Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Backgrounder on ID-friendly law prof: Tenure still hangs in balance

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recall Frank Beckwith, that gifted prof at Baylor, who specializes in church-state issues, who was mysteriously denied tenure recently?

Beckwith appealed, was turned down again* – by a narrower margin, it is said – and a decision is expected shortly. What’s come out since the first denial is that his former department chair, who is believed to have undermined Beckwith’s tenure chances, recently resigned amid allegations that he plagiarized the work of Ronald Numbers , a well-known American scholar, best known for his studies of creationism.

As World‘s Mark Bergin notes,

Beckwith is among academia’s foremost pro-life advocates and has written articles supporting the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design. The tenure committee accused him of inappropriately focusing on such areas of expertise in his courses on church-state relations. In his appeal of tenure denial, Beckwith responded that “because these ethical issues are central to the most important and disputed questions in church-state studies today, it seems to me to be not only permissible, but obligatory, for a professor in this area of study to address these issues.”

Well, um, yes. Anyone in the news business knows that stories about abortion or intelligent design lead over the mast. Should Beckwith have asked students to wade through tomes on interstate trucking rules instead? How about “Proper venting for turnips in transit – a federal or state responsibility?” or “Bovine-produced methane gas in re current environment regulations”?

The tenure committee further charged Beckwith with assigning only his published works for a class on religion and society. In fact, Beckwith’s writings amounted to only 15 percent of the course’s required reading.

Given that Beckwith has authored a fair whack of stuff on the subjects in question, it’s surprising he didn’t assign more of his own.

Bergin also notes that the chair was friends with the Dawsons, a powerful Texas clan. Seems the church-state center at Baylor, where Beckwith worked as associate director, was named after granddaddy Dawson, and the clan notables think that grandaddy would not have seen eye to eye with Beckwith. As a result, a whole heap of Dawsons has been campaigning against Beckwith for years, making Baylor sound like Hayseed U.

The whole story leaves me wondering why Beckwith even wants tenure at Baylor. But maybe if he gets it, he can help them recover the original vision to be a “Protestant Notre Dame.”

Some have wondered whether Beckwith’s association with the Discovery Institute and with ID mathematician Bill Dembski, whose ill-fated Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor, was holding conferences on intelligent design issues a few years ago, cooked his goose. Beckwith has defended the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design in publicly funded schools (but that’s not the same thing as thinking it is a good idea). But sources I trusted said no, it was mainly because he is pro life.

More generally, controversy has dogged Beckwith throughout his career, not because he is especially flamboyant but principally because he is a talented cultural conservative. Baylor is a Baptist university desperately seeking acceptance in a liberal environment; the last thing it needs is a prof who comes up with good arguments for cultural conservatism.

When the decision to deny tenure was first announced in March, a Baylor student lamented:

When I first heard the news I experienced for the first time what is known as cognitive dissonance. I couldn’t hold the two ideas in my mind. Professor Beckwith. Denied tenure. It was impossible to believe. There were people who told me it could happen, but I discounted the notion. After all, even political enemies have consciences, right? They have some commitment to integrity, don’t they?

No clear reason that makes any sense ever emerged for denying Beckwith tenure, though a lack of “collegiality” was mooted. The “collegiality” claim has become notorious, actually, as a way of getting rid of people who do not march in lockstep.

(Studying Beckwith’s case, I get the impression that it’s okay at Baylor to yay-hoo for Jesus as long as you make a fool of yourself and no one takes you seriously. Well, we’ll see.)

*Beckwith has written me to say, “The University Tenure Committee only recommends to the Provost. So, technically, I was not “turned down again.”

Comments
David: I am not in any way saying that PHYSICALLY there isn’t a world of difference between a zygote and a three-year old child. Of course there is, and one is obviously a fully-fledged human, where the other is at such a rudimentary stage in development that it cannot have humanness in any realistic way. As I have said above (comment #38) in my view the real humanity of a person resides in the spirit or soul, or whatever you wish to call this. However, in my view, and I grant that it is a metaphysical view (which is why I am apolitical on this issue, I don’t really care which way the laws go, only the ‘higher’ law) the universe records with precision every free-will act, which the actor/actress is then bound to the consequences of. This intrinsic mechanism of justice in the universe is sometimes called karma. It seems to me that sex is a lifegiving act intrinsically, and as such our free engagement in this activity should be associated only with life-giving/affirming intent. --tinabrewer I agree completely. This is exactly the same kind of thing I say when I'm advocating my responsibility position: having the privilege of sex without accepting the consequence of a (possible) pregnancy is irresponsible. Thus, casual abortions are irresponsible. And that's that. I see no need to say anything whatsoever about when the unborn child achieves the status of personhood. Irresponsible behavior is immoral, and casual abortions are irresponsible behavior. Case closed. That goes for both earthly and Heavenly laws. It's a somewhat interesting discussion for a late night with a couple of beers to try to decide when the fetus becomes a human... and you and I seem to agree that that point is when the soul is quickened to the body. We can guess at the first heartbeat, first brainwaves, etc, but I'm pretty sure that the issue could not be solved conclusively. So, I view it as a non-issue and don't see any good in mentioning it when I'm talking about the morality of abortion. Good thought experiment Karl. To me, the couple assumes responsibility for the (potential) pregnancy at the time they decide to get nasty. If you set a disarm-proof time bomb you assume responsibility at the time you set it, not the time it goes off.David Bergan
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
Hi Tina, I agree with David's comments, but I also want to add a couple of points. You wrote: "You still have not really expressed clearly why the free-willing act of procreation followed by conception is not a unique and practical demarcation point for responsibility. It seems obvious to me. No sex, no pregnancy. Sex, possible pregnancy. How is it in your mind that this is not an obvious place to start a new, quite natural demarcation?" You seem to be conflating two different points in time: the time of the sex act, which is when the partners assume responsibility for the potential pregnancy, and the time of conception, which is when you think human life truly begins. As I indicated in my previous comment, there may be two to three days between these events, so they can hardly be regarded as a "unique and practical demarcation point". To cast this in sharper relief, consider the following thought experiment. Assume that through a quirk of human biology, fertilization and conception do not happen for a year after intercourse. Now you have two choices: a) assert that human life begins when the associated assumption of responsibility happens (i.e. during the sex act), or b) continue to assert that human life begins at conception. The first choice would put you in the awkward position of arguing that a separate sperm and ovum constitute a human life. It would also imply that any method of birth control applied prior to sex is moral, but anything done afterwards to prevent conception is not, since the responsibility has been assumed by that time. Post-coital contraception would amount to an "unhinging of cause and effect", in your words, and a "rebellion against natural law". On the other hand, if human life begins at conception, we now have an entire year elapsing between the assumption of responsibility (via sex) and the beginning of human life (via conception). Two widely separated points, not one. The upshot: The assumption of responsibility and the beginning of human life are separate events, and therefore do not constitute a suitable single point of demarcation on the continuum. Here's an even better thought experiment. Imagine that I travel to a distant habitable planet. With me, I bring a supply of frozen sperm and eggs, and an incubation machine that will preserve them for a predetermined period of time, then thaw them, mix them, incubate any resulting embryos, and then raise the children until they are old enough to take care of themselves. I leave the machine on the planet, programmed to begin incubation in 100 years. By leaving the machine, I am clearly responsible for the lives that it will eventually produce. It would be immoral for me to leave the machine on a planet, for example, where there was no food available for the children to eat after the machine stopped taking care of them. In leaving the machine, I assume responsibility for the children's lives, yet fertilization and incubation will not happen for another hundred years, by which time I will probably be dead. Two distinct points in time, separated by a hundred years. Not a unique point of demarcation.Karl Pfluger
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
David: I am not in any way saying that PHYSICALLY there isn't a world of difference between a zygote and a three-year old child. Of course there is, and one is obviously a fully-fledged human, where the other is at such a rudimentary stage in development that it cannot have humanness in any realistic way. As I have said above (comment #38) in my view the real humanity of a person resides in the spirit or soul, or whatever you wish to call this. However, in my view, and I grant that it is a metaphysical view (which is why I am apolitical on this issue, I don't really care which way the laws go, only the 'higher' law) the universe records with precision every free-will act, which the actor/actress is then bound to the consequences of. This intrinsic mechanism of justice in the universe is sometimes called karma. It seems to me that sex is a lifegiving act intrinsically, and as such our free engagement in this activity should be associated only with life-giving/affirming intent. This doesn't mean that we always hope a child will come from every act of sex, but that at a minimum we are psychically and materially prepared to accept a new life should it come even in spite of our best and most careful efforts at contraception. If we cannot achieve this psychic and material state, then we should simply abstain from sex which includes intercourse. As I pointed out, this is a very low moral standard, really. Its really not even a moral standard, per se, but a materially practical one. It should be simple for our society to achieve this standard in modern times as a result of the cheap and ready availability of highly effective birth control. And yet, we are not even approaching this very low standard for one simple reason: people refuse to suffer constraints on the gratification of their appetites. Even the constraint of putting on a condom is often spoken of as if it were some devastating imposition. This speaks very poorly for our humanity in general, since a willingness to suffer constraints on the gratification of appetites is, in my opinion, a mark of spiritual maturity, and I'm NOT talking about aceticism here. Its funny because my entire worldview is spiritual, and yet I read the most rock-solid pro-life argument made by a woman from a strictly materialist perspective. I will now try to find that on the net and point y'all in her direction for a finish to this "dust-up".tinabrewer
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
No sex, no pregnancy. Sex, possible pregnancy. --tinabrewer True, but that's not the only variable. No blows to the stomach, no miscarriage. Blows to the stomach, possible miscarriage. No alcohol/alcohol. etc There are other free-will acts along the way. What doesn't make sense to me is that your position seems to be that a fertilized egg is 100% human just because you want to be safe and not declare any in-between point as the point of acquiring human-ness. But if you put a fertilized egg up next to a 3 year old boy, there is a world of difference... and it seems pretty obvious (to me anyway) that the former isn't a human, yet. Potentially human, sure. And the 3-year old boy is also a potential driver... but that doesn't mean he gets the keys.David Bergan
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Karl: you write that it "makes no sense to draw the line at conception, or at any other fixed point on the continuum". I am trying to argue essentially the same thing, but from a life-affirming perspective. I am against drawing lines within the continuum of pregnancy. You still have not really expressed clearly why the free-willing act of procreation followed by conception is not a unique and practical demarcation point for responsibility. It seems obvious to me. No sex, no pregnancy. Sex, possible pregnancy. How is it in your mind that this is not an obvious place to start a new, quite natural demarcation? Especially in view of the fact that abortion is hardly a neutral birth-control device, being an invasive operation with serious potential effects on the body.tinabrewer
September 20, 2006
September
09
Sep
20
20
2006
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Tina, Sperm typically survive for 2 to 3 days in the female genital tract, and ova for 12 to 24 hours. Conception commonly happens 0 to 3 days after intercourse (and in exceptional cases, as late as 5 days).Karl Pfluger
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
Karl: It makes sense because the event of conception is directly preceeded by a taboo-laden and physiologically/emotionally extraordinary event, namely sexual intercourse, a free-willing act.tinabrewer
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
tinabrewer:
Also, I think you overextend the continuum idea in order to make what I am saying seem ridiculous. Tina, I don't think that what you're saying is ridiculous. I do believe that the reasoning behind what you're saying, when applied consistently, leads to results we both would agree are ridiculous.
If you are doing this because I rudely called your argument stupid, then I apologize again.
Not to worry. If I were that thin-skinned, I would have abandoned UD long ago.
Human sperm and human ova die all of the time without anyone having any kind of moral concern about it.
True. And thus it seems ridiculous to argue that if a sperm and ovum die just before they touch, it's no big deal, but if they die after the sperm has penetrated the ovum, it's a human tragedy.
...we know that the overwhelming majority of sperm and eggs die anyway, and furthermore that until the two gametes are joined into one, they are not, individually, potential human beings.
Collectively, they are a potential human being. This is true both before and after fertilization. Kill a fertilized egg, and you've prevented a potential human from developing. Kill the sperm and ovum just before fertilization, and you've prevented that very same potential human from developing. It just makes no sense to draw the line at conception, or at any other fixed point on the continuum.Karl Pfluger
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
With regard to pregnancy, it seems clear to me that even moderately knowledgeable adults could make the causal connection between sexual activity and the resultant pregnancy and say to themselves “You know, we are really not in a position to be responsible for a new human life. THerefore, we should abstain from sex, or make DARN sure we use a virtually fail-safe form of birth-control. --tinabrewer This is exactly the responsibility position I am advocating. I couldn't have said it better. Also, I think you misjudge when you say that “to engage in sex and damn the consequences is selfish irresponsibility…no one will argue against that.” In an earlier comment, I paraphrased a prominent editorial writer, Ellen Goodman (lordie I hope I got her name right!) Her attitude, that placing even modest restrictions on teenagers’ ability to get the ‘morning after pill’ was, in essence, “sending them the message that motherhood is their PUNISHMENT FOR ENJOYING SEX” (emphasis mine) hardly sounds like someone who wouldn’t argue against irresponsible sex. What she does is just call getting an abortion an act of personal responsibility. So she would say something like “if I have sex and get pregnant against my wishes then I will do the responsible thing and get an abortion.” I don’t think her views are extremist, by the way, and the group for whom she speaks isn’t about to jump into the responsibility tent. CS Lewis had said something about the 3 different ways that creatures can be attached to each other: (A) maternal (B) parasitic, and (C) symbiotic... and how it would be a rotten day when women started viewing their offspring as parasites rather than children. You're right that the responsibility position isn't 100%... but it's a lot closer than the life-begins-at-conception arguments. Also, I think you overextend the continuum idea in order to make what I am saying seem ridiculous. --tinabrewer This remark was intended for Karl, but I also "overextended" the continuum in post 50. Our suggestion is that declaring conception as the point of human-ness is just as arbitrary as declaring the first heartbeat or first brainwaves, or the borning cry. There is potential in the individual sperm and eggs, just as there is potential in the zygote... and at neither step do we have something definitively human.David Bergan
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Karl: I apologize for using the word stupid for your example. I think if you go deeply into the idea of "cause-effect" in the sense of RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE'S ACTIONS, which is the sense in which I intended it, you will recognize that there is a great difference between mundane cause-effect relationships, such as kicking a ball and causing it to fly across the room, and responsibility-laden cause-effect relationships, such as kicking a ball, causing it to fly across the room and smash someone in the face! When I lament the desire of people to live "unhinged from consequences" I am referring to this type of thinking which is utterly pervasive in our society, namely that "I will not be held responsible or accountable for the effects which follow from my free-willing acts". With regard to pregnancy, it seems clear to me that even moderately knowledgeable adults could make the causal connection between sexual activity and the resultant pregnancy and say to themselves "You know, we are really not in a position to be responsible for a new human life. THerefore, we should abstain from sex, or make DARN sure we use a virtually fail-safe form of birth-control. Furthermore, we should really only engage in sex if we are prepared to embrace the potential result of birth-control failure in a LIFE-AFFIRMING MANNER" This is, incidentally, not a high standard of behavior. It says nothing about love or caring or any kind of higher standard of treatment for the resulting child. It governs only the material sexual behavior of the consenting adults, AND YET even this very low standard would eliminate the problem of abortion completely. Also, I think you overextend the continuum idea in order to make what I am saying seem ridiculous. If you are doing this because I rudely called your argument stupid, then I apologize again. Human sperm and human ova die all of the time without anyone having any kind of moral concern about it. This is because of a simple and nearly universal recognition: moral right and wrong is about the human capacity to exercise free-will in making choices. We choose to have sex-which can lead to the responsibility for new life. We choose to have abortions-which is a way of disposing of potential life in order to avoid the consequences of a previous free-will choice. Contraception doesn't violate an inexorable continuum because we know that the overwhelming majority of sperm and eggs die anyway, and furthermore that until the two gametes are joined into one, they are not, individually, potential human beings. They need to join one another, and at this point, a new continuum (lets call him Karl) is initiated.tinabrewer
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
tinabrewer wrote:
Certainly continuum phenomena exist, and the life of a human being is one of these. It is not necessary to do the “go backwards a minute at a time” game in order to see the point it is correctly demonstrating, namely that there IS no one given point at which the thing in question (in this case personhood) magically pops into being, AND SO THEREFORE, in the interests of making certain we do no harm, we refuse to make an artificial division on this continuum.
Tina, The problem is that the continuum doesn't end with the fertilized egg. As I pointed out earlier, it includes the point where the gametes are touching, but fertilization has not taken place. It includes the point where the gametes are an inch apart. It even includes the point where the gametes are in separate bodies. If you insist on treating every point on the continuum as if it represented a living human being, then all of the following would be immoral: 1. abortion 2. contraception of all kinds 3. family planning 4. abstinence Indeed, we would have to seize every opportunity for procreation, because otherwise we would be taking the life of a human. Married men, having impregnated their wives, would be obligated to impregnate as many single women as possible. Sure, they'd be committing adultery, but isn't that a lesser evil than depriving other humans of life? Ridiculous? Of course it is. But what got us here was the error of treating each point on the continuum as being morally equivalent. They aren't.Karl Pfluger
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
tinabrewer wrote:
It is a frank rebellion against this clear natural law to desire a world in which cause and effect become unhinged from one another.
I responded:
Is it “rebellion” to desire a world where heart failure is “unhinged” from death, via defibrillators? Or where famine is “unhinged” from widespread starvation by the shipment of food on airplanes?
Tina shot back:
Karl: your example about heart-disease is just stupid, and reveals the depth to which some are willing to sink to repudiate responsibility for life: helping someone with heart disease is a LIFE-AFFIRMING act, an act of love and help.
Precisely. So the "unhinging" of effect from cause is not inherently negative, contrary to your initial claim. In any case, this whole concept of the "unhinging of cause and effect" seems incoherent to me. Our actions do not suspend the laws of cause and effect. Suppose woman A has an abortion. The effect is an aborted pregnancy, and the cause is her decision to have the abortion. Now suppose woman B considers an abortion, but decides to give birth in the end. The effect is a living baby, and the cause is her decision not to have an abortion. Cause and effect are operating in both cases. There is no "unhinging" going on here.Karl Pfluger
September 19, 2006
September
09
Sep
19
19
2006
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
David Bergan: I think we essentially agree, except that I am personally uninterested in the politics of the question, and interested only in the moral/spiritual side and its attendant consequences. From this perspective, I am willing to make a case for something even if it is politically "messy" because I think it is true. Politics is a blunt instrument, and not really much of a vehicle for truth of a more rarified type! Also, I think you misjudge when you say that "to engage in sex and damn the consequences is selfish irresponsibility...no one will argue against that." In an earlier comment, I paraphrased a prominent editorial writer, Ellen Goodman (lordie I hope I got her name right!) Her attitude, that placing even modest restrictions on teenagers' ability to get the 'morning after pill' was, in essence, "sending them the message that motherhood is their PUNISHMENT FOR ENJOYING SEX" (emphasis mine) hardly sounds like someone who wouldn't argue against irresponsible sex. What she does is just call getting an abortion an act of personal responsibility. So she would say something like "if I have sex and get pregnant against my wishes then I will do the responsible thing and get an abortion." I don't think her views are extremist, by the way, and the group for whom she speaks isn't about to jump into the responsibility tent.tinabrewer
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Here's what didn't get posted correctly from my previous: I'm not really interested in trying to support either side. Above, I was asked (in 16) what would a rational, pro-life argument look like, by my lights. I responded by drawing on the distinction between moral agents and moral patients, and saying that even though fetuses are not moral agents -- i.e. they are not persons -- that really doesn't matter, because they are nevertheless moral patients, and that's enough to justify that they have moral status. If babies have rights, and animals have rights, then so do fetuses. One thing I like about this argument is that it sidesteps the problems with potential, to some degree. Fetuses are not "potential moral patients" -- they are moral patients, full stop, because they behave as other moral patients behave. On the other hand, once we get into the first two months or so, we're back in potentiality-land, and things once again get murky, as I've tried -- apparently without success -- to show.Carlos
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Okay, I’ll concede to the continuum fallacy. But that doesn’t eliminate the fact that we must somehow define stark cutoff points in order to form a law governing abortion. Start off at any point in the life cycle of a human where you consider said human has a right to life (explain your chosen point not in legal terms but logically, scientifically, and/or philosophically) and take steps as large as you like backwards in time to a point where there is no right to life and explain that point in the same manner. The object isn’t to box you into a minute by minute account but rather to force you to define where there should be a right to life and where there is not in a manner that makes sense. The consequence of your decision is that a living, growing human being who will, if nature is allowed to take its natural course, be deprived of an average of 75 years of living, laughing, crying, loving, learning, having children and grandchildren, all those things and more - you must justify taking all that away and giving the unobstructed right to take it all away to a single individual. --DaveScot I want to iterate that I, like you, am against casual abortions (ie abortions that don't involve rape, incest, or the life of the mother). But I don't think that the reasoning is legit to try to declare a fetus at the point of conception a full-fledged human, just because it has the capability of becoming a human. First of all I don't really think that a collection of cells with human DNA is necessarily a human in the sense that you and I are. Yes, it has the potential for becoming human, but that doesn't mean it is human five minutes after conception. We all know that not only does the egg have to be fertilized, but also cling to the wall of the womb... and receive proper nutrition, and not be subject to violent blows to the mother's subject, and not be born prematurely, etc. All these things have to happen in order for this mass of cells to achieve status as an independent human being... it's not just act of sex. And even as a baby, he won't become a full independent human being, without his parents food, love, protection, etc. So it's not like the child is conceived and then inexorably continues on to humanhood. There are so many other things that can stop the process, that conception is but one small part among many. Moreover, why stop this reasoning at conception? Why not argue that the sperm and eggs are "potential human beings" and therefore deserve full human rights status? They have individual DNA, and under the right conditions (sex, turkey baster, or in vitro fertilization) will become a baby... just like the fetus has individual DNA, and under the right conditions will become a baby. So why invest in such a sloppy case, when there is a very clear prima facie argument that can be made if you make the issue responsibility rather than life? Sex has consequences... one of which is procreation. To engage in sex and damn the consequences is selfish irresponsibility... no one will argue against that. It's like buying a dog and then thinking that you don't have to clean up its poop. Law after law after law is passed to ensure responsibility in citizens... if people just started seeing abortion along this line, it could be a law within 5 years. But instead pro-lifers stay with the dubious, arbitrary claim that a fetus is a human... and a sharp opponent will make a fool of them within 2 minutes. I’m not willing to concede the continuum fallacy. While it is true that in certain instances we must make arbitrary divisions within a continuum, does it follow that we must do this for all continuums? (I have no idea how to make continuum plural.) Certainly continuum phenomena exist, and the life of a human being is one of these. It is not necessary to do the “go backwards a minute at a time” game in order to see the point it is correctly demonstrating, namely that there IS no one given point at which the thing in question (in this case personhood) magically pops into being, AND SO THEREFORE, in the interests of making certain we do no harm, we refuse to make an artificial division on this continuum. It is also not analogous to the driver’s liscence example, because we don’t just go “okay, you are 16. You are mature enough to drive now.” We pick 16 as the earliest legal point at which someone who has taken the necessary prerequisite educational steps may begin driving. Actually, it seems to me that perhaps those who argue FOR such arbitrary designations are guilty of a continuum fallacy of their own. Lets designate it the “there is nothing sacred about a continuum fallacy”. It might not make the books, but oh well. --tinabrewer Personally, I believe in the ancient definition of human as being an animal with a highly complex soul. So, along those lines the point of humanness is the point when the soul enters the body. And what point is that? Good question... could be conception, could be the first heartbeat, first brain activity, or the borning cry. I don't think that the earliest form of the fetus has a soul... think of all those fertilized eggs that get flushed down the toilet because they don't cling to the wall. And I faintly recall some ancient super-philosopher like Augustine, Aquinas, or Boethius saying that the "quickening" of the soul to the body was after like 5 weeks (which wouldn't be that far from the first heartbeat). My whole point is that this is a messy debate... and since the link between casual abortions and irresponsibilty is undeniable, why not unite under that banner? If the life of a human being is one, then so is the life of a tree. Does it follow that we should not distinguish between acorns and oaks? Now, you might want to resist the analogy between humans and trees, but you can’t — because you put life on the table as the ethically salient criterion, and trees are just as alive as humans are. --Carlos Yup. This is exactly why I think the "When is it a human? I don't know, so we better make it conception!" argument isn't getting anywhere. Kind regards, DavidDavid Bergan
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Carlos: I don't dispute the tree analogy at all. in fact it is a perfect example. I would say that an acorn is an early stage in the unfoldment of an oak tree. How this relates to the question of abortion eludes me. I never intended to place the broad category "life" on the table in the sense that "because all of life is a developmental continuum, we can never end any form of life ever at any stage" I tried to make this clear by my example "whenever I walk across the grass I take life". What we are discussing here is a much narrower ethical problem, namely the taking of a HUMAN life. Creatures die in the natural course of events, by accident or disease or whatever. But of course creatures also strive to live. The human zygote/embryo/fetus strives to live. The mother must make accomodation for this striving, and this accomodation is risky and expensive. That is why all of the weight and force of restrictions around the fetal life should (and really quite easily could) come into play in the time BEFORE conception takes place. If humans would focus a fraction of the energy they waste arguing about their rights on taking responsibility for their sexual behavior, this whole raging debate would end with a whimper overnight. But of course they won't.tinabrewer
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Let's reformulate the question? How old should a child be before the mother is allowed to kill it? Now replace the technical jargon and see if it invalidates the meaning of any of the terms in the above question. I agree with Davescott and tinabrewer et al. The subject and object of the act are the thing. But with materialist philosophy holding sway, where is the concept of intrinsic value in the courts?kvwells
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Could a system admin please erase my (45)? I didn't enter the HTML right and it got garbled. I'll repost when it's gone. Thanks!Carlos
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
I'm not really interested in trying to support either side. Above, I was asked (in 16are moral patients, full stop, because they behave as other moral patients behave. On the other hand, once we get into the first two months or so, we're back in potentiality-land, and things once again get murky. For example:
While it is true that in certain instances we must make arbitrary divisions within a continuum, does it follow that we must do this for all continuums? (I have no idea how to make continuum plural.) Certainly continuum phenomena exist, and the life of a human being is one of these.
If the life of a human being is one, then so is the life of a tree. Does it follow that we should not distinguish between acorns and oaks? Now, you might want to resist the analogy between humans and trees, but you can't -- because you put life on the table as the ethically salient criterion, and trees are just as alive as humans are. By the way, the technically correct plural of "continuum" is "continua," although "continuums" has entered common usage.Carlos
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Tina:
Actually, it seems to me that perhaps those who argue FOR such arbitrary designations are guilty of a continuum fallacy of their own.
I agree with this statement. So much so, in fact, that I find it impossible, from the discussion of arbitrary divisions of the continuum, to tell which side of the debate those mentioning it were trying to support.Charlie
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
I'm not willing to concede the continuum fallacy. While it is true that in certain instances we must make arbitrary divisions within a continuum, does it follow that we must do this for all continuums? (I have no idea how to make continuum plural.) Certainly continuum phenomena exist, and the life of a human being is one of these. It is not necessary to do the "go backwards a minute at a time" game in order to see the point it is correctly demonstrating, namely that there IS no one given point at which the thing in question (in this case personhood) magically pops into being, AND SO THEREFORE, in the interests of making certain we do no harm, we refuse to make an artificial division on this continuum. It is also not analogous to the driver's liscence example, because we don't just go "okay, you are 16. You are mature enough to drive now." We pick 16 as the earliest legal point at which someone who has taken the necessary prerequisite educational steps may begin driving. Actually, it seems to me that perhaps those who argue FOR such arbitrary designations are guilty of a continuum fallacy of their own. Lets designate it the "there is nothing sacred about a continuum fallacy". It might not make the books, but oh well.tinabrewer
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
41. The interesting ethical question is, could she indicate to the doctors whether or not she wanted to live?Carlos
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
An embryo is not a possible person. An embryo is a virtual person. The distinction between possibility and virtuality was first made by Henri Bergson, developed significantly by Gilles Deleuze, and my use of it here is based on Manuel De Landa. Possibility refers to a fully-formed individual which is non-actual. (Consider Quine's question from his essay "On What There Is": how many possible men are standing in the doorway? One? Three? Nineteen?) DaveScot wrote:
a living, growing human being who will, if nature is allowed to take its natural course, be deprived of an average of 75 years of living, laughing, crying, loving, learning, having children and grandchildren, all those things and more - you must justify taking all that away and giving the unobstructed right to take it all away to a single individual.
In this example, we're supposed to treat this single individual as somehow already existing -- but only as a possibility. Developement is then a process of realization, of making the possible into the real. This is the point at which the pro-choicer retorts, "ho do you know that the person you're preventing from coming into existence isn't a sadistic psychopath?" Possibility, to repeat, concerns well-defined, determinate individuals or structures which simply lack existence. Virtuality, on the other hand, concerns an absence of determination, undifferentiated. The differentiated structures that makes us unique simply do not yet exist. "Potential" here can now be cashed out as the capacity to assume many different determinations. Which determination is actualized depends on genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors during gestation, and on all those plus family life, socio-economic status, etc. during early childhood. Distinguishing between possibility and virtuality won't solve all the problems with the metaphysics of potential, but it's a good start. And just in case anyone here is curious about my personal views: In an ideal world, every pregnancy is intended and results in a child who will be loved. But in the absence of that ideal, I think that abortion can be a necessary evil. Although it is an evil, I can be a lesser evil than bringing up an unwanted child or throwing it into the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of child care and adoption agencies. In any event, I do not think that it's up to the law to weigh the relevant evils and decide which is the lesser. There aren't many issues where my libertarian side comes out -- but sex, drugs, and guns are the big ones. On the other hand, I support complete reproductive freedom -- what consenting adults decide to do on a rainy day should be entirely up to them, as is the decision whether or not to reproduce, and if so, when, how many, etc. I think, or would like to think, that pro-choicers and pro-lifers can agree that the ideal world is one in which every pregnancy is intended and results in a child who will be loved. That said, the rest is all about strategy: how do we get from here to there? The problem is that most pro-choicers think that support of reproductive freedom requires them to support abortion on demand, and that most pro-lifers think that opposing abortion means opposing sex education, contraceptives, etc.Carlos
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Only peripherally-related, but an interesting ingredient nonetheless: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1867596,00.html
A 23-year-old woman who has been in a vegetative state since suffering devastating brain damage in a traffic accident has stunned doctors by performing mental tasks for them. Brain scans revealed that the woman, who has shown no outward signs of awareness since the accident in July last year, could understand people talking to her and was able to imagine playing tennis or walking around her home when asked to by doctors. ... Although she had emerged from a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a vegetative state, in which patients enter a cycle of sleeping and waking and even open their eyes, but are completely unresponsive. ... Persistent vegetative state was first described in 1972 by Scottish and American neurologists and only came to medical attention because of extraordinary advances in keeping severely brain-damaged patients alive for longer. Neurologically, the condition is a slight improvement on a coma. Patients diagnosed as PVS show no signs of consciousness or awareness, but unlike those in a coma, have periods of sleep and wakefulness and periodically open their eyes.
Charlie
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
David Bergan Okay, I'll concede to the continuum fallacy. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that we must somehow define stark cutoff points in order to form a law governing abortion. Start off at any point in the life cycle of a human where you consider said human has a right to life (explain your chosen point not in legal terms but logically, scientifically, and/or philosophically) and take steps as large as you like backwards in time to a point where there is no right to life and explain that point in the same manner. The object isn't to box you into a minute by minute account but rather to force you to define where there should be a right to life and where there is not in a manner that makes sense. The consequence of your decision is that a living, growing human being who will, if nature is allowed to take its natural course, be deprived of an average of 75 years of living, laughing, crying, loving, learning, having children and grandchildren, all those things and more - you must justify taking all that away and giving the unobstructed right to take it all away to a single individual. Mike1962 Why when brainwaves begin? Has the potential for a living a full life become significantly enhanced at that point and if so by how much is it enhanced? Or is it merely that there won't be any physical pain inflicted? If the capacity to feel pain is the defining point we can certainly use modern medicine to painlessly destroy a human at any point in its life cycle. There won't even be any emotional distress so long as the act is done without the recipient having any foreknowledge of what's going to happen. Please elaborate. Carlos We don't allow 5 year olds to vote but we don't take away their potential to vote in the future when and if they meet the legal criteria. Similarly, while all persons born in the U.S. will not in fact become presidents, they all have the potential and we give them all the right to succeed or fail at realizing that potential. We don't know ahead of time who will and who won't so fair play demands they all get a chance to try. I don't believe in equality of outcome but I do believe in equality of opportunity.DaveScot
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Now, as a thought exercise, I want the baby killers (no inflammatory language there, right? ;-) ) out there to count backward minute by minute from birth to conception and tell me exactly where and why (logically & scientifically) the human in question should lose its legal right to life. --DaveScot This is a great example of the fallacy of the continuum. Compare: "100 degrees Fahrenheit is a hot day. Count downward by subtracting only 1 degree Farenheight, and tell me exactly where and why (logically & scientifically) the day is no longer hot." There is a necessity to make arbitrary cut-offs in laws. The minute you turn 16 years old doesn't mean that you suddenly sprouted the maturity to drive a car... but in order to keep immature drivers off the road, you have to set a legal driving age. Personally, I am 100% anti-casual-abortions, but the reason is not because of arbitrary definitions of "human life" and how that applies to a mass of cells in the womb. I am 100% anti-casual-abortions because casual abortions are irresponsible behavior and laws are enacted to ensure people act responsibly. This is the prima facie case against abortion... you don't have to get into the spiderweb of trying to define human life, or handcuff yourself to a certain policy on stem-cells. When my senator (then Democratic Senate minority leader... probably the highest-ranking pro-choice politician on the planet at the time) Tom Daschle came to town a few years back, I even had him agree with me that casual abortions are irresponsible. Of course he wasn't willing to change his political stance, but he recognized that it's an air-tight case... and dismissed himself from our conversation as quickly as possible. (He turned away and his bodyguard stepped in between us.)David Bergan
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
I think what is not being taken into account here are the metaphysical consequences of intent. We are responsible not only for our acts, but for our thoughts and deepest inner urges as well. All of this haggling over the definition of personhood obscures the fact that a woman should view her capacity to bring forth new life as a profound responsibility. The very costliness of this responsibility is why, in a natural state, human beings are gifted with a sense of modesty. It protects from the potentially disastrous consequences of pursuing sex for pleasure alone, unhinged from the demands of the should-be-leading spirit: namely genuine love. Karl: your example about heart-disease is just stupid, and reveals the depth to which some are willing to sink to repudiate responsibility for life: helping someone with heart disease is a LIFE-AFFIRMING act, an act of love and help. I have no interest in making arguments that a zygote is a full-fledged human being. THe real humanity of the human is contained in the spirit. Who knows when the spirit joins the body, or for that matter when it leaves again at death? However, I have a great interest in the progressive brutalization of humanity under the influence of the dark urge for irresponsible pleasure. Karl, I dare you to make the argument to me that humanity in general, and femininity in particular, is in any way elevated or helped by having unlimited access to abortion. To be completely honest, the politics of it is uninteresting to me. I think you could have it entirely legal, and in a good society, it would (almost) never happen. Most people make reasonable exception for the unique circumstances in which the mother's life is threatened or in which the free will of one party is absent (rape, incest). If this were truly the use made of abortion, we wouldn't have a controversy.tinabrewer
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
DaveScot: "Now, as a thought exercise, I want the baby killers (no inflammatory language there, right? ;-) ) out there to count backward minute by minute from birth to conception and tell me exactly where and why (logically & scientifically) the human in question should lose its legal right to life." How at the point where brainwaves begin? At about 40 days as I recall.mike1962
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
In our society, we agree that nineteen-year-olds have the right to drive Nobody in our society has a right ot drive. It's considered a "privilege". If you don't pass your test you can't get a license.tribune7
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Ellen Goodman, an editorial writer, very recently wrote an editorial in which she lamented the horror that the new “morning-after pill” would become available with strings attached; namely that women 18 and under would need parental consent to use it. To this mild restriction she responded ‘now we are sending our young women the message that motherhood is their punishment for enjoying sex.’ Help. It's a pity nobody relived Ms. Goodman' angst by pointing out that their 18-year-old and up boyfriends could buy the pill for them. (I think 18 years olds girls or boys can buy the pill)tribune7
September 18, 2006
September
09
Sep
18
18
2006
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply