I suggest that we abort Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva with immediate effect!

I am obliged to 'SoD' (Son of Duff) for sending me the link to this Telegraph story which reports that the two brain-damaged (that's my description not theirs) mouth-breathers in my title call themselves 'medical ethicists'.  Before I contemplate an action under the Trades Descriptions Act, I had better tell you what this pair of latter-day moralists have to say.  In essence, they ask, why should babies who have actually been born be disqualified from abortion?  Being a man of generous, not to say, kindly disposition my first thought was that they were using an argument which philosophers describe as reductio ad absurdum. 

In the never-ending dispute over abortion it is an extreme example of an argument I have used myself in the past which goes something like this: at what point, exactly and precisely, does a bundle of self-reproducing cells change from being inhuman to being human?  I ask because, of course, that would decide whether an action to kill the cells was a moral abortion or a murder.  I have yet to hear from anyone, expert or not, who can tell me the precise point at which the change occurs.  Given that uncertainty, I have always maintained that abortion (except in a very small number of specific situations) should not be permitted.

So, in my innocence, I assumed that these two 'medical ethicists' were making my point (in extreme form) that unless you can point to some measurable factor upon which we can all agree that it demonstrates humanity, then the mere fact that a foetus has been expelled from a womb does not necessarily make it human.  Silly naive chap that I am, of course, this pair meant nothing of the sort.  They were being absolutely serious and published their views in a comic calling itself The Journal of Medical Ethics:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

There you go, just drop it on its head, that should do it!

"Oh, brave, new world".  Someone pass me a sick-bag.

 

Comments

[dearieme]

Chuck it, duffers. You're old enough to know that before the modern habit arose of women being "confined" in hospitals, it wasn't uncommon to allow badly handicapped newborns to die. Britain had been Christian for more than a millennium, and still it was done. Just as it was in classical civilisations too. It's not a nice thing to contemplate but there's really no need to have the vapours about ti.

[Andra]

I have several girlfriends who work as midwifery nurses.
Deformed babies are "allowed" or "assisted" to die on a daily basis.
This is not your business, Duff.

[Kevin B]

I think you guys are missing the point, (or several). First, these are medical ethicists. That is, they are saying that it is ethical to kill people. As an old git, I am sure that someday in the not too distant future, 'society' will decide to throw me off the back of the sled so that the wolves will eat me and let them get away, but I really don't think that would be very 'ethical'.

Second, these medical 'ethicists' are not saying "Let the poor wee mite die, it'd have no life anyway." They are saying let us examine the circumstances of the person(s) who brought this child into the world and, using all the modern tools of cost benefit analysis, decide if the parent(s) would be better off if they could just get rid of the little whelp and get back to the night club.

Third, this is everyone's business.

[David Duff]

DM and Andra, I find that Kevin has summed it up better than I can but I would add that you both appear to have missed a key sentence:

"Given that uncertainty, I have always maintained that abortion (except in a very small number of specific situations) should not be permitted."

The bit in parenthesis is the important bit in this context.

Both of you appear to have missed the point. What our two 'ethicists' are proposing is that irrespective of any other consideration they believe it is alright to kill born babies. Lest you be in doubt, allow me to repeat their own words, and please pay attention to the final clause:

" adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

'Nuff said, I feel!

[dearieme]

Hopeless: you've not told us what " specific situations" you have in mind.

[David Duff]

This is a blog, DM, not a peer-reviewed research paper! God only knows my readers think I'm long-winded enough already. Suffice to say that there are specific situations in which abortion should be permitted - a threat to the life of the mother being one example. Also, post-birth a severely damaged child **might** be allowed to die but the rules that govern that situation for adults should apply to babies. Remember, we are discussing **post-birth** abortion here, not the the pre-birth variety.

[Andra]

Given that uncertainty, I have always maintained that abortion (except in a very small number of specific situations) should not be permitted."

And I have always maintained that abortion is the business of the woman and her doctor.

Nobody else. Repeat .... nobody else!!

[Andra]

And, just in case some among you think I may have personal issues here, I went through 6 miscarriages before I managed to give birth to my one and only child. I then retired, sort of undefeated.

However, had I required an abortion, for whatever reason, NO man would have been able to tell me I damned well couldn't have it. My body, my decision, I can look after myself, thank you very much.

You want all these children, you have the bloody things and bring them up.

[Whyaxye]

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/03/abortion-and-infanticide.html

Catholic philosopher Bill Vallicella's thoughts on the matter. I agree with him that if a person can't see why infanticide - for whatever reason - is wrong, then they are simply lacking a moral faculty, and are probably not worth reasoning with.

[Hank]

David

Not that you need another reason to express your great admiration for President Obama.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/01/45553/

[Andra]

Mr Whyaxye,

Well, bully for the catholics.

Personally I am an atheist and believe the world is hideously overpopulated already.

[David Duff]

Andra, I think perhaps your 'ME-ME-ME' factor is stuck in overdrive! There are two other parties to this conundrum apart from the woman. There is the man and there is the child. They have a legitimate interest in decisions about abortion. But let me ask you two questions:

1: At what point along the developmental path does the foetus become human, and what is it exactly that defines the change? You need to be exact about that because it is the difference between disposing of foetal material and killing a human.

2: If a woman's body is sacrosanct, what would you do if you saw a woman attempting to self-harm? Would you stop her? If so, on what grounds?

[David Duff]

On the basis of a quick read, 'W', that is an excellent article to which I will return.

Hank, that president of yours is such a third-rater he couldn't think his way out of a paper bag!

[Lucy Goosey]

Hello. Let me start off by saying I don't like the British. I, like many Americans, was fooled for several decades by British accents and the charming little phrases and continual sarcasm of your people. Unfortunately, I encountered a British "solicitor" who continually corrected me when I referred to him as an "attorney." I think it was suppose to sound fancy. Anyway, one day I googled this "solicitor" nonsense and found out he was little more than a glorified paralegal. Then I realized that all his uppity talk about putting women in cages and whips was not charming banter, but the babblings of a sexually pent up pervert. Since then, I have always thought of the British as Easter eggs. Fancy on the outside but the same old shit on the inside. I find your people's facade of fanciness and cleverness offensive.
The point is, you're nothing more than a raving Billy Graham. Why pick the zone of arbitrary-ness as conception till birth (or soon after)? A rather arbitrary designation of what's arbitrary. While immediately after conception you have the POSSIBILITY of producing a live human birth, doesn't every egg and every shot of jizz have the possibility of leading to a live birth? Should I have a graveyard of a tampons in my backyard? Perhaps you should only ejaculate in a fireplace so your potential babies can be properly creamated?

[David Duff]

Atta girl, Lucy Goosey! (Oh God, I love strong, dominant 'wimmin'!)

Even so, Lucy, it is not just mere English (I think you meant rather than 'British' - the Jocks can be a bit tempremental about that sort of error) cowardice that makes me agree with you and tender my sincere sympathies for the unfortunate circumstances that led you into an "encounter" with a solicitor - quelle horreur! You see, 'over here' we loathe lawyers as much as you do 'over there'. I do hope that you were provided with suitable psycho-what-not to get you over the experience. I believe they are very good at that sort of thing in California.

However, now to your main point. Alas I can never be a Billy Graham, raving or otherwise (I wish I could when I remember how much money he made) because, you see, I am a fundamental agnostic. Yes, one of those wibbly-wobbly, can't-make-up-their-minds sort of chap. All that God-stuff passes me by.

Even so, I recognise that there is in the human psyche a need for a moral code. All societies since the early tribes have developed a moral code. They all differ somewhat and many of them seem decidely immoral when viewed by people who are not part of that particular 'tribe'. Hence you can see that disagreements about what is and what is not moral is as old as Mankind (or even Womenkind!)

One of the moral precepts we have decided on in our 'tribe' is that human life is precious in and of itself and irrespective of the character of the human concerned - which is why we have rafts of law concerned with Human Rights.

When a sperm hits an egg a process begins which only ends in death. Some people have decided that humanity only kicks in at a certain point along the line of that process - hence time limits for abortion. I merely ask at what precise point that occurs, and what measurable thing is it that suddenly appears and makes a bunch of cells human rather than non-human? It is an important question because it is the difference between murder and waste disposal! Unless and until someone gives me a proper answer to my question I will continue to err on the side of safety and morality and assume that a foetus is human one nano-second after sperm hits egg.

[David Duff]

Oh, and one other thing, Lucy, any minute now my e-pal Andra will be waking up 'down under there' and you will have an ally of considerable power to back you up - and beat me up!

[Dom]

Of all the points made by the "Abortion on demand" crowd, the point made by Lucy -- that the beginning of life is never determined, so I can kill a child even after birth -- is certainly the most offensive. Just look at that picture in your post and say "This is only POTENTIALLY a child". What nonsense!

In any case, "over here" in the original Supreme Court discussions that led to legalized abortion, the fact that the beginning of life in never determined was used by the ANTI-abortion side. The PRO side said, it can be determined, and abortion should be allowed before that date. The argument has been shifting ever since.

[Dom]

And as an American I apologize for the whole tone of that idiot's comment. Or, at least I would if I thought it bothered you.

[Lucy Goosey]

Well. First of all, David Duff has perfectly proven one of my minor points. Any person with half a brain must know that Billy Graham doesn't actually believe in the faith he preaches. While I'm not a Christian, I realize that you must ignore about half of the New Testament to get to hateful conclusions the man spews. Therefore, while he plays the game, he realizes its just a game, not an actual literal belief system. And Mr. Duff does the same. You have acknowledged that morality is simply a need of the 'human psyche' and not an actual reflection of a universal good or evil. So, basically its all bullshit. While I think you're taking this moral relativism a bit far, you have proven yourself to be Billy Graham. You're playing a game you know is just a game. And I find the idea that you would like to force women into birthing men's babies so you can fullfil your need to engage in creating an admittedly meaningless "moral code" a little violent.

Secondly, it is the very idea that "When a sperm hits an egg a process begins which only ends in death" that I'm questioning. Why not consider each menstration a murder. A used tampon may not be "waste disposal," but MURDER! Each time you spend a few romantic moments alone, you might be engaging in murder! For each egg and each little swimming sperm has the POTENTIAL of life. If you're going to argue that women must become silent incubators for your English babies, why not suck the men into the argument as well. No more masturbation! It's MURDER! Or would that be inconvient in your quest to satisfy the needs of your human psyche?

Finally, Dom, I didn't actually state a position on abortion, so to call me part of the 'abortion on demand' crowd is rather outlandish. However, now, and only now, I acknowledge that I am indeed in favor of allowing women to choose not create a human life by the use of abortion. Oh, and I aslo support the use of contraception!!! Great legal argument by the way, "Just look at that picture." And I have no idea why you'd apologize for my comment. I didn't actually say anything rude at all. I simply acknolwedged my prejudices against Mr. Duff's kind because it seemed like the fair thing to do.

And one more thing. It gets incredibly tiresome reading/hearing people talking about the great danger to Israel if Iran gets a nuke. Jesus Christ! Israel has nukes. You remember that whole Cold War thing? Are you aware that the Soviet Union and the US never nuked eached other? In fairness, I will also acknowledge that I am no lover of Israel. I believe its a belligerent and maniacal country.

[David Duff]

Oh hell, there goes Saturday!

Alas, I'm on trolley-pushing duties this morning but I will return later. Gotta love that Lucy Goosey, though!

[Whyaxye]

"I have always thought of the British as Easter eggs. Fancy on the outside but the same old shit on the inside"

Easter eggs with shit in them is another brilliant innovation from America, and that is exactly what my children will be getting in a few weeks unless their behaviour improves.

Can I get them on line?

[David Duff]

Well now, Lucy, either I am failing to make myself clear (more than possible) or you are failing to read carefully. So let me explain again.

Morality does not exist without humans. However, that does not make it "a need of the 'human psyche'" and nor is it "a universal good or evil because, as I thought I had made clear above, morality changes with different people in different places and at different times. When savage human beings combined to form tribes they needed rules by which to conduct themselves. Thus arose both morality (unwritten law) and law itself. In our particular civilisation which has developed over the past 2,000 years under Christian influence one particular aspect of morality and law has been the idea that human life is precious. (Please don't bother to list all the infringements of this idea, we are dealing with humans here, not perfect automatons!)

Now, if like several well known humans you actually do not accept that human life is precious then our discussion ends here. Not because I have fainted with shock but because there is simply nothing to talk about. But if you do accept it then you need to define what human life is, where and when it begins, for example. In my view it is a process, not a thing in itself. The process can only begin when sperm and egg meet. Your amusing notion that because both ingredients are required for the process to start that makes the ingredients themselves as precious as the process does not hold up. Remember, it is the actual *process* which has inherent value, not the starting ingredients.

As I have grown to expect in conversations of this sort, I notice that you avoid actually answering my question which I will repeat: at exactly what moment along the time-line of the process does humanity appear, and what measurable characteristic occurs that we can test for the presence of humanity? If you believe that there is no such moment then you are left with a harsh choice. Do you agree with me that for the entire length of the process humanity exists, or do you agree with the subjects of this post that no such event occurs and that life may be extinguished at any time for any reason which is good enough for the, er, 'extinguishers'?

Now, please, Lucy, stick to my point and answer my questions and leave the feminist diatribes for another time and place.

[Lucy Goosey]

If you don't mind I'd like to start off with the "feminist diatribes." Feminism is a false concept. There is no man, woman or child alive that is seperable from a female in his or her life. Clearly everyone is affected by the treatment or limitations placed on any member of society when that class of memebers directly affects each and every member of society. In other words, I don't believe in the concept of feminism. Gender is very different from race or class in that people can and do segregate themselves based on race and class while there is no TRUE gender segregation possible in any society I know of. So you're condescending remarks about "feminist diatribes" is pointless. Now to the point.

You wrote: "However, that does not make it [morality] "a need of the 'human psyche'." However in the previous comment you wrote: "Even so, I recognise that there is in the human psyche a need for a moral code." Do you agree you wrote these two things? Do you agree they contradict one another?

In addition, I clearly stated that my understanding of your position is that morality is not a universal good or evil. Let me quote myself:"You have acknowledged that morality is simply a need of the 'human psyche' and not an actual reflection of a universal good or evil." Therefore, I did not need further clarification about your position that "morality changes with different people in different places and at different times." I got it. Box checked.

Now in order to clarify my position, I do indeed agree that all life is precious. And by that I do indeed mean all, particularly human life. And by supporting the necessity of having the option of abortion available to men and women, I am also agreeing that in dealing with humans, we are not dealing with "perfect automatons." While abortion is ugly and a violation of perfet ideals (that I will grant you whereas many pro-choice supports may not)it is also a violation that is acceptable in our imperfect world. For the simple reason that people will have sex. At times it will result in conception. And at times, that the result of the romantic or not so romantic encounter will be unwanted. Therefore a choice must be made between the lives that are undoubtably lives, and the "lives"of those that in a gray area of maybe being "life." Harsh? Yes, but life is indeed precious and to force women (and men) into a position that has a profound affect on their lives based on a a 'what-if' is simply unacceptable to me.

Now, to directly answer your questions:
1. what measurable characteristic occurs that we can test for the presence of humanity?
None. This is the butterfly flapping its wings in a China. It is a logical conclusion that everytime a female menstrates or a male ejaculates in a way that does not lead to conception, you do indeed have a violation of a ideal of life being precious. And based on your comment that they are mere "ingredients," do you not also acknowledge that the fetus or collection of cells in a woman's womb are an ingredient which relies on the another ingredient, the woman, in order to exist? If being seperable ingredients is the cut off point, then the line must be when can the ingredients be seperated and still result in a living organism. Therfore, you should believe in abortion until a fetus is viable. So you might consider supporting abortion until the late 2nd trimester or early 3rd trimester.

2. If you believe that there is no such moment then you are left with a harsh choice. Do you agree with me that for the entire length of the process humanity exists, or do you agree with the subjects of this post that no such event occurs and that life may be extinguished at any time for any reason which is good enough for the, er, 'extinguishers'?
Clearly there are not two choices here. As I have stated, the "process" has no definitive starting point. And if one were to decide that a line must be drawn for practical purposes, then that must be done by balancing the needs of the individuals, the potential life and society. And quite simply, society does not need more uncared for children. It would only serve to take resources from the vast number of unwanted children already present. The fetus or collection of cells is an thing of unknown needs,feelings or value. We can assign it characteristics, just like some people do with their cats, that make sense to us, as living humans, but it is an unknown (as you acknowledge.) Finally, if we value life, then we must also value the life of the woman and man involved, not to mention any children or family members they may have. As I'm sure you're aware, having a child is a life changing experience. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. And that child is indeed a most precious thing, not something to be forced as a punishment or learning experience about responsibility on a man or woman. I believe this balancing results in the need for keeping abortion as an option.

So, unfortunately I'm left with a position that's been stated a thousand times. When all unquestionably existing human life is properly accounted for in the world, then and only then does this become a relevant discussion. When there aren't children dying of starvation, when there aren't children waiting to be adopted, when no child has to suffer neglect, then and only then will it make any sense to consider forcing all incidents of a conception to result in the birth of a resource zapping life. For life does not have a sacred value in the womb that ceases to exist once its birthed.

Of course the missing ingredient from this discussion is your what exceptions you would like to see for your anti-choice stance. I suspect they would be very telling.

Oh, by the way, I apologize if I come across as rude. I'm sure you're a lovely human being who's concern is for life, I'm simply questioning your conclusions, not your intent.

[David Duff]

Now look here, Lucy Goosey, you cannot come onto this blog and making a total twat of the host, er, me, by quoting me back at me! That is a typical feminist trick of the sort my wife has been practicing on me for years and it is a sign of my dimness that I still haven't managed to spot it coming! However, you saved yourself from instant expulsion by calling me "a lovely person" thus proving yet again that flattery gets you anywhere on this blog! (Other commenters please note!)

Let me start again on the morality 'shtik' just so we are clear where I stand. Morality and its twin the law, are in my opinion, part of the human condition because we are co-operating animals and co-operation needs a shared set of values. These are expressed in codes of morals and codes of laws, and obviously they will differ from 'tribe' to 'tribe'. Under two centuries of Christianity a strong moral belief has arisen to the effect that human life (please, don't let's get into animal life just yet) is precious - not sacrosanct - but precious and that it should only be ended early under certain strict conditions.

We are agreed, then, that no event takes place during what I call 'the process' of life from conception to death which suddenly turns a bundle of cells into a human and therefore, I assume, you must agree the foetus is human from the 'get go' as you say 'over there'. In other words, if we stop that process from continuing then we have killed a human being. Well, lots of human beings get killed for all sorts of reasons but if we are to count ourselves as civilised we need to have a very strong reason to kill one that is temporarily seeking refuge, so to speak, inside a woman's womb. Let us, for the sake of brevity, step past those reasons which are, more or less, accepted as good grounds for abortion and concentrate on the one usually offered up which runs something like: 'ooops, sorry, I didn't mean to have it, I was drunk, it was a mistake, please make it go away, my career will be ruined'!

Of course, like most arguments in favour of doing something which evades personal responsibility it must be bolstered and disguised by other apparently more high-minded reasons, spurious and downright silly though they may be. For example: 'there are already too many people in the world', an argument of such crass stupidity and ignorance that it deserves the derision it receives. Another is: 'I have the right to do what I like with my body', yet another mental burp which fails in logic the minute you attempt to stop someone from self-harming. And that is quite apart from the other all too obvious but inconvenient fact that it is not the woman's body which is being interfered with but the human being inside her.

On a point of fact, Lucey, I must emphasise that the process *does* have a beginning and an end. It begins when sperm meet egg, that is a measurable and recordable event. Anything prior to that involving sperm or egg is merely 'potentiality' not 'reality'. It ends, of course, with death.

I should add that I have a highly personal involvement with this debate because I was born illegitimately in age when such things drew down scorn on the mother. My mother was a trainee nurse with no family living alone in London just before the war with nothing but her wage to live on. She had the knowledge and presumably the access to the means to end her pregnancy but she didn't. She struggled on as best she could. If she had taken the easy way out of her responsibility, just think, the world would never have been able to enjoy the wit and wisdom of, er, me, actually! DRead thought!

Over to you, for one last go lest we bore all our readers to death!

[Lucy Goosey]

I disagree with your entire second paragraph. (Laws are not a reflection of shared social values and Christianity is not the source belief that human life is precious.)But that's a different argument.

Anyway, I will counter your tricky change in argument tactic with my own personal story. Like your mom, I made the choice to become a single mother. Different time, different social norms, but nonetheless difficult. I was quite young at the time and immediately upon finding out I was pregnant I scheduled an abortion. When I made the appointment and every moment thereafter I knew I wouldn't be able to follow through. Many years later, I have a bitter, bossy child that's just entered teenage-dom who is, without question, the most wonderful thing that's ever happened to me, and I suspect the most wonderful thing that's ever happened to the planet earth.

There is nothing spectacular about it. I had a family that despite their horror at my situation, (which included a great deal of shame because of our ethnic background) they eventually ended up being incredibly supportive, both emotionally and financially. My child and I are incredibly lucky.

And while I made the only choice that was right for me, the idea of forcing a child on a woman in order to prevent them from "evading personal responsibility" is cruel to the impending "responsibility" who will have a rather ugly life if they're essentially punishment for their mother and father's "oops."

While I could write 10 pages about the lack of equality in what your suggesting, and how it is ONLY the woman that is preventing from "evading personal responsibility," I won't.

What puzzles me is why anti-choice advocates refuse to do much of anything to make it easier for women and men to make the choice of having a child instead of an abortion. If you care about these impending lives why not focus on making it pleasent for them once they're here. I always get the sense from your kind (anti-choice, not English) that life is soooo precious when its making a woman pay up for daring to have sex, but once the child's here... fuck it, its not your problem. People do stupid things. Sometimes they have sex without protection, sometimes they don't stop for a stop sign, sometimes they eat at McDonalds even if they're trying to lose weight. Welcome to life, Mr. Duff. But a child should not be punishment. Life is precious. Far to precious for your Christian inspired (this is indeed Christian inspired) notion that life should be used as punishment a stupid decision.

[David Duff]

Lucy, I have just lunched "not wisely but too well" and in fine good humour I have returned and read your last comment. It was the perfect end to a pretty damned good afternoon, the equivalent of an ultra-smooth brandy, than which, etc, etc.

You and I are never going to agree on this abortion thing, or much else by the look of it, but we both knew that from the beginning, didn't we? However, it has been a genuine pleasure conversing with you and I do hope very much that you will come back and give me some more 'grief' on some of the other 'Duff & Nonsense' I spout here!

I don't wish to go all soppy - us Brit oldies don't do that sort of thing - but the fact that you took the decision you did with regard to your own child just makes me very, very happy - I'm sitting here tapping away with a big, daft smile on my face. Well done, Lucy and come back and visit anytime you want to.