Justifiable Homicide?
Sorry to be gone so long, but I'm back now. I won't make any excuses (even though I was chased by a Tyrannosaurus).
Second of all, you're arguing against several well established philosophers and their definition of person when you make statements such as "human beings who don't display the rational and empathic qualities (because of external constraints) are still persons." Mr. Kettle, you're friend Mr. Pot is on the phone. He says you're black.
Let the record also show that Mr. Pot is, in fact, a racist. See, I am a navy blue, Teflon kettle. Production slurs will get you nowhere.
But to the serious part, here are three reasons why I'm not the pot calling the kettle black (or being called black):
(1) The supreme court justices who ruled in favor of abortion in Roe v. Wade made a crucial mistake. Here is
what they said:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Now you and I both agree that this is an inaccurate statement about when life begins. similarly inaccurate was their reference to medicine, philosophy, and theology, because even we can tell when life begins as a matter of simple biology. (Remember--they said "life," not "personhood.") Didn't they do some research into what medical scientists, philosophers, or thologians said? This looks like either a case of intellectual laziness, or perhaps outright deception.
(2) Since I'm not the first one to bring religion into this debate since I've been here (despite actually
having a religion), I think...it's time to bring religion into the debate! Only here's the funny part: It's...not
my religion I'm bringing into the debate!
It's the Hippocratic Oath!
"I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."
Note carefully the reference to abortion in there. That's right, modern conservatives are not alone. We aren't arguing against the tide of history or reason itself.
Another interesting thing I want to point out is that second fellow mentioned, the Greek god Asclepius. The Wikipedia page on him contained a great quote:
"He was the son of Apollo and Coronis. His mother was killed for being unfaithful to Apollo and was laid out on a funeral pyre to be consumed, but the unborn child was rescued from her womb. From this he received the name Asklepios "to cut open". Apollo carried the baby to the centaur Chiron who raised Asclepius and instructed him in the art of medicine."
They could've just left him there. "Don't let the world get overpopulated with divine beings!" But noooo. Why? Could it be that the value of a life is more important than people's whims?
(3) The Fourteenth Ammendment of the Constitution has an interesting passage to which we should all direct our attention:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I bet you thought I was gonna talk about that "not depriving persons of life" bit, didn't you? No, that's not what I'm gonna talk about. Notice the opening statement, the one about persons. I freely admit that as this stands, it is a difficulty to some aspects of the pro life position (because it acknowledges nothing before birth).
However, the law recognizes you as a person
at birth! The funny thing, Tim, is that you listed rational and empathic qualities as defining charcteristics of personhood. I don't doubt that those are reasonably good criteria for personhood. But 18-month-olds are not known for their rationality (or empathy for that matter). By your logic, they
cannot be considered persons. Yet the law correctly recognizes their personhood. Why?
Could it be that personhood is
inherent to human beings despite whether they happen to have these characteristics in fully exercised form?
I hereby submit to you the modest proposition that personhood is inherent to human beings. It matters not how much rational interaction we can see. For that matter, unborn humans display exactly the amount of rationality that we would expect of a rational being under those circumstances. Otherwise, it is possible to gain and lose personhood, which would take away all rights of personhood from already born humans up to...what? 2 years old?
On the other hand, consider the following, Tim:
a fetus is innocent in the same way that a rock is innocent
the innocence is unquestionable, but it's also meaningless
Actually, let's replace that with: "A fetus is innocent in the same sense that a baby dolphin is innocent," or "a fetus is innocent in the same sense a baby whale is innocent." See the difference? I think we all do.
Also, not that this runs counter to the whole parasite argument, which holds that unborn children have done something wrong ("stealing" energy from the mother).
Oh, and get ready 7 tyranitars:
Actually ..at this point, it's less than a hand. Hands help us complete tasks. Hands help abortion!* sorry I had to ):It's attached to the mother INSIDE. If the mother doesn't want the freaking child, then she chooses if the thing lives or dies. Simple as that. it's her's, it is her.
This also runs counter to the parasite argument, because no definition of parasite will allow something that is truly part of you to be called a parasite
of you. Anyway, this is just plain wrong. An unborn human is not part of the mother, nor can it be described as the mother. It has a separate (though related) genetic code. I don't deny that it depends on the mother, but that doesn't make it part of her--it is a separate human.
BTW, GhostAnime, please provide a case where your definition of "parasite' applies. Aside from this (disputed) instance, has anyone ever called one organism a parasite of another
same-species organism?
It is now time for a unique twist, Tim. One thing that occurred to me was that the personhood argument is not technically necessary to the pro life case. Do you know what "homicide" means? Homicide means the killing of...wait for it...
a human being! Homicide can be justifiable or it can be unjustifiable. For example, homicide can be considered justifiable in the case of self-defense. This absolutely argues that not all abortions are acceptable.
Some homicides are even considered murder. Let's give a final example to make this really stick in your mind: Have you ever seen a crime movie or TV show in which a criminal was just found out by a friend who didn't know of his lawbreaking ways? Sometimes, the criminal feels he must get rid of the friend, even if he is a good friend.
"I'm sorry you got involved in this, kid. But I have to do this."
Justifiable homicide, or murder? You make the call.