5156; display: -webkit-box; margin-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0px;">One is that <span style="color: #5f6368; font-weight: bold;">extremists</span> generally lose the ability to listen to people who disagree with them: they become simply unable to know what other people think. This is ...</div></div><div class="kb0PBd cvP2Ce" data-sncf="2" data-snf="mCCBcf" style="contain: layout paint; flex: 0 0 auto; overflow: hidden;"><div class="fG8Fp uo4vr" style="color: #70757a; line-height: 1.58;"></div></div></div></div><span data-csim="" id="z9PoV"></span></div><p></p><div class="MjjYud" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif;"><div class="g Ww4FFb vt6azd tF2Cxc asEBEc" data-hveid="CBsQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQFSgAegQIGxAA" jsaction="QyLbLe:OMITjf;ewaord:qsYrDe;xd28Mb:A6j43c" jscontroller="SC7lYd" lang="en" style="border-radius: 0px; border-width: 0px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin: 0px 0px 30px; position: relative; width: 600px;"><div class="N54PNb BToiNc cvP2Ce" data-snc="PEy2Y" style="-webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-box-pack: start; contain: layout paint; display: flex; flex-direction: column; justify-content: start; overflow: hidden; position: relative;"><div class="kb0PBd cvP2Ce jGGQ5e" data-snf="x5WNvb" data-snhf="0" style="contain: layout paint; flex: 0 0 auto; overflow: hidden;"><div class="yuRUbf" style="font-size: small; line-height: 1.58;"></div></div></div></div></div><p></p><div class="MjjYud" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><div class="g Ww4FFb vt6azd tF2Cxc asEBEc" data-hveid="CBwQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQFSgAegQIHBAA" jsaction="QyLbLe:OMITjf;ewaord:qsYrDe;xd28Mb:A6j43c" jscontroller="SC7lYd" lang="en" style="background-color: white; border-radius: 0px; border-width: 0px; box-shadow: none; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin: 0px 0px 30px; position: relative; text-align: left; width: 600px;"><div class="N54PNb BToiNc cvP2Ce" data-snc="JS0jzb" style="-webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-box-pack: start; contain: layout paint; display: flex; flex-direction: column; justify-content: start; overflow: hidden; position: relative;"><div class="kb0PBd cvP2Ce jGGQ5e" data-snf="x5WNvb" data-snhf="0" style="contain: layout paint; display: block; flex: 0 0 auto; overflow: hidden;"><div class="yuRUbf" style="font-size: small; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.58;"><div><span jsaction="rcuQ6b:npT2md;PYDNKe:bLV6Bd;mLt3mc" jscontroller="msmzHf"><a data-ved="2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQFnoECBAQAQ" href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/12/moral-extremism-and-abortion-on-pro.html" jsname="UWckNb" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/12/moral-extremism-and-abortion-on-pro.html&ved=2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQFnoECBAQAQ" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); color: #1a0dab; outline: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><br /><h3 class="LC20lb MBeuO DKV0Md" style="display: inline-block; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.3; margin: 18px 0px 3px; padding: 5px 0px 0px;">Moral Extremism and Abortion: On Pro-Choice "Extremists"</h3><div class="notranslate HGLrXd NJjxre iUh30 ojE3Fb" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 12px; left: 0px; line-height: 1.3; padding: 0px; position: absolute; text-size-adjust: none; top: 0px;"><div class="q0vns" style="align-items: center; display: flex; padding: 0px;"><span class="H9lube" style="align-items: center; background-color: #f1f3f4; border-radius: 50%; border: 1px solid rgb(236, 237, 239); display: inline-flex; height: 26px; justify-content: center; margin-right: 12px; vertical-align: middle; width: 26px;"><div aria-hidden="true" class="eqA2re NjwKYd Vwoesf" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0px; vertical-align: middle;"><img alt="" class="XNo5Ab" data-atf="1" data-csiid="12" src="" style="display: block; height: 18px; width: 18px;" /></div></span><div class="GTRloc"><span class="VuuXrf" style="color: #202124; display: block; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: nowrap;">Thinking Critically About Abortion</span><div class="byrV5b" style="-webkit-box-align: center; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><cite class="qLRx3b tjvcx GvPZzd cHaqb" role="text" style="color: #4d5156; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; line-height: 18px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">https://www.abortionarguments.com<span class="ylgVCe ob9lvb" role="text" style="color: #4d5156;"><span> </span>› 2020/12 › moral-...</span></cite></div></div></div></div></a></span><div class="B6fmyf byrV5b Mg1HEd" style="-webkit-box-align: center; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row; height: auto; position: absolute; top: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;"><div class="HGLrXd iUh30 ojE3Fb" style="display: inline-block; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.3; padding: 0px; text-size-adjust: none;"><div class="q0vns" style="align-items: center; display: flex; padding: 0px;"><span class="H9lube" style="align-items: center; background-color: #f1f3f4; border-radius: 50%; border: 1px solid rgb(236, 237, 239); display: inline-flex; height: 26px; justify-content: center; margin-right: 12px; vertical-align: middle; width: 26px;"><div class="eqA2re NjwKYd" style="height: 18px; margin-right: 0px; width: 18px;"></div></span><div class="GTRloc"><span class="VuuXrf" style="color: #202124; display: block; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; white-space: nowrap;"></span><div class="byrV5b" style="-webkit-box-align: center; -webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><cite class="qLRx3b tjvcx GvPZzd cHaqb" role="text" style="color: #4d5156; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; line-height: 18px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><span class="ylgVCe ob9lvb" role="text" style="color: #4d5156;"></span></cite></div></div></div></div><div class="csDOgf BCF2pd ezY6nb L48a4c" style="display: inline; height: 18px; margin-left: 8px; margin-top: 16px; position: relative; visibility: visible;"><div data-id="collectionitem-web-desktophttps://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/12/moral-extremism-and-abortion-on-pro.html" data-viewer-group="1" jsaction="rcuQ6b:npT2md;aevozb:T2P31d;vcOT6c:C6KsF;k7WJpc:beCLof" jscontroller="gOTY1"><div><div data-ved="2ahUKEwjJv7KXyNuEAxU2k4QIHeTiBPAQu5wMegQIEBAJ" data-viewer-entrypoint="1" jsaction="rcuQ6b:npT2md;h5M12e;jGQF0b:kNqZ1c;" jscontroller="RJ1Nyd" jsdata="ReQo8;_;Bm8mVE" jsshadow="" role="button" style="outline: 0px;" tabindex="-1"><div jsslot=""><div aria-label="About this result" class="MJ8UF iTPLzd rNSxBe eY4mx lUn2nc" jsname="I3kE2c" role="img" style="cursor: pointer; left: 0px; line-height: 16px; outline: 0px; padding-bottom: 20px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 12px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 28px; z-index: 1;" tabindex="0"><span class="D6lY4c mBswFe" jsname="czHhOd" style="border-radius: 11px; height: 22px; position: absolute; width: 22px;"><span class="xTFaxe z1asCe" jsname="Bil8Ae" style="color: #4d5156; display: inline-block; fill: currentcolor; height: 18px; line-height: 18px; position: relative; top: 2px; width: 18px;"><svg focusable="false" viewbox="0 0 24 24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path d="M12 8c1.1 0 2-.9 2-2s-.9-2-2-2-2 .9-2 2 .9 2 2 2zm0 2c-1.1 0-2 .9-2 2s.9 2 2 2 2-.9 2-2-.9-2-2-2zm0 6c-1.1 0-2 .9-2 2s.9 2 2 2 2-.9 2-2-.9-2-2-2z"></path></svg></span></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="kb0PBd cvP2Ce" data-sncf="1" data-snf="nke7rc" style="contain: layout paint; display: block; flex: 0 0 auto; overflow: hidden;"><div class="VwiC3b yXK7lf lVm3ye r025kc hJNv6b Hdw6tb" style="-webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-line-clamp: 2; color: #4d5156; display: -webkit-box; margin-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="LEwnzc Sqrs4e" style="color: #70757a; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span>Dec 19, 2020</span><span> </span>—<span> </span></span><span>But there are pro-choice extremists also. Knowing what their<span> </span><em style="color: #5f6368; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;">extremism</em><span> </span>is like, and why it's a problem, would be good to know about. This short ...</span></div></div><div class="kb0PBd cvP2Ce" data-sncf="2" data-snf="mCCBcf" style="contain: layout paint; display: block; flex: 0 0 auto; overflow: hidden;"><div class="fG8Fp uo4vr" style="color: #70757a; line-height: 1.58;"></div></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-90839221842176560512024-02-27T17:08:00.007-05:002024-02-27T17:49:32.799-05:00Abortion, Animals, & the Precautionary Principle<p>Anti-abortion people sometimes say we should "give fetuses the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to assessing their consciousness, sentience, and/or personhood. And so we should <i>act as if </i>they are conscious, sentient, and/or persons earlier in development than any stronger evidence would warrant, since <i>maybe </i>they really are conscious, sentient, and/or persons.</p><p>So they appeal to some version of a "precautionary principle," simply put, the idea that <i>we should err on the side of "caution," to try to lessen the chances of wrongdoing</i>.<br /><br />Some problems or concerns about this "approach," so to speak are these:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>there is no realistic or relevant chance that embryos and beginning fetuses are conscious, sentient, or persons; so, at best, applying a precautionary principle here could only apply to mid-pregnancy-developed fetuses or beyond, where there is a legitimate chance of consciousness, sentience, or /and personhood. Fortunately, pro-choice moderates agree on that; </li><li>also, the "chances" that this (or any) application(s) of any precautionary principle to fetuses <i>will be harmful or disrespectful to pregnant women </i>must also be factored in: we need to be <i>cautious </i>in how policies and practices concerning embryos and fetuses might wrong women, or so implies the precautionary principle. Anti-abortion folks tend to ignore this: so they don't consider <i>all </i>the relevant chances of bad outcomes for <i>all </i>affected by any actions and policies. </li></ul><div>But, more interestingly, if someone thought that <i>we should err on the side of "caution," to try to lessen the chances of wrongdoing, </i>then they should be supportive of animal rights or, more generally, the claim that <i>harming and disrespecting (conscious and sentient) animals is prima facie seriously wrong</i>, meaning it's wrong to harm and disrespect animals unless there's a really good reason to do so (and finding their bodies to be tasty is not such a reason). </div><div><br /></div><div>Why is that? Because there's a relevant chance that such animals are persons or otherwise seriously wrong to treat in harmful ways. (There is no relevant chance about plants or microorganisms or rocks, etc.). The view that (some) animals are persons is not some "fringe" view: anyone who denies this is simply unaware of the philosophical and legal discussions of this topic. (And a theory of personhood that <i>persons are</i> <i>conscious, psychologically-connected-over-time beings </i>is a simpler and more intuitive explanation than the theory that <i>persons are individuals that are the "kind" of being that's a rational being</i>). Or they've never observed someone mourning the loss of an animal and thought about how we can only mourn the loss of beings that we consider persons or personlike. </div><div><br /></div><div>Applying the precautionary principle here requires taking theories of personhood that support claims to animal personhood seriously, since there's a significant chance that such theories are correct. The whole motivation for the precautionary principle is to lesson the chance of wrongdoing, and accepting a reasonable, but more expansive, conception of personhood here--which is then applied to animals--lessons those chances. </div><div><br /></div><div>Doing so would lead most anti-abortionists to their being something more like "consistently <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/09/why-pro-life-is-inaccurate-and.html" target="_blank">pro-life</a>," and that label really fitting their position. So they should agree. <br /><br /><br /></div><p></p>
<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7340359431621741870" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7340359431621741870" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> Replying to @adirondackbose Being consistently cautious about fetuses, animals, & philosophical theories <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/animalrights?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="animalrights">#animalrights</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7340359509375814443?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-48643237678974455682024-01-16T17:26:00.003-05:002024-01-16T18:02:09.992-05:00A common tactic of Monica Snyder from "Secular Pro-Life" and other anti-abortion extremists This is a video and a writing about a common "tactic" with anti-abortion people and organizations, such as Monica Snyder from "Secular Pro-Life." It's a "tactic" because it's a distraction from the responsible evaluation of arguments; it's a "red-herring." <div><br /></div><div>The general "strategy" is to focus on something that's true, yet ignore the overall argument. Then, when the overall argument is presented (and so the irrelevance of the initial claim made, since the argument has a false premise -- that wasn't initially stated and so most people would have not realized that it's part of the argument, indeed <i>essential</i> to the argument -- and so is unsound), they then insist that people knowing that true premise <i>really matters</i>, when it really does not:
<br /><br /><blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7161503729060007211" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7161503729060007211" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> Replying to @nathan.nobis Why Having or lacking a heart is irrelevant to anything interesting or important about abortion. <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/secularprolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="secularprolife">#secularprolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/bioethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="bioethics">#bioethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/heartbeat?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="heartbeat">#heartbeat</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/hearts?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="hearts">#hearts</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/heartbeatbill?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="heartbeatbill">#heartbeatbill</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/life?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="life">#life</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7161503755488496430?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a></section></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>And here's a writing on that theme too from the <i>Bioethics Today </i>blog: "<a href="https://bioethicstoday.org/blog/following-all-the-facts-about-abortion-scientific-ethical-and-logical-wherever-they-lead/" target="_blank">Following All The Facts About Abortion: Scientific, Ethical, And Logical—Wherever They Lead</a>"</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">In a recent column, “<a href="https://religionnews.com/2023/06/01/faith-science-and-the-abortion-debate/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">Faith, science and the abortion debate: Do abortion rights advocates follow the facts, wherever they lead?</a>” at <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Religion News Service </em>(reposted at <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">America</em> as “<a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/06/02/faith-science-and-abortion-debate-245412" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">In the abortion debate, it’s the pro-lifers who have science on their side</a>”), theologian-bioethicist Charles Camosy reports that pro-choice advocates sometimes deny scientific facts that are relevant to abortion debates.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">E.g, they sometimes deny that embryos and beginning fetuses have heartbeats; and they may deny that fetuses feel pain at three months of development, despite <a href="https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">some limited research</a> that they do; and they deny that some aborted fetuses looked like babies.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">Camosy’s apparent suggestion—seemingly accepted by <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/pope-francis-says-follow-the-science-on-abortion/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">many anti-abortion advocates</a>—is that these facts “lead” to concluding that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">This suggestion is mistaken. While Camosy and others who share his position focus on “scientific” facts, they often overlook that there are <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">facts </em>about where facts “lead.” The <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">science </em>that studies these facts is <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/#Intr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">logic</em></a>, the kind taught in logic, math, and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265161.2021.1940355?journalCode=uajb20?_ga=1586760155.1705423578" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">philosophical bioethics</a> classes since understanding logic is essential for evaluating arguments on all ethical issues. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">To evaluate arguments on abortion, much of the logic we need to know comes from Aristotle and his “<a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2022/08/28/classical-syllogisms/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">classical syllogisms</a>.” Consider this standard example:</p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Socrates is a man.</p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Therefore, Socrates is mortal. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">Stating the unstated premise makes this argument into a <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">syllogism</em>: </p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Socrates is a man.</p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">All men are mortal. </em></p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Therefore, Socrates is mortal. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">The skill of <a href="https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Logical_Reasoning_(Dowden)/02%3A_Claims_Issues_and_Arguments/2.06%3A_Rewriting_Arguments_in_Standard_Form" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">stating arguments in “standard” form</a> enables us to see why the facts that Camosy reviews do not successfully support any anti-abortion conclusion. To make this clear, let’s state the arguments as syllogisms:</p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Embryos and beginning fetuses have hearts.</p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">All beings with hearts are usually wrong to kill. (Or all hearts are wrong to stop or kill). </em></p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Therefore, embryos and beginning fetuses are usually wrong to kill. </p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Fetuses after 12 weeks of development may feel pain.</p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">All beings that may feel pain are usually wrong to kill.</em></p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Therefore, fetuses after 12 weeks of development are usually wrong to kill. </p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Some fetuses look like babies.</p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">All beings that look like babies are usually wrong to kill. </em></p><p class="has-text-align-center" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; word-break: break-word;">Therefore, fetuses that look like babies are usually wrong to kill. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">It’s unfortunate that some people deny the first premises here, but it’s also unfortunate that people often don’t recognize that these second premises are essential to the arguments and that these premises are false or widely believed to be false. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">About the “heart argument,” of course animals have hearts, but most people, including “pro-life” people, do not think that animals’ lives are usually wrong to end. So they believe that the premise that <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">all beings with hearts are usually wrong to kill</em> is false and so that any argument about abortion with this premise is unsound. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">And we can imagine a human heart kept alive by a machine. Must it be wrong to kill that heart? No, and so it’s again false that <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">all hearts are wrong to stop or kill.</em> A heartbeat, in itself, is of no moral significance: it’s <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">who </em>is around a heart that matters morally. No theorist of human rights proposes we have rights <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">because </em>we have <a href="https://fakenous.substack.com/p/abortion-is-difficult" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">heartbeats</a>: a person with a hypothetical “beatless,” artificial heart would be as wrong to kill as anyone with a natural heart. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">It’s sometimes been explained that a heartbeat is a sign of life—<a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">biological</em> life</a>—and that’s why heartbeats are so important. But this suggested argument suffers from this premise:</p><p class="has-text-align-left" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">All biologically living things or beings are usually wrong to kill. </em></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">Counterexamples</a> such as bacteria and mold and broccoli and carrots, among other living things that aren’t at all wrong to kill, refute this premise.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">Concerning the “fetuses may feel pain at 12 weeks” argument, again, the treatment of animals suggests that most people believe (although perhaps <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Philosophy-Comes-to-Dinner-Arguments-About-the-Ethics-of-Eating/Chignell-Cuneo-Halteman/p/book/9780415806831?_ga=1586760155.1705423578" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">mistakenly</a>) that it’s false that <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">all beings that may feel pain are usually wrong to kill. </em>And male <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-medicine-and-ethics/article/abs/circumcision-is-unethical-and-unlawful/280C3C539BEB04143CD76DC990962A31" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">circumcision</a>, among many other tragic examples, suggests that some people perhaps don’t care as much even about human pain as they claim to. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">The better response, however, to this argument is to consider 12 weeks of fetal development as a potentially plausible time to restrict abortions, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">provided accessible exceptions are allowed after that</em>, since <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">most abortions</a> occur before 12 weeks. So <a href="https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-moderate-majority-on-abortion" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">moderate pro-choice people</a> can and should accept whatever the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">best </em>science says about when fetuses become sentient. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">Anti-abortion advocates, however, should also accept the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">ethical</em> facts that <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">just because a human organism is sentient or even a person does not entail that anyone else must support that being</em>, or that <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">that being is entitled to the use of anyone else’s body, even for their life to continue</em>. Judith Thomson observed this over 50 years ago in her famous “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265091?seq=1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">A Defense of Abortion</a>” article; many anti-abortion advocates have yet to appreciate the brilliance of her position and <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/beyond-roe-9780190904845?cc=us&lang=en&" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">those developed from it</a>. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">Finally, concerning the “some fetuses look like babies” argument, one response is, “OK, but embryos and <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">beginning </em>fetuses do not ‘look like babies,’ and so this argument won’t condemn <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">most </em>abortions.” </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">And babies—<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">real </em>babies—are not wrong to kill <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">because they look like babies</em>. Children and adults aren’t wrong to kill because of their looks either. While we are <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">biologically human </em>or <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">biologically human organisms</em>, that’s not why we have basic rights either. Leading theories of <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/#NormJustForHumaRigh" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">the foundation or basis of human rights</a> propose that we have moral rights because of what rights protect us from: harm, disrespect, unfairness, and other losses: medical ethics is wisely <a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/02/16/principlism-in-biomedical-ethics/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">pluralistic</a> in its explanation of the moral data. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">Anti-abortion advocates often claim that we are persons and have basic rights <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">because </em>we are the “kind” of beings that are rational beings. But this view seems to offensively suggest that severely mentally challenged human beings have rights<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"> not</em> because of their own intrinsic characteristics, but because of their relations or similarities to allegedly “ideal,” rational human beings. And to claim that embryos and beginning fetuses are of that “kind” is to <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">equate </em>or <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">identify </em>us with physical bodies, a view which most people <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515089.2010.490939?journalCode=cphp20?_ga=1586760155.1705423578" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">reject</a>. We can also think that <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jrnlvi38&div=5&id=&page=" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">only conscious substances or subjects</a> are of this “kind” anyway, a view that jibes with pro-choice views. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">Many philosophers, present and past, have argued that only <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">conscious beings</em>, or <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">experiencing subjects</em>, can suffer such <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/utilitas/article/does-abortion-harm-the-fetus/E9D3C83334B503E0EBBFFF4641C32E4E" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">harms</a> and disrespect, and so only beings like that have basic rights and be persons or <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">person-like</em>. Embryos and beginning fetuses don’t have any of that, even if they ever “look like babies.” </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">Camosy writes, “Facts, as they say, are stubborn things.” Indeed they are. And it’s a stubborn fact that scientific facts <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">never</em>, about any issue, in themselves, determine the ethical facts: those familiar with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">the naturalistic fallacy</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">the is-ought gap</a>, and critiques of “<a href="https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">scientism</a>” are well aware of this. </p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;">In thinking about ethical issues, we need to attend to <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">all </em>the facts—<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">scientific </em>facts, <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">logical </em>facts, and <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">ethical </em>facts—in deciding what’s best to think and do. Philosophers study these issues, consider the relevant facts, from all the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">types </em>of facts, and are usually broadly <a href="https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4974" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">pro-choice</a>. That and <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">how </em>they come to these conclusions should be more <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089274?journalCode=uajb20?_ga=1586760155.1705423578" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">widely known</a>; that might lead to many good outcomes regarding abortion and many other issues and concerns.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Roboto, "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; hyphens: none; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; position: relative; word-break: break-word;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://twitter.com/NathanNobis" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">Nathan Nobis</a>, PhD is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA. He is co-author of the open-access introductory book <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/p/this-book-introduces-readers-to-many.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #4c698e; font-weight: bold; hyphens: none; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;">Thinking Critically About Abortion</a>.</em></p><p> </p> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-29867522760361428682024-01-16T11:20:00.004-05:002024-01-16T11:20:42.026-05:00Three common simple, and simplistic, arguments against abortion<blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7322504384049433899" data-video-id="7322504384049433899" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;" > <section> <a target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed">@nathan.nobis</a> 3 simplistic arguments against abortion. <a title="abortion" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed">#abortion</a> <a title="prochoice" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed">#prochoice</a> <a title="prolife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed">#prolife</a> <a title="ethics" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed">#ethics</a> <a title="philosophy" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed">#philosophy</a> <a title="philosophytiktok" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophytiktok?refer=embed">#philosophytiktok</a> <a title="logic" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/logic?refer=embed">#logic</a> <a title="criticalthinking" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/criticalthinking?refer=embed">#criticalthinking</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7322504490635053870?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-91577333211920255582023-12-29T16:52:00.005-05:002024-03-04T16:33:05.555-05:00On Substack<p>The blog of this page is now imperfectly mirrored at Substack, although newer posts aren't getting reposted there (yet): <a href="https://abortionarguments.substack.com/">https://abortionarguments.substack.com/</a></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-22935550804626177742023-11-14T09:44:00.004-05:002023-11-14T10:23:11.048-05:00If you think abortions don't involve killing, why is that?<p>If you think abortions don't involve <i>killing</i>, why is that?</p>
<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7300596803039218987" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7300596803039218987" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> If you think abortions usually don't involve "killing," why is that? Please fully explain your answer. <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophytiktok?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophytiktok">#philosophytiktok</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7300596882110171947?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a></section></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Some follow up videos:</p><p> </p> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7301035802081987882" data-video-id="7301035802081987882" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;" > <section> <a target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed">@nathan.nobis</a> Replying to @nathan.nobis "Yes, abortions involve killing, but that doesn't mean they are wrong..." <a title="abortion" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed">#abortion</a> <a title="prochoice" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed">#prochoice</a> <a title="prolife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed">#prolife</a> <a title="ethics" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed">#ethics</a> <a title="philosophy" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed">#philosophy</a> <a title="philosophytiktok" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophytiktok?refer=embed">#philosophytiktok</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7301035901310896942?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script><br><br><blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7301292040099237163" data-video-id="7301292040099237163" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;" > <section> <a target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed">@nathan.nobis</a> Replying to @bs_intolerant No, C-sections aren't abortions even though they end a pregnancy. Not all ends or "terminations" of pregnancies are abortions. On "termination" versus "killing," since killing often isn't wrong. <a title="abortion" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed">#abortion</a> <a title="prochoice" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed">#prochoice</a> <a title="prolife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed">#prolife</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7301292097951386411?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7301334655695867179" data-video-id="7301334655695867179" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;" > <section> <a target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed">@nathan.nobis</a> Replying to @xaospet False claims and bad arguments from pro-choice people probably don't help anything, so let's avoid them! More at www.AbortionArguments.com off the LinkTree. <a title="abortion" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed">#abortion</a> <a title="prochoice" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed">#prochoice</a> <a title="prolife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed">#prolife</a> <a title="ethics" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed">#ethics</a> <a title="philosophy" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed">#philosophy</a> <a title="criticalthinking" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/criticalthinking?refer=embed">#criticalthinking</a> <a title="justice" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/justice?refer=embed">#justice</a> <a title="badargument" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/badargument?refer=embed">#badargument</a> <a title="badarguments" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/badarguments?refer=embed">#badarguments</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7301334683755760427?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-5325939670816129312023-10-11T08:18:00.011-04:002023-10-12T10:25:55.786-04:00"Embryos & metaphysical personhood: both biology & philosophy support the pro-life case." A Response<p>I was asked to "respond" to this blog post here on Secular Pro Life's page by <a href="https://secularprolife.org/author/kika/" rel="author" style="background-color: white; border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Posts by Kristina Artuković">Kristina Artuković</a>. For a more efficient response, I will respond in text <span style="color: blue;">in blue</span> and then offer up some quick general thoughts. </p><p>I recommend anyone read the article first and then read my commentary. </p><header class="entry-content-header" style="background-color: white; border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font-family: "open sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><h1 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="headline" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 21px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: 1.3em; margin: 0px 0px 14px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="https://secularprolife.org/2021/10/embryos-metaphysical-personhood-both/" target="_blank">Embryos & metaphysical personhood: both biology & philosophy support the pro-life case.</a><span class="post-format-icon minor-meta" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 0.9em; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"></span></h1><span class="post-meta-infos" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 0.9em; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; top: -8px; vertical-align: baseline;"><time class="date-container minor-meta updated" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 0.9em; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">October 20, 2021</time><span class="text-sep text-sep-date" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 5px; vertical-align: baseline;">/</span><span class="blog-categories minor-meta" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 0.9em; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">in <a href="https://secularprolife.org/category/personhood/" rel="tag" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Personhood</a>, <a href="https://secularprolife.org/category/philosophy/" rel="tag" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Philosophy</a>, <a href="https://secularprolife.org/category/uncategorized/" rel="tag" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Uncategorized</a> </span><span class="text-sep text-sep-cat" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 5px; vertical-align: baseline;">/</span><span class="blog-author minor-meta" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 0.9em; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">by <span class="entry-author-link" itemprop="author" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="author" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="fn" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="https://secularprolife.org/author/kika/" rel="author" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #919191; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Posts by Kristina Artuković">Kristina Artuković</a></span></span></span></span></span></header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; counter-reset: footnotes 0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"></p><div class="separator" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="lightbox-added" href="https://i0.wp.com/1.bp.blogspot.com/-xx8E5is2pkY/YV306u8oKGI/AAAAAAABKPE/IgDFgL6a0acB_CYXl83Qy-v2hjPmonqrQCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/neonbrand-2RRq1BHPq4E-unsplash.jpg?ssl=1" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; display: block; font: inherit; margin: 0px 1em; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><img border="0" class="wp-image-1303" data-original-height="1365" data-original-width="2048" decoding="async" height="213" src="https://i0.wp.com/secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/neonbrand-2RRq1BHPq4E-unsplash.jpg?resize=320%2C213&ssl=1" style="border: none rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; font: inherit; height: auto; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" width="320" /><span class="image-overlay overlay-type-image" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font: inherit; height: 213px; left: 217.5px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; transition: opacity 0.4s ease-in-out 0s; vertical-align: baseline; visibility: hidden; width: 330px; z-index: 300;"><span class="image-overlay-inside" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; height: 213px; left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 330px;"></span></span></a></div><div class="separator" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Photo credit <a href="https://unsplash.com/@neonbrand" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">NeONBRAND</a> with <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/2RRq1BHPq4E" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Unsplash</a></div><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">[Esta publicación está disponible en español <a href="https://secularprolife.org/2022/10/los-embriones-y-la-personeria-metafisica-tanto-la-biologia-como-la-filosofia-son-favorables-a-la-postura-pro-vida/" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">aquí</a>.]</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Today’s guest blog post is by Kristina Artuković</span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Anyone who is in any way involved in the debate on prenatal justice knows that it usually involves tiring discussions about the meaning of terms like <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">human</em>, <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">person</em>, <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">personhood</em> or <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">potentiality</em>.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;">NN: whether these discussions are "tiring" depends on the person. But these are all words for which their meanings are unclear, in part because they are often ambiguous, and so, yes, to think carefully about the issues, we have to think carefully about the meanings of these words and evaluate different definitions and the arguments that result from these definitions. For people interested in critical thinking, this is not "tiring." For those not interested in critical thinking, it might be. </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">More versed pro-choice advocates insist that the meaning of <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">human</em> is at least twofold: it encompasses biologically human and socially human. The situation is similar with the term <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">person</em>, as they often object that prenatal biological humans do not possess personhood, because they do not have consciousness or ability to feel pain up to a certain age, etc.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;">NN: good, although unfortunately there isn't really a standard term for what she calls "socially human": that's described in a number of different ways in the literature and common thought. And at least most philosophers think there are important differences between early "prenatal biological humans" and far later fetuses. </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">On the other hand, pro-life advocates often lean on science, which establishes the premise of biological humanity, but they also strive to undermine the concept of personhood, claiming that this concept has always been ideologically corrupt and oppressive. </p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;">NN: no, "personhood" or "person" has not "always been ideologically corrupt and oppressive." Saying "My friend is a person" is not corrupt. Saying, "Women and non-white people weren't considered to be persons, or full persons, but they were and are people, and should be recognized as people, since, again, they are people--they have personhood" is not corrupt and oppressive: it's the opposite.</span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">The term</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;"> </span><em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">human</em><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">probably has</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;"> </span><a href="https://www.unige.ch/sciences-societe/geo/files/3214/4464/7634/OtherOtherness.pdf" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">an even worse record</a><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">, yet pro-lifers rarely question it, perhaps because we have all become accustomed to</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;"> </span><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">scientific reduction</a><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">.</span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;">NN: no, there is no "reduction" in this term. "Human" has a biological meaning, and it also has the </span><span style="color: blue;">"socially human" </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit;">meaning she mentions also. But the term doesn't "reduce" to either of these, since it has these two broad meanings. <a href="https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Warren.pdf" target="_blank">Mary Anne Warren observed this long ago</a>, as does common thought with things like, "His body remains alive but the person we knew is gone." </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">There is significant confusion regarding the term <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">personhood</em>, because it can have two or even three separate but closely connected meanings, none of which is absolutely interchangeable with <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">human</em>:</p><ol style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 20px 15px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1em; padding: 3px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Metaphysical personhood</strong>: An entity’s ontological status related to certain faculties like consciousness, reason, language. Although the term might be a bit off-putting, this concept is actually closest to the intuitive meaning of the word <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">person</em>.</li><li style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1em; padding: 3px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Moral Personhood</strong>: An entity’s <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank"><strong style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">moral status</strong></a>. When an entity has moral status, that means it is a subject of moral consideration and has certain moral rights — most notably, right to life.</li><li style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1em; padding: 3px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Legal personhood</strong>: An entity’s legal status as a subject of law.</li></ol><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">NN: ok, although (1) </span><i>might</i><span style="font-style: inherit;"> be more simply put as "Psychological" personhood, since it points to the types of psychological characteristics of personhood. It's often thought that necessarily, if a being has psychological personhood, then it has moral personhood (and many think that a being has moral personhood only if it has psychological personhood.) But some understand "moral personhood" just in terms of "a being that has basic rights" and don't relate it to psychological personhood: whether a being has or doesn't have psychological personhood is not relevant to its moral personhood. </span></span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Let us take a closer look at how these terms relate to each other and to the term <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">human</em>.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Metaphysical personhood. </strong>This is best described through certain capabilities. Although these have a long tradition in Western philosophy, the following set of five capabilities is considered to be <a href="https://academic.oup.com/monist/article-abstract/57/1/43/1063803" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">a classic in the abortion debate</a>: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication and self-awareness. A class of self-aware AIs, an alien species, perhaps some other terrestrial species, angels, gods can be said to take part in metaphysical personhood if they meet some (not necessarily all) of these criteria. Taking part in metaphysical personhood also establishes an entity’s <strong style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">moral status</strong>, although metaphysical personhood isn’t the only grounds for special moral consideration we might grant to other entities.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">NN: good on the final claim: sometimes people think that something </span><i>must</i><span style="font-style: inherit;"> be a person to have, say, the right to life, but that's false, or it might be false. </span></span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Legal personhood. </strong>Law recognizes two kinds of legal subjects: <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">legal persons</em> and <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">natural persons</em>. <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Legal persons</em> like companies and states obtain legal personhood by means of their interests and sovereign will within the legal universe. <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Natural persons</em> (living entities, humans) obtain legal personhood via a political consensus on their moral status. We confer legal personhood through either historical precedent or moral reasoning and various means of advocacy and pressure.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Why is all this important?</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Science is indispensable and has enormous value in the debate on prenatal justice, because it provides functional concepts of <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/#NatKinBio" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">natural kinds</a> (species in biology) and gives us an indisputable starting point: abortion kills humans developing in utero.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">NN: if by "humans" you mean </span><i>biologically human organisms</i><span style="font-style: inherit;">, then yes, of course: what else would it be doing? But if you mean, about </span><span><i>all </i></span><span style="font-style: inherit;">abortions, "metaphysical" or psychological or moral persons, then, well, that's what the issue is: does it (ever) kill beings like that?</span></span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-weight: inherit;">But in order to explain why abortion is morally impermissible and should be legally impermissible, we will have to (a) address the relation that members of our </span><b>natural kind [</b>emphasis added<b>]</b><span style="font-weight: inherit;">, including preborn humans, must have towards </span><em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">metaphysical personhood</em><span style="font-weight: inherit;">, which should (b) establish the proof of their </span><em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">moral status</em><span style="font-weight: inherit;">, which would then (c) provide a substantial reason for giving them protection via </span><em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">legal personhood</em><span style="font-weight: inherit;">. </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">NN: so here are some harder issues: what "kind" are we? We are </span><i>many </i><span style="font-style: inherit;">kinds, so what kind is the relevant one here? What "natural" kind are we? We are many natural kinds, so what kind is the relevant one here? </span></span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-style: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;">It seems like the answer assumed here is that our natural kind is our species. But why think that's the relevant one? There are other options here: in particular, our "kind" could be understand as "minded being" or "minded being characterized by various rational-emotive capacities." Nobody must think that an embryo is of this "kind." </span></span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">And there seems to be a suggestion like this: </span></span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; counter-reset: footnotes 0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;"><i>if a being is of kind K, and beings of Kind K are characterized by having properties P, and having properties P results in other properties R, then all beings of kind K have properties R</i><span style="font-style: inherit;">. </span></span></p></div></blockquote><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="background-color: white; border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; counter-reset: footnotes 0; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">But this is very speculative, and dubious, and no reason is given to believe this, and principles like these appear to be false anyway. I have written on this theme for over 20 years: see my responses to <a href="https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_awap/26/" target="_blank">Carl Cohen</a>, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article-abstract/36/3/261/895026" target="_blank">Beckwith</a>, <a href="https://www.nathannobis.com/2014/02/robert-p-georges-kind-arguments.html" target="_blank">Tollefsen and George</a>, and </span></span><a href="https://www.nathannobis.com/2018/09/reply-to-christopher-tollefson-on.html" target="_blank">Tollefsen</a><span style="color: blue;">, at least. This is even addressed in the <i><a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2016/03/07/the-ethics-of-abortion/" target="_blank">1000-Word Philosophy </a></i>article. </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">In the end, we would have to address the conflict of two rights: prenatal right to life and mother’s bodily autonomy. I will primarily focus on personhood here, which provides the conditions necessary for the conflict-of-rights discussion to make sense.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">The nature of metaphysical personhood is not political. It’s not subjective. And it certainly is not oppressive. It is ontological, as it comprises <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank"><em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">essential properties</em></a> of a specific category of natural kinds. In the context of human life, metaphysical personhood logically refers to an <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">abstract human in their prime</em>. </p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span color="nlue">NN: what's "their prime"? How is that determined? Interestingly, it seems like common answers here assume "<a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/03/no-being-pro-choice-is-not-ablest.html" target="_blank">ableism</a>," typically the thought that having various advanced rational capacities makes one in their "prime." OK, maybe, but really, why? </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">All beings of the same kind <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">necessarily</em> take part in the essential properties of that kind which designate them through the <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">entirety of their existence</em>. In modern philosophy, these essential properties are called <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#SubsSort" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank"><strong style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">ultimate sortals</strong></a>.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">NN: yes, OK, but there are options on what the relevant "kind" is here, or what the relevant "essential properties" are. Some see them as related to their bodies, or bodies, whereas others see them as dependent on their minds. (Compare "<a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/03/11/animalism/" target="_blank">animalism</a>" versus <a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2022/02/03/psychological-approaches-to-personal-identity/">psychological theories of personal identity</a>--but compare them </span><i>on all the relevant considerations</i><span style="font-style: inherit;">: a relevant thinker here who argues for the latter is <a href="https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/personal-identity/v-2/sections/other-views" target="_blank">Jeff McMahan</a>). </span></span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #666666;">It would be very, very easy to say: all humans take part in metaphysical [</span><span style="color: blue;">psychological?</span><span style="color: #666666;">] personhood, therefore all of them have moral status. However, we would fail to address </span><em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">how exactly</em><span style="color: #666666;"> humans take part in metaphysical personhood and deal with those gray areas of “human non-personhood.”</span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">The capabilities of metaphysical personhood are not distributed equally among humans, right? Some humans, like infants or people with severe cognitive impairment, possess these capabilities in smaller degrees while for some, like zygotes and braindead humans, this degree probably amounts to zero. However, every living entity has to have an <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">inherent and active relation</em> with its ultimate sortal. Therefore, all living humans must have an inherent and active relation to metaphysical personhood.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-style: inherit;">NN: question: is this true in general? "all living humans [meaning </span><i>biologically human organisms</i><span style="font-style: inherit;">] must have an inherent and active relation to [metaphysical] X"? Meaning, does this type of relation hold with anything else, in particular where we then must treat that being as if they have X, or think they have the other characteristics that result from X ? Or is this an </span><i>ad hoc </i><span style="font-style: inherit;">proposal that's not seen about anything else? In other words, </span><span><i>why believe this</i></span><span style="font-style: inherit;">?</span></span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"> Logic allows for only three active relations towards metaphysical personhood:</p><ol style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; list-style-image: initial; list-style-position: initial; margin: 0px 0px 20px 15px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><li style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1em; padding: 3px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Attainment</li><li style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1em; padding: 3px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Retainment</li><li style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1em; padding: 3px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Restoration</li></ol><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Attainment of metaphysical personhood is why zygotes, embryos, fetuses and newborns <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">necessarily </em><em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">have</em> moral status. As individual members of our species, they are always in an active, inherent, self-initiated and self-governed <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">relation</em> of attaining the capabilities we all share radically, as members of the same rational type of natural kinds. Every increment of the human developmental process, from conception to the end of our life, is part of the physical and metaphysical chain that sustains or enables the capabilities that comprise metaphysical personhood. </p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;">NN: sure, embryos can be characterized as being of a particular kind, and that kind is characterized by having various features (F), and those features result in other properties (P), at least when the being has those features (F). But, again, why anything more than just that being is of the kind, and the kind is like this ..., but that doesn't mean the individual yet has F? Again, this is a very abstract type of principle that's highly dubious and appears subject to counterexamples, some of which are mentioned in the readings above. AND here it's assumed that the relevant kind is a biological one, but we need not accept that. </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">This is a nice example of how science without philosophy cannot tell us what <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">human</em> means, and how philosophy without science cannot explain <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">human </em>in a relevant way.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Cognitively impaired humans are in this active relation, too: they are continuously attempting to attain or restore these capabilities against other factors like damage, disease, age-related difficulties, or even genetic predispositions. If cognitively impaired humans had certain obstacles removed — for example, decalcification in a brain damaged by Alzheimer’s — they would carry on with attainment (of completely new capabilities) or restoration (of lost capabilities). These two processes aren’t stopped by negative factors, but instead are organically overshadowed. As humans, we are <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">always</em> in this active relationship with our metaphysical ultimate sortal. It is just that some of us constantly lose ground, or zig-zag between restoration and attainment. This is intuitively true to anyone who’s ever had contact with a severely cognitively impaired person or a person who has late-stage Alzeheimer’s disease.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;">NN: for what it's worth, either we stay of this "kind" if brain dead or permanently comatose or not. If not, then this isn't the relevant kind. If so, then being of this "kind" doesn't entail we have basic rights, on the assumption that it can be OK to end the lives of such human organisms. This is discussed in our first <a href="https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/" target="_blank">Salon</a> article. In short, the above does not fit well with common views about end-of-life issues. </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">Braindead people (often used as an example of human non-persons alongside with prenatal humans) fit perfectly into this: if there were some probability of a restorative activity taking place, there would be no grounds to renounce their full moral status due to the lack of active relation to metaphysical personhood and thus no grounds to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11571-008-9047-z" rel="noopener" style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #6eb5ef; font: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">pronounce them dead</a>. </p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;">NN: if they were like this, then they aren't braindead.</span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">However, after this relation becomes absolutely passive, these humans nonetheless retain a remnant of their moral status through their corporeality, echoing in the legal universe, since we generally find it morally and sometimes even legally binding to respect their explicit will regarding the integrity of their body and regarding the transfer of their property, all within the framework of common good. This also serves as a reminder that there is no sharp distinction between the body and metaphysical personhood — they are infused into each other from the moment of conception.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span color="blie"><span style="font-style: inherit;">NN: for what it's worth, some--maybe many--people who are inclined to agree with the above also seem to think that we can survive death, in an afterlife, </span><i>without our bodies</i> or without our <i>current bodies</i><span style="font-style: inherit;">. So it appears that they deny that "</span>there's a sharp distinction between the body and metaphysical personhood — they are infused into each other from the moment of conception" since they think you can have people without bodies, and think that they will one day be one of those. </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">This active relation to personhood, provided both by the physical and the metaphysical, is far from mere “potentiality.” Attainment, retainment, and restoration are <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">actual</em>, not potential. So the moral issue of prenatal justice is actually about what we are <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">stopping </em>by killing prenatal humans. It may be one thing to kill something alive but <em style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">essentially</em> non-sentient, but it is a fundamentally different thing to kill an entity that is actively involved, with the entirety of its corporeality, in the finite and foreseeable process of attaining consciousness and reason. And how do we prove that? In the case of prenatal humans — easily, because they are bound by the developmental rules of our kind.</p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;">NN: OK, but, again, what's our kind? Why think our kind is determined by our species? And why think that being of a kind entails having various other characteristics of that kind?</span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: blue;">General comment: what's proposed here is a very abstract view that I have never seen developed in a satisfactory way. What I think would be very helpful for the world would be if someone were to state this as an argument in "<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=stating+arguments+in+standard+form&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS1045US1045&oq=stating+arguments+in+standard+form&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQIRgWGB0YHjIMCAIQIRgPGBYYHRge0gEINTIxNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">standard form</a>" and carefully explain and justify each premise, since I have never seen that done, and I've been looking for that for quite a while! </span></p><p style="border: 0px rgb(225, 225, 225); box-sizing: border-box; color: #666666; font: inherit; margin: 0.85em 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-4706412878403553102023-10-07T14:10:00.004-04:002023-10-07T14:10:54.332-04:00Some TikTok videos on abortion and ethicsHere are some of my TikTok videos on abortion-related issues. Many of them amount to observing that: <div><br /></div><div>anti-abortion people tend to be unable or unwilling to think about how various important words and cognate words (such as "alive," "life," "living" and "human") have multiple meanings, which result in different arguments for each meaning;</div><div><br /></div><div>pro-choice people often think that a mere appeal to bodily autonomy just "settles" the issue and "proves" their point of view: no, it really doesn't and them getting out of this bubble would be good and useful;</div><div><br /></div><div>anti-abortion extremists tend to think that they have some simple "gotcha" response that shows that there are not good objections to their view and that they have good arguments for their views: no, they don't. </div><div><br /></div><div>So here are some videos on those themes and more.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some of them observe some of the errors with what Monica Snyder of "Secular Pro Life" says; other videos observe the same with Emily Albrecht of the "Equal Rights Institute." </div><div><br /><blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7281634358312570154" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7281634358312570154" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> Are pro-choice people unscientific "science deniers"? No. <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/scientism?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="scientism">#scientism</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/scientismexposed?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="scientismexposed">#scientismexposed</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/logic?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="logic">#logic</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/tribalism?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="tribalism">#tribalism</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7281634422179285802?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script></div>
<blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7281323719744572718" data-video-id="7281323719744572718" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;" > <section> <a target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed">@nathan.nobis</a> "Ambiguity denial": on denying that "alive" and "human" and related terms have multiple meanings, in bioethics, especially in discussions of abortion and end of life cases. <a title="abortion" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed">#abortion</a> <a title="prochoice" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed">#prochoice</a> <a title="prolife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed">#prolife</a> <a title="bioethics" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/bioethics?refer=embed">#bioethics</a> <a title="ethics" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed">#ethics</a> <a title="philosophy" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed">#philosophy</a> <a title="ambiguity" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ambiguity?refer=embed">#ambiguity</a> <a title="listening" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/listening?refer=embed">#listening</a> <a title="communication" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/communication?refer=embed">#communication</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7281323778704280362?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script><br><br><br><br>
More soon!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-12159884318333890602023-08-15T14:07:00.014-04:002024-03-06T09:25:27.730-05:00The "Substance View" of Persons
<div class="xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The view that <a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/persons?__eep__=6&__cft__[0]=AZUh_D_CC9vzG0jDz-iWoRoB6Tam1WfAytJwbKoaVM_4pbhRaNWgHOqf2ZhI9YzJb9IvSOfWTPA49FLkhHGEUSDacDCLiin_MRP15Os681VwgwqgvgCBxDe3yIrKmj9ob9QrY2yWfvfyZ6yH0q1JEbwV&__tn__=*NK-R" role="link" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-color: transparent; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation;" tabindex="0">#persons</a> are "individual substances of a rational nature" -- a so-called "<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=substance+view+of+persons&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS1045US1045&oq=substance+view+of+persons&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i390i650l3j69i60.2855j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">substance view of personhood</a>," often associated with Boethius -- need not be an anti-abortion view. </span></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(This is an abstract view that doesn't get talked about much by "activists" but some of them do mention it.)</span></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is because substances might be mental substances, or mind+body substances, or even "soul"+body substances. </span></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">One needn't think mere bodies are of this "substance." <i><b>And so on need not agree that embryos and beginning fetuses are persons, even on this theory of personhood!</b></i></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This theory can also help respond to "pro-life" reflective advocates of cruelty to animals: if they think that "being a conscious, sentient being that exists over time [that is, doesn't have a mere moment-to-moment existence]" is a poor theory of personhood since it suggests that many animals are persons (and so <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/03/the-animal-rights-domination-and.html" target="_blank">wrong to kill and eat for the fun of it</a>), this theory can explain why newborn human babies are persons but with no implications for animals. </span></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In general, all "metaphysical" sounding anti-abortion claims can be accepted by pro-choice folks, but with different metaphysics, all of which deny that we are our bodies, or that we are identical to our bodies.</span></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You≠body.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">P.S. This can all be stated with "kind" language: <i>what "kind" of beings are we? What "kinds" of beings are rational beings? </i>In denying that a mere body is the relevant "kind" of being, one can propose that we are of the kind "mental substance," or "mind+body substances," or even '"soul"+body' substances. So pro-choice folks can accept and use this type of metaphysical-sounding language too.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">P.P.S. Here's a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article/36/3/261/895026" target="_blank">book review of mine on Francis Beckwith's "substance view" from long ago</a>. </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;">P.P.P.S. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:INQU.0000040032.25806.53" target="_blank">Peter Markie has an article that appeals to this idea</a>, but there's no useful abstract of the article online.
</span></div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/abortion?__eep__=6&__cft__[0]=AZUh_D_CC9vzG0jDz-iWoRoB6Tam1WfAytJwbKoaVM_4pbhRaNWgHOqf2ZhI9YzJb9IvSOfWTPA49FLkhHGEUSDacDCLiin_MRP15Os681VwgwqgvgCBxDe3yIrKmj9ob9QrY2yWfvfyZ6yH0q1JEbwV&__tn__=*NK-R" role="link" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-color: transparent; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation;" tabindex="0">#abortion</a> <a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/prochoice?__eep__=6&__cft__[0]=AZUh_D_CC9vzG0jDz-iWoRoB6Tam1WfAytJwbKoaVM_4pbhRaNWgHOqf2ZhI9YzJb9IvSOfWTPA49FLkhHGEUSDacDCLiin_MRP15Os681VwgwqgvgCBxDe3yIrKmj9ob9QrY2yWfvfyZ6yH0q1JEbwV&__tn__=*NK-R" role="link" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-color: transparent; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation;" tabindex="0">#prochoice</a> <a class="x1i10hfl xjbqb8w x6umtig x1b1mbwd xaqea5y xav7gou x9f619 x1ypdohk xt0psk2 xe8uvvx xdj266r x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r xexx8yu x4uap5 x18d9i69 xkhd6sd x16tdsg8 x1hl2dhg xggy1nq x1a2a7pz xt0b8zv x1qq9wsj xo1l8bm" href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/prolife?__eep__=6&__cft__[0]=AZUh_D_CC9vzG0jDz-iWoRoB6Tam1WfAytJwbKoaVM_4pbhRaNWgHOqf2ZhI9YzJb9IvSOfWTPA49FLkhHGEUSDacDCLiin_MRP15Os681VwgwqgvgCBxDe3yIrKmj9ob9QrY2yWfvfyZ6yH0q1JEbwV&__tn__=*NK-R" role="link" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; background-color: transparent; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation;" tabindex="0">#prolife</a></span></div></div><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></p><blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7266902796933369130" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7266902796933369130" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"><section><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> On the "substance" view of persons & abortion. <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/persons?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="persons">#persons</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/personhood?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="personhood">#personhood</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/metaphysics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="metaphysics">#metaphysics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/bioethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="bioethics">#bioethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7266902832815557422?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a></span> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-16065488220264308582023-07-11T09:28:00.019-04:002023-08-15T14:04:43.162-04:00"When does life end?" can be a religious question: so can "When does life begin?"<p>Here I want to quickly explain (again!) why "When does life <i>begin</i>?" can be a <i>religious</i> question, since it seems like some people don't understand why that is. I suspect too many pro-choice people don't do a good job explaining this, which doesn't help anything. </p><p>The key, or <i>a </i>key, to understanding this is reflecting on the less controversial observation that "When does life <i>end</i>?" <i>can </i>be a religious question. If we see why this is so, we can see how the issues are <i>similar </i>(not identical or exactly the same!) with beginning-of-life issues. </p><p>To begin, here's a little survey I ran the other day:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Do people who say that "life begins at birth" very often say what they mean by "life"?<br /><br />They aren't talking about biology or life in a biological sense, and I wonder how often they clarify that. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/abortion?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#abortion</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/prochoice?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/prolife?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#prolife</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/whenlifebegins?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#whenlifebegins</a></p>— Nathan Nobis . com (@NathanNobis) <a href="https://twitter.com/NathanNobis/status/1676000960424935424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2023</a></blockquote><p>The deal is this: the <i><b>biological </b></i>life of human organisms very clearly and <i>obviously </i>begins very early in pregnancy (and we might even want to say before pregnancy): a <i>biologically alive </i>egg is fertilized by a <i>biologically living </i>sperm, and soon there's a new <i>biologically alive </i>thing. There are some disputes here about when exactly there's a new thing, but all answers agree on this: very early. </p><p>(Some say there isn't a living thing because it's dependent, but that's just foolish: there can be and are <i>living dependent things</i>: they are <i>alive </i>and <i>their being alive </i>is dependent on something or someone else.) </p><p>Now, when anti-abortion people talk about "life" beginning at conception or soon after, they are talking about <i>biological </i>life. And they are correct! <i><b>Biological </b></i>life does begin at conception or soon after!</p><p>When (usually) pro-choice people deny this <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span> when they claim that "life" does not begin at conception <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span> and claim that "life" begins at birth, or that "life" begins when fetuses become conscious <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">— </span>far later in pregnancy <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span> they clearly <i>do not mean biological life</i>. They don't think that a biologically dead thing, or something that's somehow neither biologically dead nor alive, becomes <i>biologically alive</i> halfway or two-thirds of the way through pregnancy or at birth. That's ridiculous. </p><p>Someone would think that's what these pro-choice people think only if (a) they don't bother asking them to clarify what they mean and, if needed, doing a good job helping them clarify what they mean and/or (b) the person saying this just doesn't know how to explain what they mean. And (a) and (b) are common: anti-abortion people <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2022/11/extremism-abortion-extremism-and-losing.html" target="_blank">don't ask</a> (why would they? what's in it for them to be charitable with people they want to "dunk" on?) and many pro-choice people don't successfully tell (as is suggested by the Twitter survey results). </p><p>So pro-choice people agree that biological life begins early. So when they say that "life" begins at birth or far later in pregnancy, they don't mean biological life. </p><p>The "life" they mean can be more readily identified by thinking about "when life ends." </p><p>When does life end? When even does <i>biological </i>life end, for human beings?</p><p>Here it's pretty well-known that there are multiple answers. Here are three:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>when someone's whole body is dead: that's when "life" ends;</li><li>when someone's heart isn't pumping and they aren't breathing: that's when "life ends";</li><li>when someone's brain is dead: that's when "life" ends.</li></ul><div>Now, it's well-known that someone could be brain dead, but the rest of their body is still alive. So "When does life end?" in all cases? Is it the brain? Is it the whole body? Is it something else? </div><div><br /></div><div>Here the answer seems to be that the answer depends on our purposes, or why we are asking the question.</div><div><br /></div><div>If we are asking the question because we want to know what we <i>should </i>do in these cases, <i>ethically</i>, then asking, "What are the person's religious beliefs?" might surely be relevant. Do they have religious <i>or ethical</i> beliefs such that letting their body die (or keeping it alive!) would be problematic, or contrary to their wishes? Do their religious beliefs have any bearing on what should be done here? </div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, of course, and that's why "When does life end?" can be a religious question: it's not a question about biological life and death--it's a question about what <i>matters </i>from ethical or religious points of view--<i>with an emphasis that there are different, and often equally reasonable, ways of answering these questions</i>. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, the same issues come up with beginning-of-life issues. Yes, of course, embryos and beginning fetuses are obviously <i>biologically alive</i>: when, however, do they have the type of "life," or are they "living lives" that have value and our various religious and ethical systems recognize as having value? </div><div><br /></div><div>Anti-abortionists claim that merely being biologically alive is what gives value here. They see this about embryos and beginning fetuses, but forget that they deny this in end-of-life cases: they forget that although a human body may be <i>biologically </i>alive, it may no longer be "alive" or have "a life" that matters morally or religiously anymore, and so that <i>biological </i>life can be ended, either by letting the body die or, potentially, actively killed. </div><div><br /></div><div>The same is true about embryos and beginning fetuses -- they are biologically alive, but are not "alive" or have "a life" that matters morally or religiously, from many legitimate points of view -- and so this is why "when does life begin?" is not just a scientific question, but a religious or ethical one.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is are themes that I've written about in these various places (especially this <i>Salon </i>article, <span face="Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #6b6b6b;"><a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/" target="_blank">When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life": </a></span><span face="Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #6b6b6b;"><a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/" target="_blank">Perhaps surprisingly, the word “alive” has a lot of nuance. A philosopher explains why</a>) </span>and perhaps this new offering will do some more good. Another important brief reading here is this: <span face="var(--headline-font),var(--headline-adjust-font),"times new roman",times,serif" style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;"><a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-19-me-476-story.html" target="_blank">Is ‘brain birth’ the beginning of human life? Or conception? Science can’t draw the line, but only provide more evidence to ponder</a>. People are familiar with "brain death," but are not familiar with "brain birth" and being "brain alive," but these are very helpful concepts!</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Some related posts here:</div><div><br /></div><div><h3 style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; margin: 0px; position: relative;"><span id="life">On "When Life Begins," a common anti-abortion concern; responses to Steve Jacobs:</span></h3><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;">When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life"</a> (at Salon)</li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/02/would-around-70-of-people-deny-that.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;">Would around 70% of people * deny * that "human life begins at conception"?</a></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/12/when-does-life-begin-well-when-does.html" style="color: blue;">"When does life begin? Well, when does life end?"</a></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/10/when-does-life-begin.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;">Does "life" begin at conception? Biological versus "biographical" life</a></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/04/when-does-life-begin-and-are-fetuses.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;">"When does life begin?" and "Are fetuses human?": Two bad 'scientific' questions to ask about abortion</a></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/02/responding-to-steve-jacobs-at-secular.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;">Responding to Steve Jacobs at "Secular Pro-Life"</a></li></ul></div></div><div><br /></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN5zDhUeKGq56upZCdyaXQwPvokWBDa5V8DWAlUe3M6lvD9pdbVlQUquWEBhG9InlSm8zke5O9ZKVNYRUY5erfx1rINgrqLNMN9tI9lJFVLbS6eK4WOJmLOBRBDDL84Vqp0CtlfGJRkKwBDY4ivZO-x3qIrLzZC6E8F45-mQxsdBUxuTggS34tpoyOoLOr/s1200/LIFE_magazine_logo.svg.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN5zDhUeKGq56upZCdyaXQwPvokWBDa5V8DWAlUe3M6lvD9pdbVlQUquWEBhG9InlSm8zke5O9ZKVNYRUY5erfx1rINgrqLNMN9tI9lJFVLbS6eK4WOJmLOBRBDDL84Vqp0CtlfGJRkKwBDY4ivZO-x3qIrLzZC6E8F45-mQxsdBUxuTggS34tpoyOoLOr/w400-h225/LIFE_magazine_logo.svg.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #6b6b6b; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.42; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><p></p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<blockquote class="tiktok-embed" cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7267159974474714414" data-video-id="7267159974474714414" style="max-width: 605px;min-width: 325px;" > <section> <a target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed">@nathan.nobis</a> When does "life" begin & end? it depends on what you mean by "life"! <a title="abortion" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed">#abortion</a> <a title="prochoice" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed">#prochoice</a> <a title="prolife" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed">#prolife</a> <a title="abortionrights" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortionrights?refer=embed">#abortionrights</a> <a title="ethics" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed">#ethics</a> <a title="philosophy" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed">#philosophy</a> <a title="philosophytiktok" target="_blank" href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophytiktok?refer=embed">#philosophytiktok</a> <a target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis" href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7267160100929030958?refer=embed">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-84013286639383363292023-06-17T10:10:00.003-04:002023-06-17T10:10:13.031-04:00Following All The Facts About Abortion—Scientific, Ethical, And Logical—Wherever They Lead<p> <span style="font-family: inherit;"> New at the</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">American Journal of Bioethics </i><span style="font-family: inherit;">blog!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><span data-offset-key="963vv-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-text="true">“<a href="https://bioethicstoday.org/blog/following-all-the-facts-about-abortion-scientific-ethical-and-logical-wherever-they-lead/?fbclid=IwAR0qBIp_KZlDaRUk-pVxH4bOMh9ojQpX6sI00Tbr7V9weYdWR9gqJat0EPA" target="_blank">Following All The Facts About Abortion—Scientific, Ethical, And Logical—Wherever They Lead</a>,” a response to </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-offset-key="963vv-1-0">@CCamosy</span></span><span data-offset-key="963vv-2-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-text="true"> in </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-offset-key="963vv-3-0">@RNS</span></span><span data-offset-key="963vv-4-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-text="true"> (“Faith, science and the abortion debate”) and </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-offset-key="963vv-5-0">@americamag</span></span><span data-offset-key="963vv-6-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-text="true"> (“it’s the pro-lifers who have science on their side”) </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-offset-key="963vv-7-0">#abortion</span></span><span data-offset-key="963vv-8-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-text="true"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-offset-key="963vv-9-0">#prochoice</span></span><span data-offset-key="963vv-10-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-text="true"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-offset-key="963vv-11-0">#prolife</span></span><span data-offset-key="963vv-12-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-text="true"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-offset-key="963vv-13-0">#ethics</span></span><span data-offset-key="963vv-14-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-23678035034311555872023-06-01T17:20:00.006-04:002024-02-27T13:23:18.139-05:00Dehumanization and Abortion: Why The Concept Doesn't Fit<p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> <span data-offset-key="dd1tu-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space: pre-wrap;">Many anti- </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space: pre-wrap;">#abortion</span><span data-offset-key="dd1tu-2-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (" </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space: pre-wrap;">#prolife</span><span data-offset-key="dd1tu-4-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space: pre-wrap;">") people claim that (biologically human!) embryos and fetuses can be "</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d9bf0; white-space: pre-wrap;">#dehumanized</span><span data-offset-key="dd1tu-6-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space: pre-wrap;">." They should search here on Amazon, and this author's earlier book on dehumanization, for the term "abortion" and review the explanation for why that term usually doesn't apply:
<a href="https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/abortion-and-dehumanization" target="_blank">https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/abortion-and-dehumanization
</a></span></span></p><div data-block="true" data-editor="3sn10" data-offset-key="ettb9-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="ettb9-0-0" style="direction: ltr; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-top: 2px; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="ettb9-0-0"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="panel-pane pane-node-title blog-post-title col-md-9" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1c1c1c; float: left; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 30px; letter-spacing: 1px; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px; margin-top: -10px; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase; white-space-collapse: collapse; width: 720.062px;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><br /></div><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">ABORTION AND DEHUMANIZATION</div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-block pane-flippy-flippy-pager-node-type-blog prevnext col-md-3 pane-flippy" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1c1c1c; float: right; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px -15px; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; right: 0px; white-space-collapse: collapse; width: 180px; z-index: 999;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul class="pager" style="border-top: 0px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-sizing: border-box; list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: center;"><li class="prev" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding-right: 10px;"><a href="https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/ethicists-and-jerks" style="background: 0px 0px rgb(44, 62, 80); border-radius: 2px; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: white; display: inline-block; float: left; font-size: 11px; outline: none; padding: 4px 6px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: background-color 0.2s cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.46, 0.45, 0.94) 0s, color 0s ease 0s; width: 70px;" title="‹ Previous">‹ Previous</a></li><li class="next" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;"><a href="https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/discriminating-streets" style="background: 0px 0px rgb(44, 62, 80); border-radius: 2px; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: white; display: inline-block; float: right; font-size: 11px; outline: none; padding: 4px 6px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: background-color 0.2s cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.46, 0.45, 0.94) 0s, color 0s ease 0s; width: 70px;" title="Next ›">Next ›</a></li></ul></div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-custom pane-1 col-md-12" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1c1c1c; float: left; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; white-space-collapse: collapse; width: 960.094px;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://www.philosophytalk.org/author/david-livingstone-smith" style="background: 0px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #2c3e50; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; transition: background-color 0.2s cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.46, 0.45, 0.94) 0s, color 0s ease 0s;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">David Livingstone Smith</span></a></div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-custom pane-2 col-md-5 col-xs-6 fbblogwidget" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1c1c1c; float: left; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; white-space-collapse: collapse; width: 400.031px;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="24" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/v2.0/plugins/like.php?href=https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/abortion-and-dehumanization&width=119&layout=button_count&action=like&size=small&show_faces=false&share=true&height=46&appId=153660188055715" style="border-style: none; border-width: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 10px 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 370.031px;" width="119"></iframe></p></div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-node-created text-right col-md-7 col-xs-6 dateblog" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1c1c1c; float: right; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; text-align: right; white-space-collapse: collapse; width: 560.047px;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">04 August 2020</div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-entity-field pane-node-field-image blog-image" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1c1c1c; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space-collapse: collapse;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><img height="400" src="https://www.philosophytalk.org/sites/default/files/styles/large_blog__900x400_/public/maria-oswalt-t6wnUBcjT7Q-unsplash.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; margin: 0px 0px 1em; max-width: inherit; outline: 0px; vertical-align: middle; width: 960.094px;" typeof="foaf:Image" width="900" /></div></div></div></div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-node-body" style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(211, 215, 217); box-sizing: border-box; color: #1c1c1c; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; padding-bottom: 15px; white-space-collapse: collapse;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">From time to time, pro-life advocates argue that those who take a pro-choice position routinely dehumanize the unborn, paving the way for murder-by-abortion. Every so often, </span><a href="https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk02fCGQy39k6oFvs04qyYWavAxBEnA:1596485594933&q=david+livingstone+smith+books&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLVT9c3NEyrMktON8pOUkLlakllJ1vpJ-XnZ-snlpZk5BdZgdjFCvl5OZWLWGVTEssyUxRyMssy89KLS_LzUhWKczNLMhTAinawMgIAvbWYwl8AAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6h5mm7P_qAhUFOH0KHeYCCaMQMSgAMBF6BAgQEAE&biw=1440&bih=798" style="background: 0px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #6178a9; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; transition: background-color 0.2s cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.46, 0.45, 0.94) 0s, color 0s ease 0s;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #1155cc; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">my own work</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> on dehumanization is appropriated to make such arguments. In this essay and the next I want to show why these arguments don’t hold water.</span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Let’s begin with a dehumanization claim, as summed up in a comment by the journalist Kathleen Parker in an </span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-understand-what-a-weird-wicked-world-we-live-in-look-at-these-abortion-laws/2019/02/01/9df9da40-2669-11e9-81fd-b7b05d5bed90_story.html" style="background: 0px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #6178a9; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; transition: background-color 0.2s cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.46, 0.45, 0.94) 0s, color 0s ease 0s;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0563c1; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">op-ed</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> for </span><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">The</span><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Washington Post</span><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, “</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">When we use language to disguise reality — whether the developing human baby is a ‘clump of cells, a ‘fetus,’ or, even, a ‘product of termination’ — we move ever-closer to the dehumanization of us all.” </span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Although Parker’s claim is about the special case of late-term abortion, her comment concerns the developing, unborn human being at any stage. Thinking of the living thing within the maternal womb as anything other than a developing human baby falsifies reality and thereby facilitates the mass murder of innocent human beings.</span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">It's important to notice right off that Parker assumes something that is at stake in the disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, namely the question that the living thing growing inside of the womb is a human baby. I’ll set this issue aside for the moment (I’ll return to it in next month’s installment), and concentrate on a different one: the question of whether those who think of the unborn as a clump of cells, fetus, or product of termination thereby commit an act of dehumanization.</span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Here, a complication arises, because “dehumanization” does not have a single, straightforward meaning. There’s disagreement among researchers about exactly what dehumanization is. In this essay, I’m mainly concerned with the conception of dehumanization that I’ve set out in my writings on the subject. In my view </span><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">to dehumanize others is to think of them as subhuman creatures. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Dehumanizing groups of people in this way facilitates acts of lethal violence against them. It’s a regular feature of genocide and other mass atrocities. So, from the pro-life perspective, if people dehumanize developing human babies, they thereby foster acts of violence against them. Just as Nazis dehumanized Jews, and Hutus dehumanized Tutsis, those who conceive of the unborn as anything other than human babies are accessories to mass murder. </span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Consider an </span><a href="https://abort73.com/blog/is_dehumanization_always_intrinsically_unjust/" style="background: 0px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #6178a9; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; transition: background-color 0.2s cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.46, 0.45, 0.94) 0s, color 0s ease 0s;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0563c1; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">article</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> titled “Is dehumanization always and intrinsically unjust?” In it, the author, Michael Spielman, describes having written to me with the following series of questions:</span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><blockquote style="border-left: 5px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 17.5px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 10px 20px;"><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Socially speaking, have you ever encountered a scenario in which you found "subhuman" to be a legitimate classification? Your book is saturated with examples of human beings who have been erroneously categorized as "less than human," for all sorts of despotic ends. But did you ever come across a case of dehumanization that you found to be morally defensible? If not, would it be fair to say that any effort to dehumanize a group of human beings is always and intrinsically unjust?</span></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">The title of Spielman’s essay doesn’t match its content, which doesn’t address the question of whether dehumanization is always intrinsically unjust. Rather, it takes for granted that dehumanization is intrinsically unjust, and then goes on to say that “</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">abortion is ground zero in the contemporary intersect between public policy and dehumanization.” </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><blockquote style="border-left: 5px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 17.5px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 10px 20px;"><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Can you think of any other institution that is propped up on the explicit dehumanization of its victims? Though racism remains a massive global problem, nobody argues in public that immigrants, refugees, or ethnic minorities are less than fully human—and yet this is exactly the argument that's being made in the context of abortion.</span></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Let’s consider these first two steps. The first premise—that dehumanization is inherently unjust—seems reasonable enough. Its in the second premise—that proponents of abortion dehumanize unborn children in exactly the same way that immigrants, refugees, and ethnic minorities are dehumanized—that problems emerge. To see why, glance back at my definition of what dehumanization is. None of the terms listed by Parker, or commonly used by those in the pro-choice camp, describe the unborn as subhuman animals. Furthermore, in real cases of dehumanization of the sort that leads to mass murder, the dehumanized group is thought of as dangerous and unclean—as creatures akin to rats, cockroaches, or monsters and demons. This is very far removed from talk about an embryo a fetus, or a clump of cells. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Other difficulties abound. As I explain in detail in my recent book </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/On_Inhumanity.html?id=z5TgDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description" style="background: 0px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #6178a9; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; transition: background-color 0.2s cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.46, 0.45, 0.94) 0s, color 0s ease 0s;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #1155cc; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">On Inhumanity: Dehumanization and How to Resist It</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, dehumanization is essentially bound up with race. Before they are dehumanized, groups of people are racialized. They are imagined to belong to an alien and inferior race. Dehumanization is racism on steroids. And dehumanizers think that like race, subhumanity is transmitted biologically by descent: if an individual is subhuman, it must be the case that at least one of their parents is subhuman too. </span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Neither of these criteria apply in the abortion case. Pro-choice advocates to not suppose that there is a race of fetuses, or that their mothers and fathers are subhuman creatures. Finally, to top it off, those who dehumanize others hold that subhumans cannot transform into humans by any natural means. Subhumanity is a life sentence. But even the most ardent pro-abortion people fully accept that fertilized ova naturally develop into human babies.</span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">So, the claim that supporters of abortion dehumanize unborn babies is badly flawed. This is also true for other mainstream theories of dehumanization, for somewhat different reasons. But there is a response available to the enemy of abortion. She might concede that dehumanization is irrelevant to the moral controversy around abortion, but also claim that denying the humanity of the unborn is something very much like dehumanization. She might add that such denials of humanity are both false and profoundly reprehensible, and that objecting on the grounds that this is not dehumanization gives exaggerated weight to mere theoretical technicalities. </span></span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212020; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0pt 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-80d43ebc-7fff-3ff2-fc8b-c785b5db832c" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">To evaluate this defense, we’ve got to dig deeply into the concept of the human. That will be the topic of next month’s installment.</span></span></span></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="ettb9-0-0" style="direction: ltr; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-top: 2px; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="ettb9-0-0"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="3sn10" data-offset-key="2dai4-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="2dai4-0-0" style="direction: ltr; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-top: 2px; position: relative;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d9bf0;">#prochoice</span><span data-offset-key="2dai4-1-0"> </span><span style="color: #1d9bf0;">#dehumanization</span><span data-offset-key="2dai4-3-0"> </span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="2dai4-0-0" style="direction: ltr; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-top: 2px; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="2dai4-3-0"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="2dai4-0-0" style="direction: ltr; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-top: 2px; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="2dai4-3-0"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="celwidget" data-csa-c-asin="0674545567" data-csa-c-content-id="titleblock" data-csa-c-id="apeih3-wqi00v-rcvtzx-9m7ywd" data-csa-c-is-in-initial-active-row="false" data-csa-c-slot-id="titleblock_feature_div" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-feature-name="titleblock" id="titleblock_feature_div" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111; white-space: normal;"><div class="a-section a-spacing-none" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 22px;"><h1 class="a-spacing-none a-text-normal" id="title" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 36px; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><span class="a-size-extra-large" id="productTitle" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 36px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><i>Making Monsters: </i></span></h1><h1 class="a-spacing-none a-text-normal" id="title" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 36px; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><span class="a-size-extra-large" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 36px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><i>The Uncanny Power of Dehumanization </i></span></h1></div><span class="edp-feature-declaration" data-custom-event-handler="productTitleEDPCustomEventHandler" data-data-hash="4070562796" data-defects="[{"id":"defect-mismatch-info","value":"Different from product"},{"id":"defect-missing-information","value":"Missing information"},{"id":"defect-unessential-info","value":"Unimportant information"},{"id":"defect-incorrect-information","value":"Incorrect information"},{"id":"defect-other-productinfo-issue","value":"Other"}]" data-display-name="Product Name" data-edit-data-state="productTitleEDPEditData" data-edp-asin="0674545567" data-edp-feature-name="title" data-feature-container-id="title" data-metadata="CATALOG" data-position="1" data-resolver="CQResolver" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></div><div class="celwidget" data-csa-c-asin="0674545567" data-csa-c-content-id="bylineInfo" data-csa-c-id="6b3yjx-8gha5p-ga25qy-i98bw5" data-csa-c-is-in-initial-active-row="false" data-csa-c-slot-id="bylineInfo_feature_div" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-feature-name="bylineInfo" id="bylineInfo_feature_div" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111; white-space: normal;"><div class="a-section a-spacing-micro bylineHidden feature" id="bylineInfo" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px;">by <span class="author notFaded" data-width="" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="a-link-normal" href="https://www.amazon.com/David-Livingstone-Smith/e/B001IODPY0/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #007185; text-decoration-line: none;">David Livingstone Smith</a> <span class="contribution" spacing="none" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="a-color-secondary" color="rgb(86, 89, 89) !important" style="box-sizing: border-box;">(Author)</span></span></span></div><div class="a-section a-spacing-micro bylineHidden feature" id="bylineInfo" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span class="author notFaded" data-width="" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="contribution" spacing="none" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="a-color-secondary" color="rgb(86, 89, 89) !important" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><br /></span></span></span></div><div class="a-section a-spacing-micro bylineHidden feature" id="bylineInfo" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span class="author notFaded" data-width="" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="contribution" spacing="none" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="a-color-secondary" color="rgb(86, 89, 89) !important" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="a-text-bold" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111; font-weight: 700;">A leading scholar explores what it means to dehumanize others―and how and why we do it.</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />“I wouldn’t have accepted that they were human beings. You would see an infant who’s just learning to smile, and it smiles at you, but you still kill it.” So a Hutu man explained to an incredulous researcher, when asked to recall how he felt slaughtering Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. Such statements are shocking, yet we recognize them; we hear their echoes in accounts of genocides, massacres, and pogroms throughout history. How do some people come to believe that their enemies are monsters, and therefore easy to kill?<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />In </span><span class="a-text-italic" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111; font-style: italic;">Making Monsters</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;"> David Livingstone Smith offers a poignant meditation on the philosophical and psychological roots of dehumanization. Drawing on harrowing accounts of lynchings, Smith establishes what dehumanization is and what it isn’t. When we dehumanize our enemy, we hold two incongruous beliefs at the same time: we believe our enemy is at once subhuman and fully human. To call someone a monster, then, is not merely a resort to metaphor―dehumanization really does happen in our minds. Turning to an abundance of historical examples, Smith explores the relationship between dehumanization and racism, the psychology of hierarchy, what it means to regard others as human beings, and why dehumanizing others transforms them into something so terrifying that they must be destroyed.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Meticulous but highly readable, </span><span class="a-text-italic" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111; font-style: italic;">Making Monsters</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111;"> suggests that the process of dehumanization is deeply seated in our psychology. It is precisely because we are all human that we are vulnerable to the manipulations of those trading in the politics of demonization and violence.</span></span></span></span></div></div></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="3sn10" data-offset-key="gqor-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="gqor-0-0" style="direction: ltr; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-top: 2px; position: relative;"><span data-offset-key="gqor-0-0"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></span></div></div><div data-block="true" data-editor="3sn10" data-offset-key="160ep-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="160ep-0-0" style="direction: ltr; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-top: 2px; position: relative;"><span style="color: #1d9bf0;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">https://www.amazon.com/Making-Monsters-Uncanny-Power-Dehumanization/dp/0674545567/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
</span></span></div><div class="public-DraftStyleDefault-block public-DraftStyleDefault-ltr" data-offset-key="160ep-0-0" style="direction: ltr; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-top: 2px; position: relative;"><div id="leftCol" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #0f1111; float: left; margin-right: 20px; white-space: normal; width: 260px;"><div class="celwidget" data-csa-c-asin="0674545567" data-csa-c-content-id="booksImageBlock" data-csa-c-id="lbtfpw-8lwrg6-7xnfxf-qzywqh" data-csa-c-is-in-initial-active-row="false" data-csa-c-slot-id="booksImageBlock_feature_div" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-feature-name="booksImageBlock" id="booksImageBlock_feature_div" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="a-row" id="imageBlockOuter" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 260px;"><div class="a-row" id="imageBlock" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: 405.667px; margin: 10px 0px; width: 260px;"><div class="a-row a-grid-vertical-align a-grid-center" id="imageBlockContainer" style="border-collapse: collapse; box-sizing: border-box; display: table; height: 355.5px; table-layout: fixed; width: 260px; zoom: 1;"><div class="a-column a-span12 a-text-center maintain-height a-span-last" id="main-image-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: none; height: 365px; margin-right: 0px; min-height: 1px; overflow: visible; padding-right: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; width: 260px; zoom: 1;"><div class="maintain-height" id="img-wrapper" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: table; height: 365px; position: relative; width: 260px;"><div class="maintain-height image-2d" id="img-canvas" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: table-cell; height: 346.667px; vertical-align: middle; width: 260px;"><div class="a-section litb-on-click" id="litb-canvas" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(34, 34, 34); box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; margin: 0px auto; max-height: 365.667px; max-width: 230px;"><div id="sitbLogo" style="background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; float: right; height: 19px; position: relative; text-align: left; width: 99px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img id="sitbLogoImg" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/01/digital/sitb/sticker/sitb-sticker-v3-small._CB485933792_.png" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 100%; vertical-align: top;" /></span></div></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="" class="a-dynamic-image image-stretch-vertical frontImage" data-a-dynamic-image="{"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51vowkCzocL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg":[331,499],"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51vowkCzocL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg":[230,346]}" id="imgBlkFront" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51vowkCzocL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" style="border-radius: 3px; border: none; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 5px 1px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 346px; left: 0px; max-height: 346px; max-width: 230px; position: relative; top: 0px; vertical-align: top; width: auto;" /></span></div></div></div></div><div class="a-row" id="flipAndSampleAudio" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 15px; min-height: 25px; width: 260px;"><div class="a-column a-span6 a-text-center sampleBookAudio a-span-last a-span12" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: right; margin-right: 0px; min-height: 1px; overflow: visible; text-align: center; width: 260px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="audioText" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; text-align: left; width: 90px;"><span class="audioListenText" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="sampleAudioListen udpSprite" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: -69px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: initial; background: url("https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/01/common/sprites/udp-sprite-dp-2._CB485921526_.png") -69px 0px no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 17px; vertical-align: middle; width: 23px;"></span> <span class="sampleAudioText a-color-link" color="rgb(0, 113, 133) !important" style="box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: middle;">Listen</span></span></span> <span class="audioPopoverTrigger a-declarative" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: 1px; line-height: 1px; width: 1px;"> </span></span></div></div></div><div class="a-row a-spacing-mini a-spacing-top-micro" id="imageBlockThumbs" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 4px; width: 260px;"><span class="a-declarative" data-a-modal="{"name":"imageGallery","header":"Images (1)","popoverLabel":"See all images","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"imgGalleryContent\" class=\"a-row\"> \u003cdiv class=\"a-column a-span8 a-text-center ig-main-image\"> \u003cdiv class=\"img-wrapper maintain-height\">\n \u003cdiv id=\"igInner\" class=\"maintain-height zoomed-out\" style=\"height:200px;\">\n \u003cimg id=\"igImage\">\n \u003cdiv class=\"a-popover-loading-wrapper a-text-center loading-bar\">\n \u003cdiv class=\"a-box a-color-base-background a-popover-loading\">\u003c\/div>\n \u003c\/div>\n \u003c\/div>\n \u003c\/div>\n \u003c\/div> \u003cdiv class=\"a-column a-span4 ig-thumbs a-span-last\"> \u003c\/div> \u003c\/div> \u003cscript type=\"text/javascript\">\nP.register(\"ImageGalleryMarkup\");\n\u003c\/script>"}" data-action="a-modal" data-csa-c-func-deps="aui-da-a-modal" data-csa-c-id="k20z9z-w3ucqa-ei0540-k8m4f5" data-csa-c-type="widget" id="imgThumbs" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="a-column a-span3 a-spacing-micro imageThumb thumb" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 40px; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-right: 5.2px; max-width: 75px; min-height: 1px; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; width: 60.9625px;"><img src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51vowkCzocL._AC_SX60_CR,0,0,60,60_.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 60px; vertical-align: top;" /></div><span class="thumb-text thumb" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: block; float: left; width: 260px;"><a class="a-link-normal" href="https://www.amazon.com/Making-Monsters-Uncanny-Power-Dehumanization/dp/0674545567/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=#" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #007185; text-decoration-line: none;">See this image</a></span></span></span></div><div class="collections-collect-button" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></div></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="edp-feature-declaration" data-custom-event-handler="imageBlockEDPCustomEventHandler" data-data-hash="" data-defects="[{"id":"defect-different-product","value":"Doesn\u2019t match product"},{"id":"defect-image-offensive","value":"Offensive or adult content"},{"id":"defect-image-extra-items","value":"Shows additional items"},{"id":"defect-image-not-clear","value":"Is not clear"},{"id":"defect-other-image-issue","value":"Other"}]" data-display-name="Images" data-edit-data-state="booksImageBlockEDPEditData" data-edp-asin="0674545567" data-edp-feature-name="imageBlock" data-feature-container-id="imageBlockEDPOverlay" data-metadata="IMAGE" data-position="0" data-resolver="CQResolver" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></span></div><div class="celwidget" data-csa-c-asin="0674545567" data-csa-c-content-id="followTheAuthor" data-csa-c-id="3c45jw-as5zfb-8j0i20-23f729" data-csa-c-is-in-initial-active-row="false" data-csa-c-slot-id="followTheAuthor_feature_div" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-feature-name="followTheAuthor" id="followTheAuthor_feature_div" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div cel_widget_id="follow-the-author-card_DetailPage_2" class="celwidget c-f" data-csa-c-content-id="DsUnknown" data-csa-c-id="lw7wpb-n50xql-ten312-lb49ar" data-csa-c-painter="follow-the-author-card-cards" data-csa-c-slot-id="DsUnknown-3" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-csa-op-log-render="" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div data-acp-tracking="{}" data-card-metrics-id="follow-the-author-card_DetailPage_2" data-mix-claimed="true" id="CardInstance3bKZQIXOp5Z5gdsuMU90MA" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><hr aria-hidden="true" class="a-divider-normal" style="background-color: transparent; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-color: rgb(187, 191, 191); border-top-style: solid; box-sizing: border-box; height: 1px; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 14px; margin-top: 0px;" /><h1 class="a-size-base a-spacing-small _follow-the-author-card_style_followHeading__24x1H a-text-bold" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 8px !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Follow the Author</span></h1><div class="a-row a-spacing-small a-spacing-top-medium" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-top: 16px; width: 260px;"><div class="a-column a-span3" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 5.2px; min-height: 1px; overflow: visible; width: 60.9625px;"><div class="a-section _follow-the-author-card_style_smallAuthorImageContainer__cdmft" style="border-radius: 50%; box-sizing: border-box; height: 50px; margin-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; width: 50px;"><a class="a-link-normal a-text-normal" href="https://www.amazon.com/David-Livingstone-Smith/e/B001IODPY0/ref=aufs_dp_fta_dsk" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #007185; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="" class="_follow-the-author-card_style_smallAuthorImage__2LpDT" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/S/amzn-author-media-prod/km88lofj4u3mq7f90a3hl2irg8._SY600_.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 100%; min-height: 50px; min-width: 50px; object-fit: cover; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: top;" /></span></a></div></div><div class="a-column a-span4 _follow-the-author-card_style_authorNameColumn__1YFry" style="-webkit-box-align: center; align-items: center; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; float: left; height: 50px; hyphens: auto; margin-right: 5.2px; min-height: 1px; overflow: visible; width: 83.0625px; word-break: break-word;"><a class="a-size-base a-link-normal a-text-normal" href="https://www.amazon.com/David-Livingstone-Smith/e/B001IODPY0/ref=aufs_dp_fta_dsk" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #007185; line-height: 20px; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">David Livingstone Smith</span></a></div><div class="a-column a-span5 followButtonColumn a-span-last" data-authorasin="B001IODPY0" data-reftag="aufs_dp_fta_dsk" data-synced="true" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: right; margin-right: 0px; min-height: 1px; overflow: visible; width: 105.162px;"><span class="a-button a-spacing-micro a-spacing-top-small a-button-base a-button-width-normal _follow-the-author-card_style_follow__1xvCF" id="a-autoid-2" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-color: rgb(213, 217, 217); border-radius: 8px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; box-shadow: rgba(213, 217, 217, 0.5) 0px 2px 5px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; left: 6px; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-top: 8px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; width: 100px;"><span class="a-button-inner" style="background: 0px 0px; border-radius: 7px; box-shadow: none; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; height: 29px; overflow: hidden; position: relative;"><button class="a-button-text a-text-center a-declarative a-declarative author-follow-button" data-a-tooltip="{"position":"triggerTop","content":"Get new release updates & improved recommendations","allowLinkDefault": true}" data-action="a-tooltip" data-authorasin="B001IODPY0" data-csa-c-func-deps="aui-da-a-tooltip" data-csa-c-id="9zzqnn-7cplw2-goq86y-a1w8hz" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-csa-interaction-events="click" data-followingtext="Following" data-followref="aufs_dp_fta_fa_dsk" data-followtext="Follow" data-isfollowing="true" data-similarauthorspopovercontentname="similarAuthorsPopoverContent_0" data-similarauthorspopoverid="similarAuthorsPopover_0" data-unfollowref="aufs_dp_fta_ufa_dsk" id="a-autoid-2-announce" style="appearance: button; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; color: #0f1111; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 29px; line-height: 29px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 11px; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; width: 98.4px;" title="Get new release updates & improved recommendations" type="button"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Following</span></button><button class="a-button-text a-text-center a-declarative a-declarative author-follow-button" data-a-tooltip="{"position":"triggerTop","content":"Get new release updates & improved recommendations","allowLinkDefault": true}" data-action="a-tooltip" data-authorasin="B001IODPY0" data-csa-c-func-deps="aui-da-a-tooltip" data-csa-c-id="9zzqnn-7cplw2-goq86y-a1w8hz" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-csa-interaction-events="click" data-followingtext="Following" data-followref="aufs_dp_fta_fa_dsk" data-followtext="Follow" data-isfollowing="true" data-similarauthorspopovercontentname="similarAuthorsPopoverContent_0" data-similarauthorspopoverid="similarAuthorsPopover_0" data-unfollowref="aufs_dp_fta_ufa_dsk" id="a-autoid-2-announce" style="appearance: button; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; color: #0f1111; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 29px; line-height: 29px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 11px; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; width: 98.4px;" title="Get new release updates & improved recommendations" type="button"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></button><button class="a-button-text a-text-center a-declarative a-declarative author-follow-button" data-a-tooltip="{"position":"triggerTop","content":"Get new release updates & improved recommendations","allowLinkDefault": true}" data-action="a-tooltip" data-authorasin="B001IODPY0" data-csa-c-func-deps="aui-da-a-tooltip" data-csa-c-id="9zzqnn-7cplw2-goq86y-a1w8hz" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-csa-interaction-events="click" data-followingtext="Following" data-followref="aufs_dp_fta_fa_dsk" data-followtext="Follow" data-isfollowing="true" data-similarauthorspopovercontentname="similarAuthorsPopoverContent_0" data-similarauthorspopoverid="similarAuthorsPopover_0" data-unfollowref="aufs_dp_fta_ufa_dsk" id="a-autoid-2-announce" style="appearance: button; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; color: #0f1111; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 29px; line-height: 29px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 11px; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; width: 98.4px;" title="Get new release updates & improved recommendations" type="button"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></button><button class="a-button-text a-text-center a-declarative a-declarative author-follow-button" data-a-tooltip="{"position":"triggerTop","content":"Get new release updates & improved recommendations","allowLinkDefault": true}" data-action="a-tooltip" data-authorasin="B001IODPY0" data-csa-c-func-deps="aui-da-a-tooltip" data-csa-c-id="9zzqnn-7cplw2-goq86y-a1w8hz" data-csa-c-type="widget" data-csa-interaction-events="click" data-followingtext="Following" data-followref="aufs_dp_fta_fa_dsk" data-followtext="Follow" data-isfollowing="true" data-similarauthorspopovercontentname="similarAuthorsPopoverContent_0" data-similarauthorspopoverid="similarAuthorsPopover_0" data-unfollowref="aufs_dp_fta_ufa_dsk" id="a-autoid-2-announce" style="appearance: button; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; color: #0f1111; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 29px; line-height: 29px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 11px; vertical-align: middle; white-space: nowrap; width: 98.4px;" title="Get new release updates & improved recommendations" type="button"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></button></span></span></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF5f8C6iEmQu4LyRaSMiY8cA-hrn_JiJBZz_-08Bto8SRQZtCvpA5IT7aemcEXI2TEOCK_ZgVHC2shtw3vsqLtyk9Jhh68WX61SWDW6rhaHgVsZBx5tmKgDi7sPZRz53LbsfFSE9fRdTmdwxrxb-_aSfQBNljPnEUtBMWtS-9btwWmgBTdn9dcVjPJFA/s1806/dehumanization.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="916" data-original-width="1806" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF5f8C6iEmQu4LyRaSMiY8cA-hrn_JiJBZz_-08Bto8SRQZtCvpA5IT7aemcEXI2TEOCK_ZgVHC2shtw3vsqLtyk9Jhh68WX61SWDW6rhaHgVsZBx5tmKgDi7sPZRz53LbsfFSE9fRdTmdwxrxb-_aSfQBNljPnEUtBMWtS-9btwWmgBTdn9dcVjPJFA/w400-h203/dehumanization.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-85503545924332970532023-04-08T13:57:00.001-04:002023-04-08T13:57:02.492-04:00Penser l’avortement<p><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 22px;"><b>Penser l’avortement<br /><br />#</b></i><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 22px;"><b>avortement</b></i></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Thinking Critically About Abortion, in French!</span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Available from <a href="https://eliotteditions.fr/16-penser-lavortement/" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">the publisher </a><span style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://eliotteditions.fr/16-penser-lavortement/" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">ÉLIOTT ÉDITIONS</a> </span>and from <a href="https://www.amazon.fr/dp/2493117190?ref_=cm_sw_r_apan_dp_ZJFY8C219D2YHSFWXXYF&fbclid=IwAR2qt3X3cnl20nRZvElX9RGQw_7e5U4wbqweXROg9wVSu-Bw928z5Fw1zug" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Amazon France</a>!</span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is not yet available in an open-access format, but this should happen eventually. Check back!</span></p><p style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"></p><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRxPJsgtXo0Bm5L5bG1vp7iKjIBMf8TrJVZEl47u9qTGbNHe9OHneqp5vHZYWk6uJzcZR4yMJOTGNn7RYtBuSgNziDK7IrwYyJ6AF2xEUCKJj8X31bd4At49H7_HizatLKBy020TUSz9JcWJPhq4zl4yTDg2aP2-qcUt67oBl4Say8nUmVKw/s640/1e-de-Couverture-Penser-lavortement.jpeg" style="color: blue; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration-line: none;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="427" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRxPJsgtXo0Bm5L5bG1vp7iKjIBMf8TrJVZEl47u9qTGbNHe9OHneqp5vHZYWk6uJzcZR4yMJOTGNn7RYtBuSgNziDK7IrwYyJ6AF2xEUCKJj8X31bd4At49H7_HizatLKBy020TUSz9JcWJPhq4zl4yTDg2aP2-qcUt67oBl4Say8nUmVKw/s16000/1e-de-Couverture-Penser-lavortement.jpeg" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 1px solid rgb(237, 237, 237); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" /></a></div><br style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;" /><span face="Lexend, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #606060; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">AVRIL 2023</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><span face="Lexend, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #606060; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">10 € – 96 PAGES </span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><span face="Lexend, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #606060; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">ISBN : 978-2-493117-19-9</span><br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" /><span face="Lexend, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #606060; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">13 x 19,5 cm</span><p style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"></p><div class="elementor-element elementor-element-6d4768a elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-element_type="widget" data-id="6d4768a" data-widget_type="text-editor.default" style="--align-content: initial; --align-items: initial; --align-self: initial; --flex-basis: initial; --flex-direction: initial; --flex-grow: initial; --flex-shrink: initial; --flex-wrap: initial; --gap: initial; --justify-content: initial; --order: initial; --swiper-navigation-size: 44px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-horizontal-gap: 6px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-size: 6px; --swiper-theme-color: #000; align-content: var(--align-content); align-items: var(--align-items); align-self: var(--align-self); background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; flex-basis: var(--flex-basis); flex-direction: var(--flex-direction); flex-grow: var(--flex-grow); flex-shrink: var(--flex-shrink); flex-wrap: var(--flex-wrap); font-family: Abel, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 30px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; gap: var(--gap); justify-content: var(--justify-content); line-height: 0.1em; margin: 0px 0px 20px; order: var(--order); outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; width: 500px;"><div class="elementor-widget-container" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 25px 0px 0px; transition: background 0.3s,border 0.3s,border-radius 0.3s,box-shadow 0.3s,transform var(--e-transform-transition-duration,0.4s); vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Nathan Nobis & Kristina Grob</span></p></div></div></div><div class="elementor-element elementor-element-77414ef elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-element_type="widget" data-id="77414ef" data-widget_type="text-editor.default" style="--align-content: initial; --align-items: initial; --align-self: initial; --flex-basis: initial; --flex-direction: initial; --flex-grow: initial; --flex-shrink: initial; --flex-wrap: initial; --gap: initial; --justify-content: initial; --order: initial; --swiper-navigation-size: 44px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-horizontal-gap: 6px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-size: 6px; --swiper-theme-color: #000; align-content: var(--align-content); align-items: var(--align-items); align-self: var(--align-self); background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; flex-basis: var(--flex-basis); flex-direction: var(--flex-direction); flex-grow: var(--flex-grow); flex-shrink: var(--flex-shrink); flex-wrap: var(--flex-wrap); font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 35px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 900; gap: var(--gap); justify-content: var(--justify-content); line-height: 1em; margin: 0px 0px 20px; order: var(--order); outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; width: 500px;"><div class="elementor-widget-container" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: background 0.3s,border 0.3s,border-radius 0.3s,box-shadow 0.3s,transform var(--e-transform-transition-duration,0.4s); vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Penser l’avortement</p></div></div></div><div class="elementor-element elementor-element-73a302d elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-element_type="widget" data-id="73a302d" data-widget_type="text-editor.default" style="--align-content: initial; --align-items: initial; --align-self: initial; --flex-basis: initial; --flex-direction: initial; --flex-grow: initial; --flex-shrink: initial; --flex-wrap: initial; --gap: initial; --justify-content: initial; --order: initial; --swiper-navigation-size: 44px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-horizontal-gap: 6px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-size: 6px; --swiper-theme-color: #000; align-content: var(--align-content); align-items: var(--align-items); align-self: var(--align-self); background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; flex-basis: var(--flex-basis); flex-direction: var(--flex-direction); flex-grow: var(--flex-grow); flex-shrink: var(--flex-shrink); flex-wrap: var(--flex-wrap); font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 17px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; gap: var(--gap); justify-content: var(--justify-content); line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; order: var(--order); outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; width: 500px;"><div class="elementor-widget-container" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: -20px 0px 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: background 0.3s,border 0.3s,border-radius 0.3s,box-shadow 0.3s,transform var(--e-transform-transition-duration,0.4s); vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Traduit de l’anglais (É. U.) par François Jaquet</em></p></div></div></div><div class="elementor-element elementor-element-d6dcafa elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-element_type="widget" data-id="d6dcafa" data-widget_type="text-editor.default" style="--align-content: initial; --align-items: initial; --align-self: initial; --flex-basis: initial; --flex-direction: initial; --flex-grow: initial; --flex-shrink: initial; --flex-wrap: initial; --gap: initial; --justify-content: initial; --order: initial; --swiper-navigation-size: 44px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-horizontal-gap: 6px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-size: 6px; --swiper-theme-color: #000; align-content: var(--align-content); align-items: var(--align-items); align-self: var(--align-self); background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; flex-basis: var(--flex-basis); flex-direction: var(--flex-direction); flex-grow: var(--flex-grow); flex-shrink: var(--flex-shrink); flex-wrap: var(--flex-wrap); font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; gap: var(--gap); justify-content: var(--justify-content); line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; order: var(--order); outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; width: 500px;"><div class="elementor-widget-container" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; transition: background 0.3s,border 0.3s,border-radius 0.3s,box-shadow 0.3s,transform var(--e-transform-transition-duration,0.4s); vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">En révoquant l’arrêt Roe v. Wade le 24 juin 2022, la Cour suprême des États-Unis permettait à treize États conservateurs de voter immédiatement des lois interdisant l’interruption volontaire de grossesse, privant ainsi des millions d’Américaines d’un droit institué quelques cinquante ans plus tôt. Cet événement historique témoigne, s’il était besoin, du caractère toujours controversé de l’avortement. Faut-il en conclure que ce sujet ne peut engendrer que<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />des débats frustrants et infructueux, sans espoir de progrès ?<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Un tel constat est, selon Kristina Grob et Nathan Nobis, largement contestable. En recourant à la pensée critique, laquelle consiste à définir minutieusement les termes du débat et à mettre à l’épreuve les définitions existantes, à rejeter les nombreuses « pétitions de principes », à énoncer la structure complète des arguments et à comparer les forces et faiblesses de différentes explications, les deux auteurs soutiennent, sur la base de considérations à la fois rationnelles et éthiques, que l’avortement n’est généralement pas immoral et qu’il doit donc demeurer un droit légal.</p></div></div></div><div class="elementor-element elementor-element-33df5d2 elementor-widget-divider--view-line elementor-widget elementor-widget-divider" data-element_type="widget" data-id="33df5d2" data-widget_type="divider.default" style="--align-content: initial; --align-items: initial; --align-self: initial; --divider-border-style: solid; --divider-border-width: 1px; --divider-color: #8B8B8B; --divider-element-spacing: 10px; --divider-icon-size: 20px; --divider-pattern-height: 24px; --divider-pattern-repeat: repeat-x; --divider-pattern-size: 20px; --divider-pattern-url: none; --flex-basis: initial; --flex-direction: initial; --flex-grow: initial; --flex-shrink: initial; --flex-wrap: initial; --gap: initial; --justify-content: initial; --order: initial; --swiper-navigation-size: 44px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-horizontal-gap: 6px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-size: 6px; --swiper-theme-color: #000; align-content: var(--align-content); align-items: var(--align-items); align-self: var(--align-self); background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; flex-basis: var(--flex-basis); flex-direction: var(--flex-direction); flex-grow: var(--flex-grow); flex-shrink: var(--flex-shrink); flex-wrap: var(--flex-wrap); font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; gap: var(--gap); justify-content: var(--justify-content); line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; order: var(--order); outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; width: 500px;"><div class="elementor-widget-container" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: background 0.3s,border 0.3s,border-radius 0.3s,box-shadow 0.3s,transform var(--e-transform-transition-duration,0.4s); vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="elementor-divider" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 15px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="elementor-divider-separator" style="border-bottom: 0px; border-image: initial; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: var(--divider-border-width) var(--divider-border-style) var(--divider-color); box-sizing: border-box; direction: ltr; display: flex; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 500px;"></span></div></div></div><div class="elementor-element elementor-element-48d66fd elementor-widget elementor-widget-image" data-element_type="widget" data-id="48d66fd" data-widget_type="image.default" style="--align-content: initial; --align-items: initial; --align-self: initial; --flex-basis: initial; --flex-direction: initial; --flex-grow: initial; --flex-shrink: initial; --flex-wrap: initial; --gap: initial; --justify-content: initial; --order: initial; --swiper-navigation-size: 44px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-horizontal-gap: 6px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-size: 6px; --swiper-theme-color: #000; align-content: var(--align-content); align-items: var(--align-items); align-self: var(--align-self); background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; flex-basis: var(--flex-basis); flex-direction: var(--flex-direction); flex-grow: var(--flex-grow); flex-shrink: var(--flex-shrink); flex-wrap: var(--flex-wrap); font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; gap: var(--gap); justify-content: var(--justify-content); line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; order: var(--order); outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; width: 500px;"><div class="elementor-widget-container" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: background 0.3s,border 0.3s,border-radius 0.3s,box-shadow 0.3s,transform var(--e-transform-transition-duration,0.4s); vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="elementor-image" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">Nathan Nobis</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-weight: inherit; text-align: justify;">, philosophe, est professeur associé de philosophie au Morehouse College d’Atlanta, en Géorgie. Il est l’auteur et co-auteur de nombreux essais en éthique et en philosophie. </span><a href="https://www.nathannobis.com/" style="background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); border: 0px; box-shadow: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: blue; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">www.NathanNobis.com</a></div></div></div><div class="elementor-element elementor-element-4241df6 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-element_type="widget" data-id="4241df6" data-widget_type="text-editor.default" style="--align-content: initial; --align-items: initial; --align-self: initial; --flex-basis: initial; --flex-direction: initial; --flex-grow: initial; --flex-shrink: initial; --flex-wrap: initial; --gap: initial; --justify-content: initial; --order: initial; --swiper-navigation-size: 44px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-horizontal-gap: 6px; --swiper-pagination-bullet-size: 6px; --swiper-theme-color: #000; align-content: var(--align-content); align-items: var(--align-items); align-self: var(--align-self); background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; flex-basis: var(--flex-basis); flex-direction: var(--flex-direction); flex-grow: var(--flex-grow); flex-shrink: var(--flex-shrink); flex-wrap: var(--flex-wrap); font-family: Lexend, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; gap: var(--gap); justify-content: var(--justify-content); line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; order: var(--order); outline: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; width: 500px;"><div class="elementor-widget-container" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: background 0.3s,border 0.3s,border-radius 0.3s,box-shadow 0.3s,transform var(--e-transform-transition-duration,0.4s); vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="elementor-text-editor elementor-clearfix" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 600; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Kristina GROB</span>, philosophe, est professeur adjointe à l’Université de Caroline du Sud à Sumter. Ses travaux portent sur l’éthique et le développement moral. Chaque semestre, elle s’attache à démontrer aux étudiants que la philosophie peut être un mode de vie, quel que soit le domaine professionnel vers lequel ils se dirigent.</p></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-2280788617459881372023-02-14T17:27:00.006-05:002023-03-02T17:24:28.781-05:00Book Event Presentation<iframe src="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/e/2PACX-1vTBvUL1cUAE8iUN8gek1PREgwB6xm0qCALOd8ZzE2pLUAgIRyRo7er3pTgwGVo8o6fGKhe5Rs3vPzH9/embed?start=true&loop=true&delayms=5000" frameborder="0" width="520" height="269" allowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" webkitallowfullscreen="true"></iframe>
<iframe width="460" height="215" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/H1o_YYysZWw" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-35632187265583034692023-01-06T09:25:00.003-05:002023-01-06T09:25:46.056-05:00"Person" is not a flawed concept because some people have misapplied it"Person" is not a flawed concept because some <i>people </i>have misapplied it and falsely denied that some <i>people </i>are <i>people</i>: <i>people </i>who think this are accepting a bad argument.<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7185196669745646891" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7185196669745646891" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> No, "person" is not a flawed or problematic concept because some *people* denied that some other *people* are *people.* <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/people?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="people">#people</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/personhood?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="personhood">#personhood</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/persons?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="persons">#persons</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/bioethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="bioethics">#bioethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7185196628637158187?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-47077347031115438822022-12-08T21:16:00.002-05:002022-12-08T21:16:20.782-05:00 2022 Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest<p><a href="https://www.apaonline.org/page/2022prizes-f?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Blast&utm_campaign=wwwBlast&fbclid=IwAR2BSrPtyzyGMmDTCbmtLhauKV7b0YQW5SI8e9UcZD_lTNwZUMNygZlDExY#oped" target="_blank"> <span style="background-color: white; color: #7e3232; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 28px;">2022 Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest</span></a></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7e736e; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">The APA committee on public philosophy sponsors the <a href="https://www.apaonline.org/page/oped" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ef502e; text-decoration-line: none;">Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest</a> for the best opinion-editorials published by philosophers. The goal is to honor up to five standout pieces that successfully blend philosophical argumentation with an op-ed writing style. Winning submissions will call public attention, either directly or indirectly, to the value of philosophical thinking. The pieces will be judged in terms of their success as examples of public philosophy, and should be accessible to the general public, focused on important topics of public concern, and characterized by sound reasoning.</p><h1 style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7e3232; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 28px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.1; margin: 3px 0px 10px;"><a href="https://www.apaonline.org/page/oped" target="_blank">Awardees</a></h1><h2 style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ef502e; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.1; margin: 3px 0px 10px;">2022</h2><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7e736e; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Max Khan Hayward</span> (The University of Sheffield), <span style="box-sizing: border-box;">“<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/christmas-merriment-hedonism-philosophy/621010/" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ef502e; text-decoration-line: none;">Eat, Drink, and Be Merry! No, Really.</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">” (<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Atlantic</em>, 2021)</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7e736e; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Milena Ivanova</span> (The University of Cambridge), <span style="box-sizing: border-box;">“<a href="https://aeon.co/essays/when-is-a-scientific-experiment-like-a-beautiful-work-of-art" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ef502e; text-decoration-line: none;">The Beautiful Experiment</a></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">” (<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Aeon</em>, 2021)</span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7e736e; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">A. Minh Nguyen</span> (Florida Gulf Coast University), <span style="box-sizing: border-box;">“<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/10/19/opinion-asian-americans-face-many-challenges-not-being-american-enough/8529486002/" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ef502e; text-decoration-line: none;">When Your Daughter Is Told ‘Your Face Is Not American’</a></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">” (<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The News-Press</em>, 2021)</span></p><p style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #7e736e; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Nathan Nobis</span> (Morehouse College) and <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Jonathan Dudley</span> (Johns Hopkins), <span style="box-sizing: border-box;">“<a href="https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #ef502e; text-decoration-line: none;">Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking</a></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">” (<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Salon</em>, 2021)</span></span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7e736e; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px 0px 10px;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">Lisa Forsberg </span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">(Oxford University)</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;"> </span>and <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Anthony Skelton</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"> (University of Western Ontario)</span>, <span style="box-sizing: border-box;">“<a href="https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-for-making-covid-19-vaccination-mandatory-for-children-160589" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ef502e; text-decoration-line: none;">3 reasons for making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for children</a></span><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">” (<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Conversation</em>, 2021)</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-54790431963644131292022-12-07T11:15:00.014-05:002022-12-12T15:13:42.796-05:00"Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking"<p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Our [<span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2022/12/2022-public-philosophy-op-ed-contest.html">update: AWARD WINNING!</a>]</span> 2021 Salon article "<span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/" target="_blank">Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking</a>" generated some responses. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bLkAfwLc0lQ/YHOphuyBYcI/AAAAAAAAMKY/A4tGYNspUXAn37JfTpK_MfC7c_FlR1K7ACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/salon.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /><img border="0" data-original-height="203" data-original-width="400" height="163" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bLkAfwLc0lQ/YHOphuyBYcI/AAAAAAAAMKY/A4tGYNspUXAn37JfTpK_MfC7c_FlR1K7ACLcBGAsYHQ/w320-h163/salon.JPG" width="320" /></a></span></div><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">Here are some of those responses and some of our (or my) responses to those responses! If you know of any other responses, please let me know:</span></p><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/katieyoder/2021/04/24/salon-piece-says-prochoice-ethics-prove-abortion-isnt-murder-n2588482?fbclid=IwAR3FyDyAR_mkhqWORynSGFqt9sIF-oTgAmsT2ZN3OMXm9X4p_9zlre7SwkY" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Salon Piece Says ‘Pro-Choice Ethics’ Prove Abortion Isn’t Murder</a>, <i>Townhall</i>, Katie Yoder, 4/24/2021.</li><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"></ul></ul></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><p style="text-align: left;"></p></div><blockquote><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><p style="text-align: left;">A quick response: </p></div><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">Dear Ms. Yoder,<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">Thanks for this response. I am curious though about your claim about babies: do you really think that babies aren't conscious or aware or feeling? Surely you have been around a baby, so why do you suggest they are not conscious? <span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">Second, you write that "it’s wrong to commit an action with the sole purpose and intent to end the life of an innocent human being." But that's not the <i>sole </i>purpose and intent behind abortions: the main purpose is to end pregnancies, for a variety of reasons. <span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">If you meant to say that "it’s wrong to commit an action with the purpose and intent to end the life of an innocent human being," the point of the article was to observe that if that's true, then killing human beings for organ donation is wrong, as is letting anencephalic die. But these aren't wrong, although they involve "intentionally destroy[ing] the life of an innocent human being"--and this is best explained by their lacking a functioning, consciousness-making brain, and so at least early abortion is wrong. Yes, there are differences here, but they don't seem to matter. For more on that, see <i>Thinking Critically About Abortion</i> at www.AbortionArguments.com<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">Thank you!</div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"></div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><blockquote style="text-align: left;"></blockquote></div><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><blockquote style="text-align: left;"><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"></ul><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"></ul></blockquote></div><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em; text-align: left;"></ul><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em; text-align: left;"></ul></div><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em; text-align: left;"></ul><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em; text-align: left;"></ul></div><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><blockquote><p>A longer response: <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/04/response-to-katie-yoders-salon-piece.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>Response to Katie Yoder’s “Salon Piece Says ‘Pro-Choice Ethics’ Prove Abortion Isn’t Murder.”</b></a></p></blockquote><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><div style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/11/evaluating-evaluation-of-why-case.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Evaluating </span><span style="background-color: transparent;">Elliot Crozat's </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">"An Evaluation of 'Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking'"</span></b></a></div></li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><div style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/11/a-response-to-clinton-wilcoxs-nobis-and.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;"><b>A Response to Clinton Wilcox's "Nobis and Dudley Miss the Mark Completely on Defending Abortion"</b></a></div></li><ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">FYI: here are some earlier replies to some critiques from Wilcox: <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/10/responses-to-clinton-wilcoxs-review-of.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;">1</a>, <a href="https://www.nathannobis.com/2019/04/response-to-nathan-nobis-summary-of-pro.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">2</a>. </li></ul><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://branemrys.blogspot.com/2021/04/nobis-and-dudley-on-abortion.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><b>Nobis and Dudley on Abortion</b></a> by an anonymous "Brandon" (I don't think we can know who this person is?). We didn't write up a response to this one: <i>is there anything worthy of responding to here?</i></li></ul><div>What does anyone think of these responses? Please share any thoughts in the comments!</div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Contrary to some responses, our argument <i>does not </i>depend on thinking these various cases are "equivalent" or "exactly the same" or that there are no interesting differences among them: it does, however, depend on the idea of "brain birth" and being "brain alive," the lesser-known counterpart to brain death and being brain dead. For more on these concepts, see this 1990 LA Times article: "<a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-19-me-476-story.html" target="_blank">Is ‘brain birth’ the beginning of human life? Or conception? Science can’t draw the line, but only provide more evidence to ponder.</a>"</div></div><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">Here is an explanation of the argument, or one interpretation of the argument:</div><ol style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">Organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are morally permissible.</li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">If organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are morally permissible, then it’s permissible to end the lives of biologically human organisms without functioning, consciousness-making brains.</li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">If it’s permissible to end the lives of biologically human organisms without functioning, consciousness-making brains, then early abortions, of fetuses without functioning, consciousness-making brains are morally permissible.</li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">Therefore, early abortions, of fetuses without functioning, consciousness-making brains are morally permissible.</li></ol><p><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">To respond, here’s what one could do, regarding each premise:</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;" /></p><ol style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">Argue that organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are not morally permissible, for whatever reason(s): e.g., these are human, these are human organisms, these are human beings; there is always some chance of recovery, etc.</li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">Argue that a different generalization, or none, at all, is suggested by the cases in (1). Explain why that's a better generalization to draw than what we propose. </li><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">Identify a relevant difference such that (3) is false and justify the relevance of that difference: e.g., clearly, fetuses and the organ donation and anencephalic newborn cases are different: fetuses typically have a type of “potential” that the other cases don’t; fetuses, if “left alone,” so to speak will continue living, etc., but how is that relevant? Why would that make killing them wrong? Real, developed answers are needed, and the answer that “because they are human organisms” isn’t going to cut it, at least not for those who accept (1).</li></ol><div>Here is also some further discussion of whether embryos and beginning fetuses are or can be "innocent" (and non-innocent too!): </div><div><br /></div>
<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7169219330880720171" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7169219330880720171" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> What is it to be "innocent"? What if something is neither innocent nor not? Inspired by @dankprolifememes <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/innocence?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="innocence">#innocence</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/guilt?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="guilt">#guilt</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/criticalthinking?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="criticalthinking">#criticalthinking</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7169219411612732206?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7169226051200027946" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7169226051200027946" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> What is it to be "innocent"? What if something is neither innocent nor not innocent? <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/criticalthinking?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="criticalthinking">#criticalthinking</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/bioethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="bioethics">#bioethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/innocent?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="innocent">#innocent</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/innocence?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="innocence">#innocence</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7169226156359584558?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-68523812151087601962022-11-28T09:06:00.005-05:002022-11-28T09:08:26.007-05:00The Always More Podcast: When Does "Life" Begin? On The Always More Podcast, they discuss my article '<a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/" target="_blank">When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life</a>"':<div><br /><div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i8i3MyKvr6w?start=2860" title="YouTube video player" width="460"></iframe></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-83615236152911094022022-11-26T12:28:00.000-05:002022-11-26T12:28:01.946-05:00Kevin Drum's "Liberals really suck at defending abortion":<p> From Kevin Drum's post "<a href="https://jabberwocking.com/liberals-really-suck-at-defending-abortion/" target="_blank">Liberals really suck at defending abortion</a>":</p><blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222222; font-family: "Palatino Linotype", sans-serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem;"> Conservatives talk endlessly about how abortion snuffs out a human life. That's the whole magilla. But if you read only among liberals, you might not even know this is an issue. We simply don't talk about it.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222222; font-family: "Palatino Linotype", sans-serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem;">Why? I don't know how it polls or what effect it has on most people, but it has to be addressed if we want to win the war for public opinion. There are just too many people who care about this and need to hear simple, convincing arguments that a fetus isn't a human life in any reasonable sense of the term. We're cowards if we aren't willing to take that on.</p></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-7974706281144879552022-11-25T08:06:00.007-05:002022-11-28T09:09:01.144-05:00"When does life begin?" The "Always More" podcast<p> Some discussion of my <a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/" target="_blank">Salon article here on "when does life begin?"</a> from the "<a href="https://alwaysmorepod.onuniverse.com/listen-or-watch" target="_blank">Always More</a>" podcast <br /><br /><br /></p>
<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@alwaysmorepodcast/video/7152522760634289451" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7152522760634289451" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@alwaysmorepodcast?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@alwaysmorepodcast">@alwaysmorepodcast</a> “When does life begin” according to Dr. Nathan Nobis. Part 1. <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/womensrights?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="womensrights">#womensrights</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/deconstruction?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="deconstruction">#deconstruction</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/faith?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="faith">#faith</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/Pieces-Solo-Piano-Version-6777274113254754306?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ Pieces (Solo Piano Version) - Danilo Stankovic">♬ Pieces (Solo Piano Version) - Danilo Stankovic</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@alwaysmorepodcast/video/7153242065592159530" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7153242065592159530" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@alwaysmorepodcast?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@alwaysmorepodcast">@alwaysmorepodcast</a> "When does life begin" according to Dr. Nathan Nobis. Part 2 <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/womensrights?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="womensrights">#womensrights</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/deconstruction?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="deconstruction">#deconstruction</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/faith?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="faith">#faith</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/Pieces-Solo-Piano-Version-6777274113254754306?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ Pieces (Solo Piano Version) - Danilo Stankovic">♬ Pieces (Solo Piano Version) - Danilo Stankovic</a></section></blockquote><p>On The Always More Podcast, they discuss my article '<a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/" target="_blank">When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life</a>"':</p><p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i8i3MyKvr6w?start=2860" title="YouTube video player" width="460"></iframe> </p> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-90255445577499378072022-11-24T10:23:00.005-05:002022-12-12T15:14:18.618-05:00Are embryos and beginning fetuses "innocent"? '. . calling fetuses "<a href="https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/" target="_blank">innocent</a>" assumes that they are persons: "innocence" implies the potential for guilt, and that's only true of persons. Nobody would refer to human eggs or tissue as "innocent," because nobody thinks these things are persons.' [<span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2022/12/2022-public-philosophy-op-ed-contest.html">update: this is from our AWARD WINNING essay!</a>]</span> <br /><br />Further discussion here on what kinds of things can be "innocent":<br /><br /><blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7169302705910074670" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7169302705910074670" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> What is it to be "innocent"? A dialogue inspired by @dankprolifememes <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/criticalthinking?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="criticalthinking">#criticalthinking</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/innocent?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="innocent">#innocent</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/innocence?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="innocence">#innocence</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/bioethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="bioethics">#bioethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/innocenthumanlife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="innocenthumanlife">#innocenthumanlife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7169302786302692139?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7169226051200027946" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7169226051200027946" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> What is it to be "innocent"? What if something is neither innocent nor not innocent? <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/criticalthinking?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="criticalthinking">#criticalthinking</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/bioethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="bioethics">#bioethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/innocent?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="innocent">#innocent</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/innocence?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="innocence">#innocence</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7169226156359584558?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">To be "innocent" something must (A) be able to do wrong and not do it or (B) to not have done anything wrong?<br /><br />What's the better definition? Why? <br /><br />Is there a better definition?</p>— Nathan Nobis . com (@NathanNobis) <a href="https://twitter.com/NathanNobis/status/1595404470711914496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-91527799542819152072022-11-09T08:35:00.006-05:002023-04-07T16:12:59.910-04:00"Fetuses are human, so abortion is wrong." <p>Some quick notes on common arguments that result from what ordinary people say about these issues. </p><p><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">1.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Fetuses are human.</span></p><p><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">2.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">All humans are </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">prima facie</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> wrong to kill.</span></p><p><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">3.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: -0.25in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">So, abortion – killing fetuses – is </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">prima facie</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> wrong.</span></p><div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.5in; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; text-align: center;">This argument <b>disambiguates</b> in at least two ways:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Fetuses are <i><span style="color: red; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">biologically human organisms</span></i>. (True). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->All <span style="color: red; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">biologically
human organisms </span>are <i>prima
facie</i> wrong to kill. (<i>Why think that?</i>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->6.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->So, abortion – killing fetuses – is <i>prima facie</i> wrong. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.5in; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p></div>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->7.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Fetuses are <i><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">human beings</span></i>, i.e., <i>feeling, perceiving, biologically human organisms</i>.
(False, if this means all fetuses, especially beginning ones).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->8.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->All <i><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">human
beings</span></i>, i.e., <i>feeling,
perceiving, biologically human organisms</i> are <i>prima facie</i> wrong to
kill. (True)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->9.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->So, abortion – killing fetuses – is <i>prima facie</i> wrong. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.5in; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0in;">Two <i>logically invalid</i> arguments: <i>the premises do not
lead to the conclusion</i> due to using ‘human’ in two different meanings, or
an “equivocation” on ‘human’: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->10.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Fetuses are [<span style="color: red; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">merely</span>] <i><span style="color: red; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">biologically human organisms</span></i>. (True). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->11.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->All <i><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">human
beings</span></i>, i.e., <i>feeling,
perceiving, biologically human organisms</i> are <i>prima facie</i> wrong to
kill. (True).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->12.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->So, abortion – killing fetuses – is <i>prima facie</i> wrong. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0in;"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->13.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Fetuses are <i><span style="color: #0070c0; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">human beings</span></i>, i.e., <i>feeling, perceiving, biologically human organisms</i>.
(False, if this means <i>all</i> fetuses, especially beginning ones).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->14.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->All [<span style="color: red; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">merely</span>] <span style="color: red; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">biologically human organisms </span>are <i>prima facie</i> wrong to kill. (<i>Why think that?</i>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]-->15.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->So, abortion – killing fetuses – is <i>prima facie</i> wrong. <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 1.5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 1.5in 0in 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></p><h3><span id="human">On whether embryos and fetuses are "human," "humans, "human beings," "human organisms," whether each is "a human," a common anti-abortion concern:</span></h3><div><ul><li><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/10/are-fetuses-human-beings.html">Are fetuses "human beings"? Biological versus psychological definitions</a></li><li><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2021/10/abortion-and-ethics-101-introductory.html">Abortion and Ethics 101: An Introductory Overview</a></li><li>Robert George: <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/10/fetuses-are-human-beings-all-human.html">"Fetuses are human beings; all human beings are equal in dignity & worth; so abortion is wrong." Good or bad argument?</a></li><li><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2022/11/fetuses-are-human-so-abortion-is-wrong.html">"Fetuses are human, so abortion is wrong"</a>: what do you mean "human"?</li><li><a href="https://www.salon.com/2021/12/04/logic-arguments-abortion-rights/">I’m a philosophy professor. The argument for making abortion illegal is illogical</a> (at Salon)</li><li><a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/">When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life"</a> (at Salon)</li><ul><li><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2022/11/are-embryos-and-fetuses-innocent.html">Are embryos and beginning fetuses "innocent"?</a></li></ul></ul></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-71036150553392230082022-11-08T10:39:00.016-05:002022-11-29T14:48:00.360-05:00Extremism, Abortion Extremism and Losing the Ability to Listen<p>There are many problems associated with extremism. </p><p>One is that extremists generally lose the ability to listen to people who disagree with them: they become simply unable to know what other people think. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLB3QgN3hApAlwHmVZsYDkZixTbPeJMCE58b4KcegRrZaUUvBvz65RjDNaTJNYS3ianVafRk9jY7uaO2mChOfaFKk6EtTyUfKnqRX9K6AaPsFs5LoMYFqWvD4QCLEx_JNfOUmZTGULdXwoHfUgN85BoIu0El0rwH_9W6_F8xOkVCOx-fBIFka3DQSf0w/s1000/1_mkN1-dRRph6HBTUvKlMzEw.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="1000" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLB3QgN3hApAlwHmVZsYDkZixTbPeJMCE58b4KcegRrZaUUvBvz65RjDNaTJNYS3ianVafRk9jY7uaO2mChOfaFKk6EtTyUfKnqRX9K6AaPsFs5LoMYFqWvD4QCLEx_JNfOUmZTGULdXwoHfUgN85BoIu0El0rwH_9W6_F8xOkVCOx-fBIFka3DQSf0w/w400-h213/1_mkN1-dRRph6HBTUvKlMzEw.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div><p></p><p>This is really obvious to people with a philosophical background since philosophy is all about definitions: it's all about how people use words in different ways, how they mean different things using the same words since they have different definitions in mind. That's why one of the most important philosophical questions is, "What do you mean?"</p><p>This is especially relevant to ethical topics about abortion, where many of the key words are used in different ways by different people, resulting in different arguments: e.g, <a href="https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-does-life-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-what-you-mean-by-life/" target="_blank">"life" and "alive"</a> have multiple meanings, as do <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/10/are-fetuses-human-beings.html" target="_blank">"human," "human being,"</a> and related words. </p><p>Here are some thoughts about why extremists are unwilling and unable to listen. </p><p>Listening to understand requires <b>patience</b>. Extremists have no patience for anyone who disagrees with them. </p><p>Listening to understand involves<b> thinking that other people are somewhat rational and that other people's views make some sense, even they are mistaken</b>. But extremists think everyone who disagrees with them is an irrational idiot. </p><p>Listening to understand seems to require thinking that <b>you might learn something from other people</b>. But extremists think they know it all, even though they rarely study the issues in fair and balanced ways. They deny the value of <a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/10/25/expertise/" target="_blank">expertise</a> and/or mistakenly assume they are experts, when they are not. </p><p>Extremists have <b>no motive for listening</b>: you might listen to seek a compromise, or a solution that will acknowledge all important concerns. But extremists have no interest in compromise. </p><p>Listening to understand involves <b>recognizing that issues can be <a href="https://fakenous.net/?p=392" target="_blank">complicated</a></b>, which is why there are different perspectives on them. Extremists deny this: they think the issues are simple and that they are obviously correct. </p><p>Extremism typically involves <b>"<a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/33568" target="_blank">grandstanding</a>" or showing off in front of your <a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/05/are-you-part-of-cult-about-abortion-or.html" target="_blank">"tribe"</a></b>, to show that you are a true believer to the righteous cause. But listening to people you disagree with is contrary to that: to be in a position to listen to someone -- and for that person to speak in an authentic way -- there has to be some kind of <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7159325035449060654?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7138016801442842155" target="_blank">respectful, friendly relationship, even for the moment</a>. </p><p>Extremism is bad. </p><p>What is extremist anyway? </p><p>Spencer Case argues that "<a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/12/moral-extremism-and-abortion-on-pro.html" target="_blank"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">a person is an extremist just in case </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">an intense moral conviction blinds her to competing moral considerations</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">, or else </span></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/12/moral-extremism-and-abortion-on-pro.html" target="_blank">makes her unwilling to qualify her beliefs when she should</a>.</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px;">" Since there are moral considerations to understanding views contrary to your own (<i><a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2022/01/28/ethics-of-belief/" target="_blank">like what?</a></i>), the label "extremism" fits here, and extremism can be characterized by the above considerations (and many, many more!).</span></p><p><i>What are other ways extremism is bad?</i></p><p><i>What can be done about it?</i></p><p>A related post: </p><ul style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.4px; line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;"><li style="margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/12/moral-extremism-and-abortion-on-pro.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration-line: none;">Moral Extremism and Abortion: On Pro-Choice "Extremists" </a></li></ul><p><br /></p>
<blockquote cite="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7163666300965784878" class="tiktok-embed" data-video-id="7163666300965784878" style="max-width: 605px; min-width: 325px;"> <section> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="@nathan.nobis">@nathan.nobis</a> extremism, abortion extremism and losing the ability to listen. <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/extremism?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="extremism">#extremism</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/extremist?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="extremist">#extremist</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/abortion?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="abortion">#abortion</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prochoice?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prochoice">#prochoice</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/prolife?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="prolife">#prolife</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/polarization?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="polarization">#polarization</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/polarizationisproblematic?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="polarizationisproblematic">#polarizationisproblematic</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/ethics?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="ethics">#ethics</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/philosophy?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="philosophy">#philosophy</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/criticalthinking?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="criticalthinking">#criticalthinking</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/listening?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="listening">#listening</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/tag/listeningskills?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="listeningskills">#listeningskills</a> <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7163666368133417774?refer=embed" target="_blank" title="♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis">♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis</a> </section> </blockquote> <script async="" src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script>
extremism, abortion extremism and losing the ability to listen. #extremism #extremist #abortion #prochoice #prolife #polarization #polarizationisproblematic #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking #listening #listeningskillsUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5904546309822681143.post-3358716184723030802022-10-12T18:49:00.012-04:002022-10-18T13:16:02.605-04:00Response to "Nathan Nobis' Summary of Pro-Choice Arguments" by Clinton Wilcox <h2 class="date-header" style="background-color: #e9edec; color: #888888; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.5em 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;"><span style="color: #333333;">SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 2019</span></h2><div class="date-posts" style="background-color: #e9edec; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 14.4px;"><div class="post-outer" style="background-color: white; border-radius: 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); margin: 0px -20px 20px; padding: 15px 20px;"><div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting" style="min-height: 0px; position: relative;"><a name="7048681410704151031"></a><h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">Response to "Nathan Nobis' Summary of Pro-Choice Arguments"</h3></div></div></div><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.84px;"><i><b>Note: this was originally posted <a href="https://www.nathannobis.com/2019/04/response-to-nathan-nobis-summary-of-pro.html" target="_blank">here</a>; I just realized it hadn't been reposted here. </b></i></span></p>Someone wrote a response to my 1000-Word Philosophy essay on abortion, entitled "<a href="http://blog.secularprolife.org/2019/04/nathan-nobis-summary-of-pro-choice.html">Nathan Nobis' Summary of Pro-Choice Arguments.</a>" I wrote brief a reply and twice posted it on their blog, but it twice "disappeared" (. . but it might have returned, so I really don't know whether it's posted or not), so I post this reply here since I did take the time to write it up.<div><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7048681410704151031" itemprop="description articleBody" style="line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 880px;"><br /></div><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7048681410704151031" itemprop="description articleBody" style="line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 880px;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.84px; text-align: center;"></span><br /><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.84px;"><img border="0" data-original-height="583" data-original-width="922" height="253" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pD_yr-Y1TLo/XMRA4Ndxo4I/AAAAAAAAIuI/ox0t0qlx9Jc64cc83iEtd1RcqtVWMqLngCEwYBhgL/w400-h253/SPL.JPG" width="400" /></div><div class="separator" style="background-color: white; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 15.84px;"></div><br /></div></div><br />Thank you for this thoughtful and detailed reply, which someone alerted me to. I appreciate your engaging this short essay.<br /><br />In quick reply, I'm not sure you have (yet) identified some "basic mistakes" with my article, since many of your replies seem to consist in stating contrary points of view on various issues, but not doing a whole lot to really support those contrary points of view: or at least not enough that would likely convince a disinterested observer. So, my reaction is that, basically, much more would need to be said to really support your responses. [Update: another part of the response perhaps is a disagreement about which arguments should be discussed, given the intended audience and what can be effectively presented in new words, as well as a disagreement about which arguments "out there" have been "plausibly" presented.]<br /><br /><br />5.<br /><br />Concerning argument 5, you state that the "fetus plausibly does have a right to the use of the uterus, considering that the woman created the fetus and placed the fetus in a state of dependence upon her . , which grounds an obligation of care from the pregnant woman to her child." There are details here about what's being said, but a fair question is: why think this? Why exactly would she have this obligation? This appears to be mostly just an assertation, and there are a lot of details here that would really need to be engaged to support it. Actually, the principle proposed about 5 very much appears to be question-begging. Suppose I create a plant, or a culture of cells, that didn't exist before. Its existence is dependent on what I did. Do I have obligations toward the plant or blob of cells? No. So this type of thinking only seems to work when the "created" or dependent thing is already wrong to kill, which is what's at issue. If this isn't the case, some subtle thinking would be needed to show that.<br /><br />(I have a short article in the American Journal of Bioethics on this topic called "Abortion and Moral Arguments from Analogy": <a href="https://www.academia.edu/823798/Abortion_and_Moral_Arguments_From_Analogy">https://www.academia.edu/823798/Abortion_and_Moral_Arguments_From_Analogy</a> ).<br /><br />4.<br /><br />Concerning argument 4, the objection to response 2 misses the objection, which is based on a (metaphysical) view often called "unrestricted mereological composition." (Ted Sider has a book on four-dimensionalism that discusses this view). The objection is not that, considered in themselves, sperms or eggs have valuable futures. This view is basically that any collection of objects is itself an object: to put it another way, there are single objects with parts that don't touch. This view implies that there are *single* things such as an "egg-and-a-sperm-that-would-fertilize-it" and so those things would seem to have valuable futures also. (For discussion, see the cited paper by Norcross). <br /><br />A further, related concern about Marquis is that if we couldn't be merely physical objects (that is, physical objects with no, and having had no, psychological properties), then we couldn't have been early fetuses, and so an early fetus couldn't have a future like our's. (For an introduction that's relevant to that see "Origin Essentialism: What Could Have Been Different about You?" and the personal identity article by the same author: <a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/04/28/origin-essentialism">https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/04/28/origin-essentialism</a>/ )<br /><br />2.<br /><br />Concerning argument 2, about persons, I will just observe that there was no "question begging" involved in what was said. One way of *reasoning towards* such a definition of what persons are (or what it is to be a person, or what makes something a person) is to reflect on what makes us persons and what (if anything) would end our personhood. We can then take those insights and apply them to harder cases, and so there is no question-begging. (For a description of these methods of developing a theory of personhood that explains cases, see this if interested: "Early and Later Abortions: Ethics and Law" <a href="https://www.nathannobis.com/2018/08/early-and-later-abortions-ethics-and-law.html">https://www.nathannobis.com/2018/08/early-and-later-abortions-ethics-and-law.html</a> )<br /><br />Concerning the other issue about argument 2, such as how to explain why racism, sexism, child and baby abuse, animal abuse and other wrong actions are indeed wrong, I suggest at least observing what arguments are actually given for why these are wrong. It appears there are far simpler explanations than what's suggested: e.g., that anyone conscious or sentient has basic rights or equal consideration of interests and so forth. If all major moral and social-political theories are in total error in trying to explain why various wrong actions are wrong, that should be pointed out.<br /><br />1.<br /><br /><div>Finally, about argument 1, it appears to be only *asserted* that the right to life, or properties that entail the right to life are “essential” properties. (And it’s assumed that *we* exist at all times our bodies exist too). Now that might be true, and it might be that being rational or having a “rational nature” is an essential property, but it needs to be explained why that would be so: it’s easy to assert or insist that, but harder to articulate really good reasons why that is. That was noted in footnote 2:<br /><br /><a href="https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2016/03/07/the-ethics-of-abortion/#_ftnref2">https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2016/03/07/the-ethics-of-abortion/#_ftnref2</a><br /><br /></div><div>And here is some further discussion:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.nathannobis.com/2018/09/reply-to-christopher-tollefson-on.html">https://www.nathannobis.com/2018/09/reply-to-christopher-tollefson-on.html</a><br /><br />OK, I hope these quick, incomplete replies are interesting and helpful. Again, they are quick, so I may have missed something, but, again, the basic response is that more often needs to be said, as is often the case with everything!<br /><br />Nathan Nobis<br /><br />Also:<br /><img src="https://img1.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0