They are also against women knowing the development of their fetus and the procedure used to kill/remove them. = informed consent. When my mum started her cancer treatment they told her the exact size shape and location of her tumor, told her what it was made up of, how advanced it was, showed her pictures and told her exactly how they were going to remove it. That was for a tumor, not a human organism.
Good article, thanks. The central thesis is argued perfectly. [Edit: Deleted a question.] It seems to me that your rejection of the bodily-rights argument does not address one important question. You wrote: Women (and men) have the right to bodily autonomy, generally speaking. . . . The pro-life view says that women should no longer have the legal right to kill their children when they are inside the woman’s body. That is a restriction [on bodily autonomy], but it is a reasonable restriction. The pro-choice view is a restriction on the right of the unborn child to not be killed. . . . We cannot just fixate on one person’s rights when there is a conflict of rights; we have to evaluate both of them together and make a case for which right is more important. Yet presented with thought experiments where an adult, who is somehow not responsible for his actions, tries to use my body parts, and the least violent way in which I can protect myself is to kill him, pro-lifers will overwhelmingly, I think, say that I have the right to kill him. Why is my right to bodily autonomy more important than his right not to be killed, while the right to bodily autonomy of a woman pregnant by rape is not more important than the right of her child not to be killed? And then there are RU-486 abortions, in which the child is arguably not killed, but just refused the use of the woman's body. I think that, insofar as the correctness of any moral principle can be proved logically at all, to prove the correctness of the pro-life position in some situations you have to bring in compulsory Minimally Decent Samaritanism or your De Facto Guardian.* But then why not MDS or DFG for an adult trying to use my body parts?
In other words -- I think there is legitimate controversy between intelligent people about the extent to which the right to live of every needy person around the world has a pull on us as individuals
a line has to be drawn on the legitimate controversy.
Your argument fails on the super-vagueness of the stipulation that someone 'tries to use my body parts'. A great deal would depend on the specifics of that situation, especially how 'the least violent way in which I can protect myself is to kill him' plus, more importantly, in what way and for what impact (on you and on others) and for what duration he was 'using' your body parts. The entire scenario is actually pretty absurd. Without more concrete and complete information, there's NO way a valid conclusion can be reached.
Crystal replied to that same comment of mine, and when I replied to her I gave some more "specifics of that situation. . . . more concrete and complete information": "When I said, 'thought experiments where an adult, who is somehow not responsible for his actions, tries to use my body parts,' I was referring to thought experiments where that adult is not a rapist, and the 'only way he can currently survive is via my body parts.' Sorry I didn't spell that out." Does that help? The thought experiment was not my argument, but a thought experiment from pro-choicers that I have run into. When I did run into it, I didn't feel that I could counter it by pointing out that it was an unlikely situation or absurd. Most of us have a lot of imaginative ability, and as long as I can imagine a situation, and as long as it's analogous to a real situation, it can give me a fresh moral perspective on that real situation -- that is, can help me find the correct moral intuition within me about that real situation. There is no common situation in real life that is similar to pregnancy, so the only possibility of arguing by analogy at all is to construct an unlikely situation.
I think it's fair to point out the inconsistency here. The difference is not just with intent but also with the fact the only way the child can currently survive is via attachment to the mother, which is, as we know, the way biology works. A rapist doesn't need someone else to attach to in order to live. Furthermore I find the comparison of an unborn person to a rapist totally dehumanising to its worth. Yet, for all this, there is an inconsistency, and you are right to question it. But this inconsistency does not justify abortion no matter how loudly legal abortion advocates argue that it should*. What it *does justify is a merciless self-examination not just of ourselves as PL individuals but of the PL movement as a whole, and the way it is headed both in legal success and in social acceptance. I recommend high techs as a way to solve the difficulty. Can you think of anything else?
When I said, "thought experiments where an adult, who is somehow not responsible for his actions, tries to use my body parts," I was referring to thought experiments where that adult is not a rapist, and the "only way he can currently survive is via my body parts." Sorry I didn't spell that out.
Oh, okay! I've been giving serious thought to this question. I think that if you are speaking via a bodily autonomy perspective as regarding brain-dead and other sick people being forced to offer their organs for organ donation there is a huge inconsistency. But if you're talking from a life-oriented viewpoint where every life is precious there is none! That being said, I think if you're talking about an adult who isn't responsible for his actions being hooked to you, it's true that you're not obligated legally. But I think you are morally obligated and that is what is being missed here.
"Fortunately, Brent changed his mind" "Fortunately" is intriguing. My question is off your main topic, but that word perhaps shows that you have thought about my question: What if Brent hadn't changed his mind, AND seemed sincere? Would you have had any further recourse? Is there any way to prove or disprove the correctness of any moral principle? I think this question and its possible answers are implicit in any discussion about moral principles. I also have reason to think that the pro-life cause would benefit greatly by making them more explicit, but I won't get into that at the moment.
We have to draw parallels to paradigm cases for which our intuitions align. If someone has a radically different enough set of intuitions, and those intuitions cohere, then it would be impossible to make any progress in debate.
Thanks. I think it is likely that it would be impossible to make any progress through the kinds of logic-only debates that we're familiar with. I have been thinking about a different approach, and I'd appreciate your feedback on it. Please see my http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/moral-intuition-logic-and-the-abortion-debate/, at least the section The Practical Implications: More Meaningful Dialogues, particularly point 5 under that heading.
It's pretty clear that "logic-only" debates won't work because moral principles aren't analytic truths. It's not only unpacking the semantics. There are certain basic facts we all have to agree with in order to make any progress via thought experiments and prompting the interlocutor to do some reflective equilibrium. That's what these thought experiments are: intuition pumps.
"There are certain basic facts we all have to agree with in order to make any progress via thought experiments" Do you mean "There are certain basic moral facts (basic moral intuitions) we all have to agree with in order to make any progress via thought experiments" -- ? Our topic is debates where the two sides' moral intuitions differ radically. In such situations, I had said, "I think it is likely that it would be impossible to make any progress through the kinds of logic-only debates that we're familiar with." I was mentally including thought experiments in "logic-only debates," thus arguing "If two people have radically different enough sets of intuitions, thought experiments won't do the job any better than other kinds of logical arguments." (Your saying that if we don't agree on basic somethings -- intuitions? -- we won't make progress via thought experiments, and saying that thought experiments are intuition pumps, seems to me like two different things. Doesn't the latter say that thought experiments can help us find moral intuitions in us that we hadn't found before? Maybe I've misunderstood one statement or the other.) I do think that logic-only approaches, including thought experiments, have some power to help us find moral intuitions in us that we hadn't found before, and I discuss that in the blog post I linked to. But "If two people have radically different enough sets of intuitions, thought experiments won't do the job any better than other kinds of logical arguments." Still, all is not lost, there is another possible approach, as I argue in the section The Practical Implications: More Meaningful Dialogues, particularly point 5 under that heading.
"Fortunately" simply expresses the opinion of the speaker. Yes, there are objective ways to prove or disprove moral principles, but there is no way to convince someone who refuses reason.
At the risk of laboring the word "Fortunately" too much, it might mean simply what it means to Crystal -- "fortunate that Brent evolved morally," more or less -- or it might mean "fortunate that Brent didn't bite the bullet because then I (author of the article) would have had no further recourse in the logical discussion." The 2 possibilities are why I said "perhaps." Then I proceeded to take the word the latter way in order to hook my question to it. "Yes, there are objective ways to prove or disprove moral principles" Did you see on this page where Josh Brahm is considering devoting a future blog post to "Is there any way to prove or disprove the correctness of any moral principle?" I hope he and his brother will indeed weigh in on this. Meanwhile, could you give an example of an objective proof of a moral principle? I'd like to see it, and it might even be something the Brahms could use when and if they do write.
In what way does "fortunately" express the opinion of the speaker? I don't understand and therefore would appreciate an explanation of what you are trying to say if you wouldn't mind offering it, because it is fortunate that this young man gave up his depravity when shown the error of his ways.
Oh, and recently I watched the BBC 2008 version of Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I highly recommend it; it is deeply soul-wrenching and powerful and awakens us anew to the devastating consequences of rape culture across the world. Little did Thomas Hardy know the flame he was kindling when those enraged Victorians threw his book onto the flames.
Hey, Josh, how's it going? I hope you had a good Christmas and I apologise for not saying that in my last few emails to you :( I agree that it is hypocritical. I was going to put up some thoughts on that but I was thinking about this in a different way: Have you ever seen or read Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy? Because, the story was set in the 1800s I think. Tess was raped and in those days a woman who was raped was basically little less than a moral criminal. Her mother told her she should not tell anyone about her past because her mother knew the social stigma involved in what had happened in Tess's life. Tess fell in love with and married this wonderful man called Angel Clare and she told him what had happened to her, after he had confessed to an affair with a married woman beforehand. After hearing her "confession" he rejected her. The conclusion is highly tragic but truthful on the plight of raped women in society. My point in bringing all of that seemingly unrelated stuff up is to say that it is good to be honest with people about your past, and not hide these things. Tess did the right thing despite what happened next, despite the social stigma and harsh life that followed. If someone who was raped and faced social stigma could do the morally decent thing, tell her husband that she had been raped, then people with HIV SHOULD do the same.
A couple of years ago here in West Bengal, India, where I'm based, in one village the family of a boy and the family of a girl arranged for them to marry. Probably the boy and girl were also willing. But a few days before the wedding date, the girl got raped, and it was well-known. The girl's family assumed the wedding was off. Here the villages are particularly tradition-bound. In Hindu culture the custom is that the groom's party -- he and his relatives and friends -- will go in a procession to the bride's house. If the groom's family have a horse or can afford to rent one, he rides a horse. On the wedding date the bride's family were sitting disconsolately in their house. Perhaps they hadn't even hoped for the best enough to make any wedding preparations. They were astonished to see the groom's party coming up the road. Reporters arrived. The boy said, "Certainly I will marry her. It wasn't her fault." It was statewide news! The fact that it was news is a sad commentary, but at least the coverage was very positive.
Thanks for the comment, and don't worry, you are not obligated to wish me a merry Christmas. :) I've never read Tess of the D'Urbervilles, but am aware and very sad about how poorly rape survivors have been treated throughout history, and I'm glad that it's not as bad now in first-world countries as it once was. I would argue that in this case it should be up to Tess whether or not she tells people about her rape. Our argument that people with HIV should have to disclose that to their sexual partners has to do with the physical risk of contracting HIV. I don't think the same principle applies in all other situations where somebody has a sensitive secret about themselves. In many cases it is good and healthy to share your story with certain people, but you may carefully choose who those people are. That seems perfectly healthy to me.
This HIV thing - I can understand why PP would recommend why people shouldn't tell if they don't want to. I can sympathise with the concern for social stigma. But why not, instead of doing this, found shelters where battered HIV victims could go and receive help? Make hotlines available, etc. The problems with offering abortions to people in tough situations is that they don't seem to push alternatives like hotlines and other such places, or getting the person out of the bad situation. Just give them an abortion and that will fix everything! No, it won't. It will take an innocent human life and, although a woman might be more likely to escape via her own means with that abortion, is it not right to offer hotlines where people can go to get out of situations immediately rather than keep remaining in them after having an abortion? The same mentality is being applied to AIDS. This abortion stuff has brought about a lot of secrecy, I can tell you that. Abortion contributes to the hush-up culture, where you can't tell your dirty secrets and you can keep yourself perfectly safe yet nothing - nothing - is resolved. So PP is doing more harm than good by suggesting that HIV victims hide their venereal diseases. It's not only unwise to the people being deceived but also a great disservice to the HIV victims who need medical treatment not hiding. Besides, the more people tell, the more we can get rid of the stigma, I think.
Hey Crystal ok yeah cool I will check this site out. As you know I am pro-life so I am down for the struggle, lol. Anyway thanks again for the invite now that I have an account it is somewhat easier to keep up
How have you been finding it, $TEELE? Sorry I have not gotten here before, but have been mighty busy! I hope all is well with you. What is your opinion on this article?
"Thanks for the comment, and don't worry, you are not obligated to wish me a merry Christmas. :)" I agree that I am not. But I was taught to have good manners and I'm sorry for it. "I'm glad that it's not as bad now in first-world countries as it once was." True enough. We have rape survivors networks, etc. Yet we still have a great social stigma and misunderstanding surrounding rape :( "Our argument that people with HIV should have to disclose that to their sexual partners has to do with the physical risk of contracting HIV." Oh, fair enough. My mistake :( I hope you don't mind if I think about your words and give you an answer later. I will say that your argument for the differences between rape and HIV is fair though. "I've never read Tess of the D'Urbervilles" I'd recommend watching the BBC 2008 version, or the A&E 1998 version, then. Both are fairly faithful to the book. It is a deeply painful story to read, and yes, I did read it. Besides, it's a classic of literature and Thomas Hardy does use some very big words! Thanks for answering my off-topic questions though.
When my mum started her cancer treatment they told her the exact size shape and location of her tumor, told her what it was made up of, how advanced it was, showed her pictures and told her exactly how they were going to remove it. That was for a tumor, not a human organism.
[Edit: Deleted a question.]
It seems to me that your rejection of the bodily-rights argument does not address one important question. You wrote:
Women (and men) have the right to bodily autonomy, generally speaking. . . . The pro-life view says that women should no longer have the legal right to kill their children when they are inside the woman’s body. That is a restriction [on bodily autonomy], but it is a reasonable restriction. The pro-choice view is a restriction on the right of the unborn child to not be killed. . . . We cannot just fixate on one person’s rights when there is a conflict of rights; we have to evaluate both of them together and make a case for which right is more important.
Yet presented with thought experiments where an adult, who is somehow not responsible for his actions, tries to use my body parts, and the least violent way in which I can protect myself is to kill him, pro-lifers will overwhelmingly, I think, say that I have the right to kill him. Why is my right to bodily autonomy more important than his right not to be killed, while the right to bodily autonomy of a woman pregnant by rape is not more important than the right of her child not to be killed?
And then there are RU-486 abortions, in which the child is arguably not killed, but just refused the use of the woman's body.
I think that, insofar as the correctness of any moral principle can be proved logically at all, to prove the correctness of the pro-life position in some situations you have to bring in compulsory Minimally Decent Samaritanism or your De Facto Guardian.* But then why not MDS or DFG for an adult trying to use my body parts?
I think there is legitimate controversy between intelligent people about the extent to which the right to live of every needy person around the world has a pull on us as individuals
"When I said, 'thought experiments where an adult, who is somehow not responsible for his actions, tries to use my body parts,' I was referring to thought experiments where that adult is not a rapist, and the 'only way he can currently survive is via my body parts.' Sorry I didn't spell that out."
Does that help?
The thought experiment was not my argument, but a thought experiment from pro-choicers that I have run into. When I did run into it, I didn't feel that I could counter it by pointing out that it was an unlikely situation or absurd. Most of us have a lot of imaginative ability, and as long as I can imagine a situation, and as long as it's analogous to a real situation, it can give me a fresh moral perspective on that real situation -- that is, can help me find the correct moral intuition within me about that real situation. There is no common situation in real life that is similar to pregnancy, so the only possibility of arguing by analogy at all is to construct an unlikely situation.
The difference is not just with intent but also with the fact the only way the child can currently survive is via attachment to the mother, which is, as we know, the way biology works. A rapist doesn't need someone else to attach to in order to live. Furthermore I find the comparison of an unborn person to a rapist totally dehumanising to its worth.
Yet, for all this, there is an inconsistency, and you are right to question it. But this inconsistency does not justify abortion no matter how loudly legal abortion advocates argue that it should*. What it *does justify is a merciless self-examination not just of ourselves as PL individuals but of the PL movement as a whole, and the way it is headed both in legal success and in social acceptance.
I recommend high techs as a way to solve the difficulty. Can you think of anything else?
I've been giving serious thought to this question. I think that if you are speaking via a bodily autonomy perspective as regarding brain-dead and other sick people being forced to offer their organs for organ donation there is a huge inconsistency. But if you're talking from a life-oriented viewpoint where every life is precious there is none!
That being said, I think if you're talking about an adult who isn't responsible for his actions being hooked to you, it's true that you're not obligated legally. But I think you are morally obligated and that is what is being missed here.
"Fortunately" is intriguing. My question is off your main topic, but that word perhaps shows that you have thought about my question:
What if Brent hadn't changed his mind, AND seemed sincere? Would you have had any further recourse? Is there any way to prove or disprove the correctness of any moral principle?
I think this question and its possible answers are implicit in any discussion about moral principles. I also have reason to think that the pro-life cause would benefit greatly by making them more explicit, but I won't get into that at the moment.
I have been thinking about a different approach, and I'd appreciate your feedback on it. Please see my http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/moral-intuition-logic-and-the-abortion-debate/, at least the section The Practical Implications: More Meaningful Dialogues, particularly point 5 under that heading.
That's what these thought experiments are: intuition pumps.
Do you mean "There are certain basic moral facts (basic moral intuitions) we all have to agree with in order to make any progress via thought experiments" -- ?
Our topic is debates where the two sides' moral intuitions differ radically. In such situations, I had said, "I think it is likely that it would be impossible to make any progress through the kinds of logic-only debates that we're familiar with."
I was mentally including thought experiments in "logic-only debates," thus arguing "If two people have radically different enough sets of intuitions, thought experiments won't do the job any better than other kinds of logical arguments."
(Your saying that if we don't agree on basic somethings -- intuitions? -- we won't make progress via thought experiments, and saying that thought experiments are intuition pumps, seems to me like two different things. Doesn't the latter say that thought experiments can help us find moral intuitions in us that we hadn't found before? Maybe I've misunderstood one statement or the other.)
I do think that logic-only approaches, including thought experiments, have some power to help us find moral intuitions in us that we hadn't found before, and I discuss that in the blog post I linked to. But "If two people have radically different enough sets of intuitions, thought experiments won't do the job any better than other kinds of logical arguments." Still, all is not lost, there is another possible approach, as I argue in the section The Practical Implications: More Meaningful Dialogues, particularly point 5 under that heading.
"Yes, there are objective ways to prove or disprove moral principles"
Did you see on this page where Josh Brahm is considering devoting a future blog post to "Is there any way to prove or disprove the correctness of any moral principle?" I hope he and his brother will indeed weigh in on this. Meanwhile, could you give an example of an objective proof of a moral principle? I'd like to see it, and it might even be something the Brahms could use when and if they do write.
Little did Thomas Hardy know the flame he was kindling when those enraged Victorians threw his book onto the flames.
I agree that it is hypocritical. I was going to put up some thoughts on that but I was thinking about this in a different way:
Have you ever seen or read Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy? Because, the story was set in the 1800s I think. Tess was raped and in those days a woman who was raped was basically little less than a moral criminal. Her mother told her she should not tell anyone about her past because her mother knew the social stigma involved in what had happened in Tess's life. Tess fell in love with and married this wonderful man called Angel Clare and she told him what had happened to her, after he had confessed to an affair with a married woman beforehand. After hearing her "confession" he rejected her. The conclusion is highly tragic but truthful on the plight of raped women in society.
My point in bringing all of that seemingly unrelated stuff up is to say that it is good to be honest with people about your past, and not hide these things. Tess did the right thing despite what happened next, despite the social stigma and harsh life that followed. If someone who was raped and faced social stigma could do the morally decent thing, tell her husband that she had been raped, then people with HIV SHOULD do the same.
The girl's family assumed the wedding was off. Here the villages are particularly tradition-bound.
In Hindu culture the custom is that the groom's party -- he and his relatives and friends -- will go in a procession to the bride's house. If the groom's family have a horse or can afford to rent one, he rides a horse. On the wedding date the bride's family were sitting disconsolately in their house. Perhaps they hadn't even hoped for the best enough to make any wedding preparations. They were astonished to see the groom's party coming up the road. Reporters arrived. The boy said, "Certainly I will marry her. It wasn't her fault."
It was statewide news!
The fact that it was news is a sad commentary, but at least the coverage was very positive.
I've never read Tess of the D'Urbervilles, but am aware and very sad about how poorly rape survivors have been treated throughout history, and I'm glad that it's not as bad now in first-world countries as it once was.
I would argue that in this case it should be up to Tess whether or not she tells people about her rape. Our argument that people with HIV should have to disclose that to their sexual partners has to do with the physical risk of contracting HIV. I don't think the same principle applies in all other situations where somebody has a sensitive secret about themselves. In many cases it is good and healthy to share your story with certain people, but you may carefully choose who those people are. That seems perfectly healthy to me.
The problems with offering abortions to people in tough situations is that they don't seem to push alternatives like hotlines and other such places, or getting the person out of the bad situation. Just give them an abortion and that will fix everything!
No, it won't. It will take an innocent human life and, although a woman might be more likely to escape via her own means with that abortion, is it not right to offer hotlines where people can go to get out of situations immediately rather than keep remaining in them after having an abortion?
The same mentality is being applied to AIDS. This abortion stuff has brought about a lot of secrecy, I can tell you that. Abortion contributes to the hush-up culture, where you can't tell your dirty secrets and you can keep yourself perfectly safe yet nothing - nothing - is resolved. So PP is doing more harm than good by suggesting that HIV victims hide their venereal diseases. It's not only unwise to the people being deceived but also a great disservice to the HIV victims who need medical treatment not hiding. Besides, the more people tell, the more we can get rid of the stigma, I think.
Sorry I have not gotten here before, but have been mighty busy! I hope all is well with you.
What is your opinion on this article?
I agree that I am not. But I was taught to have good manners and I'm sorry for it.
"I'm glad that it's not as bad now in first-world countries as it once was."
True enough. We have rape survivors networks, etc. Yet we still have a great social stigma and misunderstanding surrounding rape :(
"Our argument that people with HIV should have to disclose that to their
sexual partners has to do with the physical risk of contracting HIV."
Oh, fair enough. My mistake :(
I hope you don't mind if I think about your words and give you an answer later. I will say that your argument for the differences between rape and HIV is fair though.
"I've never read Tess of the D'Urbervilles"
I'd recommend watching the BBC 2008 version, or the A&E 1998 version, then. Both are fairly faithful to the book. It is a deeply painful story to read, and yes, I did read it. Besides, it's a classic of literature and Thomas Hardy does use some very big words!
Thanks for answering my off-topic questions though.
http://www.amazon.com/Tess-Durbervilles-Season-1/dp/B003Z49LYO/ref=tmm_aiv_swatch_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
I hope this is what you are looking for!