Mind Over Matter:
Scott’s explanation as to why this debate continues to rage is because of our society’s indifference to truth. We tend to accept relativism instead of a definite truth. Instead of seeking what is true, we accept some middle ground that allows us to do what we would not do if we knew the truth.
Another problem in society is the tendency to look at things as black or white issues, with no middle ground. Either a fetus is an adult, or it's just useless tissue; there's no in-between.
Pro-lifers often fail to appreciate that a foetus does not have the same capacities as a child, let alone an adult.
Also, pro-lifers are almost invariably hypocritical in that they do not care about "life"
per se - they only care about one very specific type of life. Many self-proclaimed pro-lifers actually support the death penalty. Go figure.
If we truly believed that an embryo was human, we would not permit it to be destroyed.
Why? What's so special about human beings?
And why is the same protection and inviolability not accorded to cattle or dogs?
Scott's point is that the whole controversy boils down to "is the fetus human?"
Here's the pro-life argument:
1. Killing a human being is wrong.
2. An unborn foetus is a human being.
3. Therefore, killing an unborn foetus is wrong.
This argument is often attacked by attacking point 2. However, it is quite possible to mount a case attacking point 1 as well, on a number of different grounds.
So, Scott is ignoring at least half of the possible pro-choice arguments.
Virtually no one would use any of these arguments to kill a 2 year old toddler.
Which suggests to me that a lot of people consider an unborn foetus to be different from a 2 year old in some morally-significant way. Imagine that.
Analogously, what would the world be like if we considered a 7-year old child to be different to an adult? Such a thing would be unthinkable, wouldn't it? Obviously, adult = 7-year-old = 2-year-old = foetus, in every respect. Right?
So, the question really is, "is the fetus human?" If the fetus is not human then all of the pro choice people are correct and we pro life people concede the right of a woman to have an abortion. The reason however, that we continue to oppose abortion is that all scientific evidence supports the fact that the fetus is human.
I don't think that any pro-choice advocate who has looked at the matter in any depth would argue that a foetus is not human. On the other hand, I would quite happily argue that it is not a [enc]person[/enc] in the relevant sense.
Some pro choice people like to use the argument that the fetus is not fully human by using the well known argument of the laboratory fire. This argument goes like this; you are in a laboratory that is on fire, in one corner are several frozen embryos, in another corner is a 2 year old toddler, you have time to save only the embryos or the toddler, which do you save? Because most people would choose the toddler, the pro choice argument is that even you pro life people do not believe that the embryos are human. Scott’s rebuttal is that emotional feelings do not change the fact of what is human and what is not. His example was if his 8 year old daughter was in the auditorium with us and a fire broke out and he had the choice of saving his daughter or all of us, we would all be “toast”; this does not prove that none of us were human.
It seems you and Scott have missed the point of the fire thought-experiment. The point you should have got from it is that we as human beings value the worth of a foetus differently from the worth of a 2 year old. Moreover, we also value the worth our own offspring differently from the worth of strangers. (There are good evolutionary explanations for both attitudes, by the way.)
Consider another lab fire, where the choice is to save the human embryos or an ant farm. What do you think most people would do then?
What about a fire where you have to choose the embryos or a box of cute puppies?
Over the years of dialog I have had with those supporting the right to "choose" I have always been intrigued by the fact that they, almost without exception, have not watched, and refuse to watch any picture, video, or image of an actual abortion. Of course the excuse is always, "I refuse to watch such gory pictures" because they are offensive to me.
Really? Interesting.
Do you think that because you find the procedure "gory" that this is a good argument
not to allow it? Is this an appeal to people's sense of disgust?
A lot of people don't want to watch footage of brain surgery or open heart surgery either. Do you think if you forced them to watch such things, they would get up in arms in a crusade against heart transplants?