The human right to life does not include a right to do whatever you need to do, nor to be wherever you need to be, nor to take whatever you need to take, in order to remain alive. Especially when what you need to take is part of the contents of another person's bloodstream when she does not want to share it with you, and when where you need to be is inside another person's body when you are unwelcome there, and when what you need to do is to subject another person to a major medical/surgical trauma against her will. There is no right to live by doing these things, and should be none, for anyone. Not for you, not for me, not for Tarzan in a tree, not for Larry, Curly, or Moe, not for Luciano or Plácido. And not for any unwelcome fetus. That is an EQUAL limitation on EQUAL rights.
Yes. Unborn persons should have exactly the same rights as already-born people. And exactly the same LIMITS on those rights. Unborn persons should have EQUAL rights, but no SPECIAL rights. Are you with me so far? If an already-born person is entitled to do something, then unborn persons should be entitled to do that thing too, and, if an already-born person is NOT entitled to do something, then unborn persons should not be entitled to do that thing either. Equal rights, but NO SPECIAL RIGHTS! Do we agree on this? Now tell me: are already-born persons allowed to be located, or to have any part of themselves located, inside another person's body, when unwelcome there? Answer "yes" or "no" here: __ Therefore, should unborn persons be allowed to be located, or to have any part of themselves located, inside another person's body, when unwelcome there? Bearing "NO SPECIAL RIGHTS" in mind, copy your answer from the previous blank, here: ___!!!! And tell me: are already-born persons allowed to share the contents of another person's bloodstream, without ongoing permission from that other person to do so? Answer "yes" or "no" here: __ Therefore, should unborn persons be allowed to share the contents of another person's bloodstream, without ongoing permission from that other person to do so? Bearing "NO SPECIAL RIGHTS" in mind, copy your answer from the previous blank, here: ___!!!! And tell me this: are already-born persons allowed to live by subjecting another person to a major medical/surgical trauma against that other person's will? Answer "yes" or "no" here: __ Therefore, should unborn persons be allowed to live by subjecting another person to a major medical/surgical trauma, such as full-term labor and delivery, against that other person's will? Bearing "NO SPECIAL RIGHTS" in mind, copy your answer from the previous blank, here: ___!!!! EQUAL rights won't get you where you want to go. "EQUAL rights for unborn persons" yields a PRO-CHOICE result. In order to justify banning abortion, you need SPECIAL rights for fetuses, not equal rights.
Where do you get this "right to life" idea from? That would literally mean that someone (the government?) would affirmatively have to protect every person to prevent them from dying. But that is absurd and it would be impossible to guarantee that all humans die of old age, unless old age is also to be considered a trespass on the "right to life." There is no basis for any right to life in the U.S. Constitution. A faith-based definition of "right to life" would fail because the bible contains numerous instances of god ordering the slaughter of unborn children while at the same time neglecting to make self-induced abortion a crime. Actually the bible says a person can kill a child if it's under one month old. Seriously. So unless you've patented a new religion or you think you can change the American definition of freedom then I can't imagine where you came up with this "right to life." This is the argument I give to headstrong anti-choicers that seem to otherwise be able to think rationally (or understand some fundamentals of law): Abortion can never be illegal. This is because it would be successfully challenged for violating a woman's bodily autonomy (freedom). The government cannot force a man to save his ailing brother by transferring the blood needed against the man's will. Think about it. If your brother or sister or father needed a liver to avoid certain death, the government could NOT force you to give up your own liver to save them. You could not be forced to read material about how easy the procedure would be. It would be your choice alone. But some people think women should be forced to sacrifice their minds and bodies (health and freedom) to save an unborn child. Using that same logic, we should all have to give whatever is necessary of ourselves to save whomever is in peril. Including your neighbors. And the people you don't like at work. All fair game. Now let me explain why abortion will always be legal: An unborn child is either A) a person or B) a property belonging to the woman. Either usage is fine for this example. If the unborn child is undesired, it presents as a threat to the woman's physical and mental health (her Liberty). The Constitution authorizes self-defense, even as it may cause death. A pregnant woman is the only person who can be threatened by her own pregnancy. Thus, while abortion should continue to be a lawfully available option to women, it is recommended on this basis that unlawful, third-party violence that results in the nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy (whether or not the pregnancy was desired) SHOULD be punished as feticide, commensurate with penalties for murder. My hope in writing this is that people who identify as prolife will stop associating abortion with feticide. Hundreds of pregnant women are murdered every year and feticide laws could HELP THEM. But the prolifers basically destroy the function of that kind of law by greedily insisting that it be used to persecute pregnant women. How can you guys not see that making it illegal will push women back into the dark ages? Why not try to make the world the type of place that mothers want to bear children? The earth is wrecked and so is society, unwanted children become victims and monsters, have you ever looked beyond your singular goal of controlling others? You're not saving anyone, you're keeping our species from evolving.
If her doctors believe that her life is at risk, then I believe medical intervention is justified. (Some people debate whether or not to call it an "abortion." I don't care very much what you call it. I care whether the act in question is justified.) Here's why I think it's justified: http://joshbrahm.com/mothers-life-risk-speech-audio/
If I was saying that this argument responds to every pro-choice argument, then I would agree with you that it's an oversimplification. That's not my view though. I think this is the most helpful way to begin responding to pro-choice arguments that the unborn is not a person. But it won't respond to bodily autonomy arguments, utilitarian arguments, etc. I think we have some excellent thoughts on bodily rights arguments. You can see some of that material here: http://joshbrahm.com/tag/bodily-rights/ Thanks, Charles.
This gets me thinking about animal rights and utilitarianism. Is the species barrier the best way for us to determine who we do and don't kill and eat with impunity? Perhaps food and animal ethics seems like an off-topic tangent, but it really isn't, bear with me. IF the species barrier is in place, and we decide that we are omnivores, and have a right to kill and eat non-human animals (a statement I would agree with) this argument you've put up there seems to hold up. However, there are many vegetarians and vegans who would argue, usually on a utilitarian basis, than we DON'T have the right to kill and eat animals, because of their capacity for reasoning. This leads, however, to the conclusion that who and what we may end the life of is based on cognition - therefore, the very disabled, fetuses, the very old, etc. become -more- morally acceptable to end the lives of than, for instance, a non-disabled chimpanzee. Logically this follows, although I am uncomfortable with that conclusion. Yet I am uncomfortable, also, with drawing a strict species-barrier and saying "because this is a human based on DNA, we cannot kill it" because there is implicit in that statement "things WITHOUT human DNA are all ok to kill". Now, I'm an omnivore, and believe that, with respect, we may kill and eat non-human life (and that we may in extremis eat humans whom we did not kill). With this equal right argument, I think in order to be effective for your purposes, you may need to address this issue. (In case it's relevant, I currently consider myself pro-choice and anti-abortion...it's complicated).
...Ok I read the first three comments below and see that everything I just voiced has already been said and responded to, quite well in fact! Please disregard this...perhaps my ramblings will be helpful in some obscure way.
I agree this is a very strong argument. If I was playing devil's advocate I would say that although every human has the right to life there are a variety of ways in which a human can lose that right, or that other rights supersede it - such as, during a just war, or when you are being violently attacked, or even (though I'm sure this will be seen as debatable) in the case of the death penalty. A pro-choice advocate might then argue that being inside the body of a woman who is unable to remove you, also means that the human lose that right to life, or that the right of the mother supersedes the unborn human's right. If we concede that the right to life is not ultimate (such as in those other cases) the pro-life advocate would have to establish another principle (such as the "innocence" of the unborn human) that distincts it from the other cases. What do you think? Has this issue been raised in your conversations?
These kind of arguments are to me, deeply unsatisfying. They come across as an attempt to apply attributes to things that are, depending upon context, not really deserving of it. A chimpanzee has 98% of human DNA. By the above type of argument, a chimpanzee has 98% humanness. Give chimpanzees 98% human rights! We share 50% of our DNA with bananas! They share our humanness! Give bananas human rights! You know that an argument is a bad one when it is open to this kind of absurd extension. To me, it's just special pleading in an attempt to get around the analysis of actually establishing what something is and how we should morally treat it. It's abusing words. Clearly it's not an argument that impresses European lawmakers. If it were satisfying as an argument, then we would have long ago changed laws surrounding "personhood".
You can also engage in a thought experiment: Imagine 10 adults lined up, and they all appear to be 100 percent human. Indeed, if you had a conversation with any of them, they would appear to be absolute, positively, 100 percent human. However, it turns out that 1 of them is actually an alien, with entirely different DNA (don't worry about how, it's just a thought experiment). But this alien, walks, talks, acts, and thinks exactly like a human. Surely we would think that alien has intrinsic value?
I think you're asking exactly the right question, which is why we at ERI no longer believe it's precisely biological humanness that makes us valuable. We haven't updated this post yet because we're still working on which definition of personhood is the best, but it'll be something like "being a member of a species that is intrinsically ordered towards rationality." By "rationality" we mean something like being able to think and act morally. So yes, fictional aliens like Spock and District 9 aliens are pretty obviously persons, in my view. And so are all humans. I think the key mistake would be to think that you have to currently think and act morally to be a person. That definition rules out newborns, thus is obviously false. The property in question must be a higher order capacity, not a first order capacity.
Abortion proponents can create an endless list of new categories for this or that aspect of the human condition and the process of human reproduction, and then set up pro-lifers for ridicule when the correct definition of these aspects are returned to when making pro life claims and arguments. Ridicule is a very successful strategy of the left; it's used and has been used in classrooms for at least 50 years now to silence dissent from "scientific understandings that separate us from the cave-dwellers who invented religion." Sorry to be a cynic here, and glad that some had some success in engaging with some people with these tactics described in this article, but we're now living in a post-Christian, secular culture that has been co-opted by Socialists with strategies that have successfully captured the imaginations of probably 99% of Americans in believing some lie or another about human reproduction, marriage and family. The whole project of the left is to create power for themselves. Nothing else matters to them. Or, as Hillary Clinton titled her thesis in college, about her hero, Communist agitator Saul Alinsky, "There is Only the Fight." When you capture enough power, you can get people to believe practically any lie you want. From Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals": "From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues.... Until he has those means and power instruments, his 'tactics' are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor Unions, corner gangs, or as individuals." "Change comes from power, and power comes from organization." p.113 I guess what I'm saying is congratulations on your successes, please keep going; some will be saved from suffering, others, of course will not, but the real fight is against defeating Socialists. At least informing people about their goals, strategies and tactics. The Socialists have reasons for gaining power over people's imagination concerning reproduction. Expose that, and I believe people will be very receptive to the proper understanding of life, reproduction, marriage, family and the preborn human person.
''I’ve been using this argument on campuses this year and the results have been incredible. I’ve never seen an argument persuade so many people that abortion is wrong.'' It's because of the fact most come into this debate with not much philosophy under there belt using the word person still as a synonym for being a member of the human species. If they were to find out the differences between those two words, then it would be very interesting. I am shocked and surprised there is no discussion yet on extraterrestrial life and or on artificial intelligence even after the full 40 years of roe v wade's legalization. After that point, our society has accepted decades upon decades worth of science fiction displaying to them persons that were not humans and no one had a problem with that. It's sad and depressing to me that they would write them off indirectly.
It wouldn't surprise me if more often in the future we will need to make a distinction between grounding human value in species membership based on an Imago Dei argument versus making the argument that humans are valuable because they are members of a rational kind. See this newer video from me explaining that argument, after I talk about the Equal Rights Argument. I think you will find it helpful: http://joshbrahm.com/video-responding-secular-views-human-person/
''Making the argument that humans are valuable because they are members of a rational kind.'' Would this apply to anything that may be popping up in the future? It seems to me your movement in my mind, is trying to write massive discrimination in law. The only reason why the pro life movement was able to get some of the restrictions on abortion in recent years is only because of the fact humans are still about the humans. The good news though, is that I see some other forums talking about abortion with those coming in and directing ET and AI questions to pro lifers and not pro choicers which is indicating that our society is becoming more aware of what words mean. Most pro choicers need to stop lying about the unborn being members of the human species while pro lifers need to stop lying about the word person that was attached on to them since they were born. Thanks for being honest with my brother when talking to him about this.
EdinburghEye, I'd like to respond to your post. I think we have some common ground. For example, I agree that pro-lifers are wrong to equate hormonal birth control with abortion. Personally, it is one of my biggest frustrations with the pro-life movement – it’s both irresponsible and harmful to the cause. However, I quite strongly disagree with your understanding of the motives of pro-lifers in general (and certainly Josh Brahm in particular). If you got to know him or even just listened to a few episodes of his podcast with a truly open mind, I'm confident you would reach a different conclusion. Indeed, Life Report has its share of pro-choice fans that appreciate the approach Josh takes with the subject matter. I would be willing to discuss each of your points individually if you wish, though I'm not going to do it in one post as the result would be lengthy and probably unreadable. But, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that everything I wrote in the last paragraph is wrong. Suppose that the pro-lifers' commitment to protecting the unborn really is just an excuse for punishing the "dirty sluts" (including rape victims and married women) for having non-procreative sex. They really do want to eradicate birth control and will go as far as shutting down the government solely to stop women from getting it. They have no real concern for the lives of children (before or after they're born), nor do they care about maternal mortality. The only real difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is 8000 miles. They will stop at nothing to ensure that women are barefoot, in the kitchen, and breastfeeding twins. Would any of this change the truth-value of the claims that Josh and other pro-lifers have put forth about the impermissibility of abortion? It should not. For it is still possible for a very bad person to have good arguments for supporting a reasonable position. To use an example, Nazi Germany was the first country to implement an anti-tobacco campaign (which turned out to be the most successful one of the 20th Century). Even though the Nazis were responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history, their studies on the effects of smoking were sound and they were decades ahead of their time in this regard. Likewise, even if pro-lifers are the worst people in the world, they still hold the right position on abortion if their arguments are sound. Josh Brahm would probably frame his argument somewhere along these lines: P1. The unborn are distinct, whole human organisms from fertilization on. P2. All human organisms have an equal right to life. P3. The right to life should entail a legal obligation from the pregnant woman to sustain the unborn via gestation and childbirth. C. Abortion is a human rights abuse, and should not be legal. There are some nuances and details, but that is the basic argument. If it’s formally valid (which seems obvious) and all three of the premises are true, then a reasonable person must accept the conclusion. So if I could defend each of the premises, would you be willing to reconsider your position? Just for clarification, this article attempts to support only P2 (as most pro-choicers defend abortion on the grounds that the unborn lack the right to life). It does not establish the third premise, which seems to be your main objection (you ask “how can an argument that we are all human persuade anyone that it’s right to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will?”). While it’s common for pro-lifers to take P3 for granted, not all of them do. Josh actually believes that the bodily-rights argument (which essentially concedes the first two premises for the sake of the argument before attempting to negate the third by comparing pregnancy to a form of forcible organ donation) is the strongest pro-choice argument out there, and that most pro-lifers do not understand it or take it seriously enough. He has spent much time writing about it and developing his own critique – a far cry from “taking it for granted”. I would be open to discuss this with you as well, if you are interested. P.S. Just so that you know, Right to Life of Central California is an independent, local pro-life organization. It is not affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee.
Sorry, I'm not sure who you are, but I appreciate the correction about "Right to Life Central California" and will update my blogpost accordingly. If you're interested in discussing my post, my blog is open for comments - all first-time commenters are auto-modded, but that's just protect from spambots and the odd outrageous troll. I welcome strong disagreement. Would any of this change the truth-value of the claims that Josh and other pro-lifers have put forth about the impermissibility of abortion? The only way in which abortion is "impermissible" is if you believe women don't have human rights. Which puts Josh squarely with the other pro-lifers who want to force women, as you acknowledge: "The right to life should entail a legal obligation from the pregnant woman to sustain the unborn via gestation and childbirth." No matter how you dance around it. that's a demand to force women regardless of their own judgement, free will or conscience.
Forcing women through pregnancy and childbirth against our will is a violation of our human rights. Denial of healthcare is a violation of our human rights. If abortion is "impermissible" then you are arguing it is "permissible" to advocate forced use of girls' and women's bodies, forced use to make women produce babies against their will and against their conscience and judgement, and you are also arguing that girls' and women's lives, health, and well-being are unimportant, secondary to your need to force the production of babies. So, prolifers believe women don't have human rights.
Josh: this is a great post summarizing a great argument. Thanks! I would just agree as well with Guest up above with regards to animal rights. Please keep in mind that Peter Singer is actually a very controversial figure in the animal rights community, and some would even argue that he doesn't even believe in animal rights. Gary Francione has produced numerous critiques of Singer, but here one: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/singers-fish-position-is-fishy/#.UkzuDNKnp1E However, for whatever reason, it seems that in the pro-life community Peter Singer's (shocking) views with regards to abortion/infanticide are regarded as synonymous with what animal rights advocates hold in general. (Although, with that said, Francione's views on abortion are not yet well developed at this point, in my opinion. It would be great if he were to respond to Beckwith and others). Abolitionist animal rights arguments come down to the idea of whether beings can feel pain (sentience). If we know, with good scientific evidence, that a being can feel pain and suffering fairly similarly to how a human feels pain -- biologically speaking -- then it doesn't make sense to institutionalize practices that continue that pain. Many pro-life arguments come down to the inherent worth of all human beings, or the humanness we have in common (as Josh mentions above). Many people may posit that we are created in the image of God, and thus we have equal rights. Even atheists can probably see the logic in that, if we are to grant human rights to all, we can't take them away for a trivial reason. So, I fully agree that this is a powerful argument. The human rights discourse and equality is also a great bridge to those who think the pro-life movement is all about a supporting a political vision that they abhor (with the unfair stereotype of gun-tottin', death penalty lovin', anti-poor, anti-union, anti-woman, racist, pro-war under any circumstance...etc) However, like Guest above, I don't think that the end points of the animal rights movement and the pro-life movement are mutually exclusive. But I also look forward to more post exploring this issue in more depth!
I like the idea behind this argument, and look forward to reading your subsequent posts. However, I'm not convinced that it's necessary to undermine animal rights in order to adequately defend the rights of the unborn. Animal rights might be a "major consequence" of adopting certain alternate explanations, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are false. After all, the claim that a one cell embryo has a right to life is also a "major consequence" (and one that's probably at least as controversial), but we would still say that it's a justified true belief. I much prefer Stephanie Gray's approach: "If you are concerned that granting her rights because she’s human deprives other species rights because they’re not, be assured that that doesn’t logically follow. For example, saying all women are valuable doesn’t mean all men are not valuable. Saying we should protect humans doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protect non-humans. The treatment of non-human animals is a debate for another day." There's also the problem that denying animal rights when dialoguing with a Peter Singer type person probably won't be an area of common ground, nor is it a necessary argument to make. The case we're trying to make to them is that abortion should be illegal and unthinkable, not that they should buy a fur coat.
I think you may not be fully understanding my point about animal rights. Here's the relevant sentence from my piece: "It’s my view that all of these alternative explanations have major consequences, in that they either entail an equal right to life for a bunch of animals, or they deny a right to life to human infants." I think animals have (at least) the right not to be mistreated or tortured. I simply am denying that they have an EQUAL right to life with human adults. In other words, I don't think it would be equally tragic if seven cows were killed for food while seven humans were also being killed for food. If I'm talking to a Peter Singer-type person, this might actually be an important discussion to have. In fact, it may be necessary to defend the pro-life position. As I'll explain in a future post, if the person actually thinks animals are equally intrinsically valuable to humans, than they can just argue that minimal self-awareness is what gives you value, as they've already bitten the bullet on giving animals an equal right to life.
I would definitely say (speaking hypothetically) that if animals have an equal right to life with humans, that means we should stop killing animals...it definitely doesn't mean it is okay to kill humans.
I believe that the death of seven cows is equal to the death of seven humans. That was why I had to choose to go vegetarian or go pro-choice. It is a decision that I think all honest people have to make. I choose life for cows and humans.
I think that's very interesting. Would you care to share more about that process? Why do you believe that the killing of a cow is morally the same as the killing of a human?
When I look at other animals, they seem to experience happiness and sadness in the same way I do. They try to avoid pain and death the same way I would. I just can't say that my life is any different than theirs. They also were a zygote and are alive.
My apologies, I should have been clearer. When I said "right to life" and "animal rights" above, I meant "right to life equal to that of an adult human being". That being said, I think my previous point still holds. The argument about killing seven cows for food vs. seven humans for food seems tendentious. I think it runs into the same problems as the burning IVF lab thought experiment, and the argument that embryos cannot have an equal right to life because women don't grieve early miscarriages (at least not enough for embryos to be equal to born children). It's in the same territory as the example Francis Beckwith highlights from Huckleberry Finn: “We blowed out a cylinder head.” “Good gracious! Anybody hurt?” “No’m. Killed a nigger.” “Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.” If they brought up minimal self-awareness, I would probably focus on infanticide and the case of an individual in a deep, reversible coma rather than animal rights.
I should have been clearer. I didn't mean minimally self-aware. I meant minimally aware of the outside world. Like, "experiencing anything at all." That's what even newborns (and late-term fetal humans) can do. So believing that being minimally aware of the outside world is a necessary condition for personhood wouldn't entail infanticide, but it WOULD entail animals being given an equal right to life, which I think is strongly counter-intuitive.
Something being a NECESSARY condition is not the same thing as something being a SUFFICIENT condition. If X is a necessary condition for being a Z, there might still be other things that are also needed (in addition to X) to make something a Z. (I don't personally actually think that being actually minimally aware at this particular point in one's life is a necessary condition for personhood.)
That could apply to newborns (if we define "self-awareness" the right way), but reversibly comatose individuals still completely lack self-awareness and are not capable of experiencing anything at all.
I agree. That's why I think when most pro-choice people talk about self-awareness being a necessary condition for value, I don't think they mean that you must have the PRESENT CAPACITY for awareness. Because when we bring up temporary comas, they always respond, "Yeah, but that's different. They were already aware before." I think they usually mean a PAST CAPACITY. In other words, once a person has crossed the threshold of being self-aware at all, they are now persons, even if they end up in a temporary coma later.
The past capacity for self-awareness is an obvious difference between the standard embryo and a comatose patient. However, I'm not convinced that this works the way a critic of the pro-life standpoint needs it to. Consider the following two hypothetical scenarios:
You've used this one before. Suppose an infant is born in a temporary coma, and has never before possessed any level of self-awareness. Does she not have a serious right to life? It seems implausible to say she doesn't, but this conclusion does necessarily follow from the pro-choice person’s premise. To tease this out further, let's imagine that she has a twin sister who is normally self-aware for the last trimester, but is born in a temporary coma due to complications in delivery. To be consistent, the pro-choicer must conclude that the twin who is self-aware until birth has serious moral status, but the twin that’s never been self-aware does not. If the twins’ parents decide that they don’t want to take care of two babies and can’t handle the thought of someone else bringing up their child, they are justified in taking the life one of the infants (but not the other one) – a form of after-birth selective reduction. Is this a reasonable position to hold? If not, then minimal self-awareness cannot be a necessary condition.
This one is a bit bizarre, but I think it’s still worth taking a look at. Suppose we have a reversibly comatose person, someone in the same position as the subject of Beckwith’s Uncle Jed analogy (ie, someone who has also permanently lost all of his experiences and memories). He is placed in one of Derek Parfit’s replication booths and an exact clone is created (down to the last atom). If minimal self-awareness is necessary for equal rights, then Uncle Jed has the right to life but his clone (hereafter Uncle Jed2) does not. This doesn’t seem right. Imagine walking into the room right after the cloning has taken place. You see two comatose individuals, and you don’t know which one is which. The scientist tells you that Uncle Jed will be allowed to recover, as he was once minimally self-aware and has a serious right to life. However, Uncle Jed2 is in the same position as the standard embryo. He is a brand new human organism that did not exist until a few seconds ago, and has no past or present capacity for self-awareness, so he will soon be destroyed for medical research. This is another disturbing conclusion, but the only way around it is to deny that past minimal self-awareness is a necessary condition for basic human rights. Although Uncle Jed2 lacks some of the rights that Uncle Jed possesses (for example, a just claim on Uncle Jed’s bank account), the right to life is not one of them.
Yes, I think these are both strong responses to people who believe that a past capacity for being self-aware are necessary conditions for personhood. I think the comatose newborn is more helpful than adults in temporary comas because it responds to both past and present capacity arguments. (Which is why you heard me use it in the mock debate with Jonalyn Fincher.) FYI, I deleted the copy of this comment above that ended up in the wrong place in the discussion.
The "right to life" is a fiction. "Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?" —Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers.
The right to life is not a fiction. Even if there are difficulties, this doesn't, by virtue of those difficulties, make the thing false. The question about drowning in the Pacific is just silly, and shows that Heinlein doesn't understand the concept of rights. The concept of rights is a question of how we are to treat each other. The ocean is not a subject of rights, and we are not wronged if we drown in the ocean, unless someone else put us in there to drown us. The other questions of rights are not problematic, either, they just show that a careful discussion needs to be had of rights. If a man has children, he has an obligation to protect them, even with his life. That's part of what it means to be a father. If two men are starving, I don't think think either one has a right to eat the other, with the possible exception if one chooses to give up his own life to save the other out of necessity.
I think you misunderstand what a right to life means ... you can't take extenuating circumstances and then conclude that no one has a right to life. I would argue that the reason these examples are so tragic and difficult is precisely BECAUSE people have a right to their lives.
Now tell me: are already-born persons allowed to be located, or to have any part of themselves located, inside another person's body, when unwelcome there? Answer "yes" or "no" here: __
Therefore, should unborn persons be allowed to be located, or to have any part of themselves located, inside another person's body, when unwelcome there? Bearing "NO SPECIAL RIGHTS" in mind, copy your answer from the previous blank, here: ___!!!!
And tell me: are already-born persons allowed to share the contents of another person's bloodstream, without ongoing permission from that other person to do so? Answer "yes" or "no" here: __
Therefore, should unborn persons be allowed to share the contents of another person's bloodstream, without ongoing permission from that other person to do so? Bearing "NO SPECIAL RIGHTS" in mind, copy your answer from the previous blank, here: ___!!!!
And tell me this: are already-born persons allowed to live by subjecting another person to a major medical/surgical trauma against that other person's will? Answer "yes" or "no" here: __
Therefore, should unborn persons be allowed to live by subjecting another person to a major medical/surgical trauma, such as full-term labor and delivery, against that other person's will? Bearing "NO SPECIAL RIGHTS" in mind, copy your answer from the previous blank, here: ___!!!!
EQUAL rights won't get you where you want to go. "EQUAL rights for unborn persons" yields a PRO-CHOICE result. In order to justify banning abortion, you need SPECIAL rights for fetuses, not equal rights.
This is the argument I give to headstrong anti-choicers that seem to otherwise be able to think rationally (or understand some fundamentals of law):
Abortion can never be illegal.
This is because it would be successfully challenged for violating a woman's bodily autonomy (freedom).
The government cannot force a man to save his ailing brother by transferring the blood needed against the man's will. Think about it. If your brother or sister or father needed a liver to avoid certain death, the government could NOT force you to give up your own liver to save them. You could not be forced to read material about how easy the procedure would be. It would be your choice alone.
But some people think women should be forced to sacrifice their minds and bodies (health and freedom) to save an unborn child.
Using that same logic, we should all have to give whatever is necessary of ourselves to save whomever is in peril. Including your neighbors. And the people you don't like at work. All fair game.
Now let me explain why abortion will always be legal:
An unborn child is either A) a person or B) a property belonging to the woman. Either usage is fine for this example.
If the unborn child is undesired, it presents as a threat to the woman's physical and mental health (her Liberty). The Constitution authorizes self-defense, even as it may cause death.
A pregnant woman is the only person who can be threatened by her own pregnancy. Thus, while abortion should continue to be a lawfully available option to women, it is recommended on this basis that unlawful, third-party violence that results in the nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy (whether or not the pregnancy was desired) SHOULD be punished as feticide, commensurate with penalties for murder.
My hope in writing this is that people who identify as prolife will stop associating abortion with feticide.
Hundreds of pregnant women are murdered every year and feticide laws could HELP THEM. But the prolifers basically destroy the function of that kind of law by greedily insisting that it be used to persecute pregnant women.
How can you guys not see that making it illegal will push women back into the dark ages?
Why not try to make the world the type of place that mothers want to bear children? The earth is wrecked and so is society, unwanted children become victims and monsters, have you ever looked beyond your singular goal of controlling others? You're not saving anyone, you're keeping our species from evolving.
Here's why I think it's justified: http://joshbrahm.com/mothers-life-risk-speech-audio/
I think we have some excellent thoughts on bodily rights arguments. You can see some of that material here: http://joshbrahm.com/tag/bodily-rights/
Thanks, Charles.
With this equal right argument, I think in order to be effective for your purposes, you may need to address this issue. (In case it's relevant, I currently consider myself pro-choice and anti-abortion...it's complicated).
What do you think? Has this issue been raised in your conversations?
http://joshbrahm.com/tag/bodily-rights/
Give chimpanzees 98% human rights!
We share 50% of our DNA with bananas! They share our humanness! Give bananas human rights!
You know that an argument is a bad one when it is open to this kind of absurd extension.
To me, it's just special pleading in an attempt to get around the analysis of actually establishing what something is and how we should morally treat it. It's abusing words. Clearly it's not an argument that impresses European lawmakers. If it were satisfying as an argument, then we would have long ago changed laws surrounding "personhood".
Imagine 10 adults lined up, and they all appear to be 100 percent human. Indeed, if you had a conversation with any of them, they would appear to be absolute, positively, 100 percent human. However, it turns out that 1 of them is actually an alien, with entirely different DNA (don't worry about how, it's just a thought experiment). But this alien, walks, talks, acts, and thinks exactly like a human.
Surely we would think that alien has intrinsic value?
So yes, fictional aliens like Spock and District 9 aliens are pretty obviously persons, in my view. And so are all humans.
I think the key mistake would be to think that you have to currently think and act morally to be a person. That definition rules out newborns, thus is obviously false. The property in question must be a higher order capacity, not a first order capacity.
Sorry to be a cynic here, and glad that some had some success in engaging with some people with these tactics described in this article, but we're now living in a post-Christian, secular culture that has been co-opted by Socialists with strategies that have successfully captured the imaginations of probably 99% of Americans in believing some lie or another about human reproduction, marriage and family.
The whole project of the left is to create power for themselves. Nothing else matters to them. Or, as Hillary Clinton titled her thesis in college, about her hero, Communist agitator Saul Alinsky, "There is Only the Fight." When you capture enough power, you can get people to believe practically any lie you want.
From Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":
"From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues.... Until he has those means and power instruments, his 'tactics' are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor Unions, corner gangs, or as individuals."
"Change comes from power, and power comes from organization." p.113
I guess what I'm saying is congratulations on your successes, please keep going; some will be saved from suffering, others, of course will not, but the real fight is against defeating Socialists. At least informing people about their goals, strategies and tactics. The Socialists have reasons for gaining power over people's imagination concerning reproduction. Expose that, and I believe people will be very receptive to the proper understanding of life, reproduction, marriage, family and the preborn human person.
It's because of the fact most come into this debate with not much philosophy under there belt using the word person still as a synonym for being a member of the human species. If they were to find out the differences between those two words, then it would be very interesting. I am shocked and surprised there is no discussion yet on extraterrestrial life and or on artificial intelligence even after the full 40 years of roe v wade's legalization. After that point, our society has accepted decades upon decades worth of science fiction displaying to them persons that were not humans and no one had a problem with that. It's sad and depressing to me that they would write them off indirectly.
See this newer video from me explaining that argument, after I talk about the Equal Rights Argument. I think you will find it helpful: http://joshbrahm.com/video-responding-secular-views-human-person/
Would this apply to anything that may be popping up in the future? It seems to me your movement in my mind, is trying to write massive discrimination in law. The only reason why the pro life movement was able to get some of the restrictions on abortion in recent years is only because of the fact humans are still about the humans. The good news though, is that I see some other forums talking about abortion with those coming in and directing ET and AI questions to pro lifers and not pro choicers which is indicating that our society is becoming more aware of what words mean.
Most pro choicers need to stop lying about the unborn being members of the human species while pro lifers need to stop lying about the word person that was attached on to them since they were born. Thanks for being honest with my brother when talking to him about this.
http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/prolife-is-about-forcing-women/
But, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that everything I wrote in the last paragraph is wrong. Suppose that the pro-lifers' commitment to protecting the unborn really is just an excuse for punishing the "dirty sluts" (including rape victims and married women) for having non-procreative sex. They really do want to eradicate birth control and will go as far as shutting down the government solely to stop women from getting it. They have no real concern for the lives of children (before or after they're born), nor do they care about maternal mortality. The only real difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is 8000 miles. They will stop at nothing to ensure that women are barefoot, in the kitchen, and breastfeeding twins.
Would any of this change the truth-value of the claims that Josh and other pro-lifers have put forth about the impermissibility of abortion? It should not. For it is still possible for a very bad person to have good arguments for supporting a reasonable position. To use an example, Nazi Germany was the first country to implement an anti-tobacco campaign (which turned out to be the most successful one of the 20th Century). Even though the Nazis were responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history, their studies on the effects of smoking were sound and they were decades ahead of their time in this regard. Likewise, even if pro-lifers are the worst people in the world, they still hold the right position on abortion if their arguments are sound.
Josh Brahm would probably frame his argument somewhere along these lines:
P1. The unborn are distinct, whole human organisms from fertilization on.
P2. All human organisms have an equal right to life.
P3. The right to life should entail a legal obligation from the pregnant woman to sustain the unborn via gestation and childbirth.
C. Abortion is a human rights abuse, and should not be legal.
There are some nuances and details, but that is the basic argument. If it’s formally valid (which seems obvious) and all three of the premises are true, then a reasonable person must accept the conclusion. So if I could defend each of the premises, would you be willing to reconsider your position?
Just for clarification, this article attempts to support only P2 (as most pro-choicers defend abortion on the grounds that the unborn lack the right to life). It does not establish the third premise, which seems to be your main objection (you ask “how can an argument that we are all human persuade anyone that it’s right to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will?”). While it’s common for pro-lifers to take P3 for granted, not all of them do. Josh actually believes that the bodily-rights argument (which essentially concedes the first two premises for the sake of the argument before attempting to negate the third by comparing pregnancy to a form of forcible organ donation) is the strongest pro-choice argument out there, and that most pro-lifers do not understand it or take it seriously enough. He has spent much time writing about it and developing his own critique – a far cry from “taking it for granted”. I would be open to discuss this with you as well, if you are interested.
P.S. Just so that you know, Right to Life of Central California is an independent, local pro-life organization. It is not affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee.
If you're interested in discussing my post, my blog is open for comments - all first-time commenters are auto-modded, but that's just protect from spambots and the odd outrageous troll. I welcome strong disagreement.
Would any of this change the truth-value of the claims that Josh and other pro-lifers have put forth about the impermissibility of abortion?
The only way in which abortion is "impermissible" is if you believe women don't have human rights. Which puts Josh squarely with the other pro-lifers who want to force women, as you acknowledge:
"The right to life should entail a legal obligation from the pregnant woman to sustain the unborn via gestation and childbirth."
No matter how you dance around it. that's a demand to force women regardless of their own judgement, free will or conscience.
Huh?
Explanation and elaboration is needed.
If abortion is "impermissible" then you are arguing it is "permissible" to advocate forced use of girls' and women's bodies, forced use to make women produce babies against their will and against their conscience and judgement, and you are also arguing that girls' and women's lives, health, and well-being are unimportant, secondary to your need to force the production of babies.
So, prolifers believe women don't have human rights.
I would just agree as well with Guest up above with regards to animal rights. Please keep in mind that Peter Singer is actually a very controversial figure in the animal rights community, and some would even argue that he doesn't even believe in animal rights. Gary Francione has produced numerous critiques of Singer, but here one:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/singers-fish-position-is-fishy/#.UkzuDNKnp1E
However, for whatever reason, it seems that in the pro-life community Peter Singer's (shocking) views with regards to abortion/infanticide are regarded as synonymous with what animal rights advocates hold in general. (Although, with that said, Francione's views on abortion are not yet well developed at this point, in my opinion. It would be great if he were to respond to Beckwith and others).
Abolitionist animal rights arguments come down to the idea of whether beings can feel pain (sentience). If we know, with good scientific evidence, that a being can feel pain and suffering fairly similarly to how a human feels pain -- biologically speaking -- then it doesn't make sense to institutionalize practices that continue that pain.
Many pro-life arguments come down to the inherent worth of all human beings, or the humanness we have in common (as Josh mentions above). Many people may posit that we are created in the image of God, and thus we have equal rights. Even atheists can probably see the logic in that, if we are to grant human rights to all, we can't take them away for a trivial reason. So, I fully agree that this is a powerful argument. The human rights discourse and equality is also a great bridge to those who think the pro-life movement is all about a supporting a political vision that they abhor (with the unfair stereotype of gun-tottin', death penalty lovin', anti-poor, anti-union, anti-woman, racist, pro-war under any circumstance...etc)
However, like Guest above, I don't think that the end points of the animal rights movement and the pro-life movement are mutually exclusive. But I also look forward to more post exploring this issue in more depth!
"If you are concerned that granting her rights because she’s human deprives other species rights because they’re not, be assured that that doesn’t logically follow. For example, saying all women are valuable doesn’t mean all men are not valuable. Saying we should protect humans doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protect non-humans. The treatment of non-human animals is a debate for another day."
There's also the problem that denying animal rights when dialoguing with a Peter Singer type person probably won't be an area of common ground, nor is it a necessary argument to make. The case we're trying to make to them is that abortion should be illegal and unthinkable, not that they should buy a fur coat.
I think animals have (at least) the right not to be mistreated or tortured. I simply am denying that they have an EQUAL right to life with human adults. In other words, I don't think it would be equally tragic if seven cows were killed for food while seven humans were also being killed for food.
If I'm talking to a Peter Singer-type person, this might actually be an important discussion to have. In fact, it may be necessary to defend the pro-life position. As I'll explain in a future post, if the person actually thinks animals are equally intrinsically valuable to humans, than they can just argue that minimal self-awareness is what gives you value, as they've already bitten the bullet on giving animals an equal right to life.
The argument about killing seven cows for food vs. seven humans for food seems tendentious. I think it runs into the same problems as the burning IVF lab thought experiment, and the argument that embryos cannot have an equal right to life because women don't grieve early miscarriages (at least not enough for embryos to be equal to born children). It's in the same territory as the example Francis Beckwith highlights from Huckleberry Finn:
“We blowed out a cylinder head.”
“Good gracious! Anybody hurt?”
“No’m. Killed a nigger.”
“Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.”
If they brought up minimal self-awareness, I would probably focus on infanticide and the case of an individual in a deep, reversible coma rather than animal rights.
So believing that being minimally aware of the outside world is a necessary condition for personhood wouldn't entail infanticide, but it WOULD entail animals being given an equal right to life, which I think is strongly counter-intuitive.
(I don't personally actually think that being actually minimally aware at this particular point in one's life is a necessary condition for personhood.)
I think they usually mean a PAST CAPACITY. In other words, once a person has crossed the threshold of being self-aware at all, they are now persons, even if they end up in a temporary coma later.
To tease this out further, let's imagine that she has a twin sister who is normally self-aware for the last trimester, but is born in a temporary coma due to complications in delivery. To be consistent, the pro-choicer must conclude that the twin who is self-aware until birth has serious moral status, but the twin that’s never been self-aware does not. If the twins’ parents decide that they don’t want to take care of two babies and can’t handle the thought of someone else bringing up their child, they are justified in taking the life one of the infants (but not the other one) – a form of after-birth selective reduction. Is this a reasonable position to hold? If not, then minimal self-awareness cannot be a necessary condition.
FYI, I deleted the copy of this comment above that ended up in the wrong place in the discussion.
"Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?" —Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers.
Interesting argument.
The question about drowning in the Pacific is just silly, and shows that Heinlein doesn't understand the concept of rights. The concept of rights is a question of how we are to treat each other. The ocean is not a subject of rights, and we are not wronged if we drown in the ocean, unless someone else put us in there to drown us.
The other questions of rights are not problematic, either, they just show that a careful discussion needs to be had of rights. If a man has children, he has an obligation to protect them, even with his life. That's part of what it means to be a father. If two men are starving, I don't think think either one has a right to eat the other, with the possible exception if one chooses to give up his own life to save the other out of necessity.