I am preserving it, with some additional discussion inserted, here.
You are free to reproduce this dialog.
"S" is Socrates and "T" is some Tom, Dick or Harriet.
S: Is there a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Of course.
S: So any woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason?
T: Undoubtedly.
S: Well, suppose the preborn being -- or perhaps we might say potential human -- experiences pain during the termination process?
T: As the, er, being is not viable, how can it experience pain?
S: If there are physiological studies that show that the being's reactions are consistent with a viable infant's feeling of pain, would that be relevant?
T: Well, then you are only talking about what might be.
S: So if there is a possibility that the being in the womb experiences pain during abortion, that possibility is of no relevance to society?
T: Not to society, but that consideration might affect a woman's personal decision.
S: None of society's business?
T: No.
S: So if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy for trivial or shallow reasons, that is her affair.
T: Yes.
S: In many cases, the decision for abortion is economically based, as when the family of a young woman presses her to abort so that she can go on to an economically prosperous life, or when a woman aborts the being in her womb because she has enough children and doesn't want one more mouth to feed. Is that correct?
T: Economic issues are plainly a driving force behind abortion.
S: Also, many women resent the idea that a male-dominated society may control a woman's right to reproduce. So-called reproductive rights.
T: Yes, very true.
S: What is it that she doesn't want reproduced?
T: Another human, but that's only after birth. Before birth, the quality of humanity doesn't exist.
S: So you say. Others would say, before the first trimester. And there are yet other ideas. So there is little agreement about when the being in the womb becomes a bona fide human being. Anyway, wouldn't you agree that "reproduce" means reproduce oneself?
T: Well, the child is not a clone. The father's genes contribute.
S: So she is reproducing herself and her sex partner.
T: I suppose.
S: And that reproduction is in progress in the womb. So is she not destroying a reproduction of herself?
T: You are just playing word games.
S: And the male sex partner? Should he have no legal say in the preservation of a reproduction of himself?
T: Of course not. The reproduction hasn't occurred yet at the time of abortion.
S: Oh. But I thought that at conception, the genes begin the reproduction process. So doesn't the preborn being represent a partial reproduction of the male?
T: I suppose so. But you know very well that to give the male any legal say would upset the world since the day Roe vs. Wade was decided. Besides, the man doesn't have to suffer the trials of pregnancy and giving birth.
S: Yet, a part of the man, a potential daughter or son, has been destroyed. I suppose to a materialist like yourself that doesn't matter much?
T: Well, these things are all relative. There are no absolutes.
S: No absolutes? Except for the absolute right to abortion, of course.
T: We are clever, aren't we?
S: But it is a fact, is it not, that scientific materialism is your default philosophy?
T: Well, I am no philosopher, but I would agree that science is better than superstition.
S: And you have heard of the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell?
T: Who hasn't?
S: But no doubt you are unaware that Russell and a number of other philosophers have attacked scientific materialism as deeply flawed?
T: Really? I had no idea. What do they propose in its place?
S: Would you be perturbed if I told you that there is no consensus, that no one seems to know what to make of the Cosmos, or Being?
T: Yes, all very well. But as I say, I am no philosopher.
S: You concede you don't know why there is a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Well, Rights of Man -- I mean Human Rights -- and all that sort of thing.
S: I see... Well, you do agree that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy for economic reasons.
T: Correct.
S: So then, a woman -- perhaps in consultation with her partner -- has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on the sex, or gender, of the being in the womb.
T: I don't quite follow.
S: She has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on sex preference.
T: It's a trivial reason, but I suppose it is none of society's business.
S: Now suppose a large number of women preferentially abort females? Would that be acceptable?
T: It doesn't sound right, but fortunately that isn't the case.
S: What do you think feminists would think of such a practice?
T: They would probably try to outlaw it.
S: So then society does have an interest in maintaining the life of a being in the womb?
T: Your scenario is not the case.
S: You are wrong; it is a fact. In India, couples routinely terminate females in the womb for socioeconomic reasons. Further, there is a shortage of brides there, which is the consequence of this practice. India's laws against revealing the sex of the being in the womb have proved ineffective.
T: Well, point. But this isn't India.
S: The original question was, Is there a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Ah, I see what you mean. If we must go by cases, there isn't a fundamental, all-encompassing right.
S: So society is permitted to take an interest in the welfare of the being in the womb?
T: I would say you have made a good case. But, unfortunately for you, most people think in memes, and won't follow philosophical arguments.
S: Agreed.
S: What is your take on abortion at any time before birth on the say-so of the woman? We are seeing a push by feminists in State Houses for this sort of "right."
T: Well, I suppose many a woman believes that she and only she should make decisions about what's done with her body. Such women are very adamant about these reproductive rights.
S: Or, the right not to reproduce, they mean. This is justified by denying the womb-being the right of personhood. The womb-being is not a baby, not a person under law. But, of course, if the woman wants the womb-being, then it's her little darling, her baby, her new little person, and most people agree with her view of her womb-being. But the state, in particular in the hands of radical feminists, regards the womb-being as a space alien, lower than a 19th century African-American slave, with no inherent rights or dignity.
T: Yes. It's unfortunate, but perhaps necessary...
S: Do you see any danger in this stance?
T: Not particularly.
S: Would you not say that personhood has been reduced to an opinion of the pregnant woman?
T: Come again?
S: If she doesn't want the womb being but then has a change of heart, it magically becomes a person to be nurtured and cherished. Or, similarly, if she wants it but then decides to abort, the womb being goes from person to piece of drek with no rights.
T: Unpleasant, but not dangerous.
S: But consider a hard case such as this: A female inpatient of a mental institution is impregnated. A committee of medical professionals meets to decide whether to anesthetize the patient and forcibly abort her womb-being, on grounds the institution isn't a suitable place for a child and on the worry that mental illness might be heritable in this case. Remember, the womb being is not a person under law, and so this committee would not be held accountable for infanticide.
T: You have a point.
S: Sarah Palin's death panels no longer seem so far-fetched.
T: Of course.
S: So any woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason?
T: Undoubtedly.
S: Well, suppose the preborn being -- or perhaps we might say potential human -- experiences pain during the termination process?
T: As the, er, being is not viable, how can it experience pain?
S: If there are physiological studies that show that the being's reactions are consistent with a viable infant's feeling of pain, would that be relevant?
T: Well, then you are only talking about what might be.
S: So if there is a possibility that the being in the womb experiences pain during abortion, that possibility is of no relevance to society?
T: Not to society, but that consideration might affect a woman's personal decision.
S: None of society's business?
T: No.
S: So if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy for trivial or shallow reasons, that is her affair.
T: Yes.
S: In many cases, the decision for abortion is economically based, as when the family of a young woman presses her to abort so that she can go on to an economically prosperous life, or when a woman aborts the being in her womb because she has enough children and doesn't want one more mouth to feed. Is that correct?
T: Economic issues are plainly a driving force behind abortion.
S: Also, many women resent the idea that a male-dominated society may control a woman's right to reproduce. So-called reproductive rights.
T: Yes, very true.
S: What is it that she doesn't want reproduced?
T: Another human, but that's only after birth. Before birth, the quality of humanity doesn't exist.
S: So you say. Others would say, before the first trimester. And there are yet other ideas. So there is little agreement about when the being in the womb becomes a bona fide human being. Anyway, wouldn't you agree that "reproduce" means reproduce oneself?
T: Well, the child is not a clone. The father's genes contribute.
S: So she is reproducing herself and her sex partner.
T: I suppose.
S: And that reproduction is in progress in the womb. So is she not destroying a reproduction of herself?
T: You are just playing word games.
S: And the male sex partner? Should he have no legal say in the preservation of a reproduction of himself?
T: Of course not. The reproduction hasn't occurred yet at the time of abortion.
S: Oh. But I thought that at conception, the genes begin the reproduction process. So doesn't the preborn being represent a partial reproduction of the male?
T: I suppose so. But you know very well that to give the male any legal say would upset the world since the day Roe vs. Wade was decided. Besides, the man doesn't have to suffer the trials of pregnancy and giving birth.
S: Yet, a part of the man, a potential daughter or son, has been destroyed. I suppose to a materialist like yourself that doesn't matter much?
T: Well, these things are all relative. There are no absolutes.
S: No absolutes? Except for the absolute right to abortion, of course.
T: We are clever, aren't we?
S: But it is a fact, is it not, that scientific materialism is your default philosophy?
T: Well, I am no philosopher, but I would agree that science is better than superstition.
S: And you have heard of the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell?
T: Who hasn't?
S: But no doubt you are unaware that Russell and a number of other philosophers have attacked scientific materialism as deeply flawed?
T: Really? I had no idea. What do they propose in its place?
S: Would you be perturbed if I told you that there is no consensus, that no one seems to know what to make of the Cosmos, or Being?
T: Yes, all very well. But as I say, I am no philosopher.
S: You concede you don't know why there is a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Well, Rights of Man -- I mean Human Rights -- and all that sort of thing.
S: I see... Well, you do agree that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy for economic reasons.
T: Correct.
S: So then, a woman -- perhaps in consultation with her partner -- has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on the sex, or gender, of the being in the womb.
T: I don't quite follow.
S: She has a right to terminate a pregnancy based on sex preference.
T: It's a trivial reason, but I suppose it is none of society's business.
S: Now suppose a large number of women preferentially abort females? Would that be acceptable?
T: It doesn't sound right, but fortunately that isn't the case.
S: What do you think feminists would think of such a practice?
T: They would probably try to outlaw it.
S: So then society does have an interest in maintaining the life of a being in the womb?
T: Your scenario is not the case.
S: You are wrong; it is a fact. In India, couples routinely terminate females in the womb for socioeconomic reasons. Further, there is a shortage of brides there, which is the consequence of this practice. India's laws against revealing the sex of the being in the womb have proved ineffective.
T: Well, point. But this isn't India.
S: The original question was, Is there a fundamental right to abortion?
T: Ah, I see what you mean. If we must go by cases, there isn't a fundamental, all-encompassing right.
S: So society is permitted to take an interest in the welfare of the being in the womb?
T: I would say you have made a good case. But, unfortunately for you, most people think in memes, and won't follow philosophical arguments.
S: Agreed.
S: What is your take on abortion at any time before birth on the say-so of the woman? We are seeing a push by feminists in State Houses for this sort of "right."
T: Well, I suppose many a woman believes that she and only she should make decisions about what's done with her body. Such women are very adamant about these reproductive rights.
S: Or, the right not to reproduce, they mean. This is justified by denying the womb-being the right of personhood. The womb-being is not a baby, not a person under law. But, of course, if the woman wants the womb-being, then it's her little darling, her baby, her new little person, and most people agree with her view of her womb-being. But the state, in particular in the hands of radical feminists, regards the womb-being as a space alien, lower than a 19th century African-American slave, with no inherent rights or dignity.
T: Yes. It's unfortunate, but perhaps necessary...
S: Do you see any danger in this stance?
T: Not particularly.
S: Would you not say that personhood has been reduced to an opinion of the pregnant woman?
T: Come again?
S: If she doesn't want the womb being but then has a change of heart, it magically becomes a person to be nurtured and cherished. Or, similarly, if she wants it but then decides to abort, the womb being goes from person to piece of drek with no rights.
T: Unpleasant, but not dangerous.
S: But consider a hard case such as this: A female inpatient of a mental institution is impregnated. A committee of medical professionals meets to decide whether to anesthetize the patient and forcibly abort her womb-being, on grounds the institution isn't a suitable place for a child and on the worry that mental illness might be heritable in this case. Remember, the womb being is not a person under law, and so this committee would not be held accountable for infanticide.
T: You have a point.
S: Sarah Palin's death panels no longer seem so far-fetched.
No comments:
Post a Comment