Monday, November 05, 2012

Amputee-identity disorder

My latest exchange in the continuing abortion thread over at TGC blog:

steve hays
    November 3, 2012 at 10:09 PM



    i) You act like TGC advocates arranged marriage. If a woman doesn't want to have "habitual sex," then don't get married in the first place! No one is forcing them into marriage.



    ii) You have no concept of marriage. It doesn't even occur to you that marriage requires mutual accommodation. You seem to imagine that in a relationship with someone else, you should never ever have to do anything you don’t want to do. That doesn’t work in marriage–or friendship.



    ii) Paul's command (if that's what you’re alluding to) requires mutual accommodation (1 Cor 7:3-4). It's not a command to wives, but a command to couples. A command to husbands and wives alike.



    iii) Is it actually true that men want sex more often than women, or is that, itself, a sexist stereotype?



    iv) Take the hook-up culture on your average college campus. You can't have sexually active single men without sexually active single women. So why assume that women are less interested in sex than men?



    v) Or is that even though women are (allegedly) less interested in sex, they offer sex because that's the only way to hang onto their boyfriend? If they don't offer sex, he will dump them.



    But even if that's true, that's damaging to feminism. For that means women are so emotionally dependent on having a man in their life that they will do things to keep him which they find personally disagreeable.



    vii) Another explanation is that women are trying to keep up with other women. It's a female competition. Every girl has to have her own boyfriend.



    But if that's the case, it makes women look too emotionally weak to resist peer pressure.



steve hays

November 3, 2012 at 10:14 PM



[Lily] "To your other comment about different hierarchies in society somehow being a counter argument to my point. What you are citing is called the intersection of systems of oppression within a given society. It is one of the more basic ideas explored and analyzed within feminist theory and sociology. It is not a counter argument. The intersection of classism, racism, and sexism does not disprove their systematic existence. Seriously this is high school level sociology."


You fixate on "patriarchy" as if that's the dominant "system of oppression." But as I pointed out, that grossly oversimplifies male/female social dynamics.



    steve hays

    November 3, 2012 at 10:25 PM



    In that comment you said you were an atheist. If atheism is true, then women have no inherent rights. If atheism is true, then men and women are simply fleeting, fortuitous arrangements of matter. Society can confer rights on women, but that doesn't derive from the nature of women. Given atheism, women are just packets of matter which exist to groom their replacements.



steve hays

November 3, 2012 at 11:29 PM



Keith



"Yes, there are conclusions we might reasonably reach from the conclusion that gods don't exist, but those are entirely separate from whether or not atheism is true."


i) To begin with, I used a conditional (if-then) argument.



ii) Since Lily is an atheist, she thinks atheism is true–in which case, by your own admission, atheism yields those conclusions.



"In other words, just because you don't like where an idea leads does not mean the idea is any more or less true."


The question is whether Lily dislikes the logical implications of atheism.



steve hays

November 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM



Lily



“Ah yes, the right to remove something growing inside of my body…”


You make it sound as if a baby is a cancerous growth. Something alien to a woman’s body. Something harmful.



“A person wants the fetus out of them so desperately that they get an abortion.”


Frankly, that attitude resembles amputee-identity disorder (BIID). It’s pathological for a woman to feel that alienated from the natural, normal process of gestation.



“Making abortion illegal means the government is forcing citizens to forgo (all the things I listed) for another citizen. I do not think it should be within the governments power to force people to use their literal bodies as life support for other people.....”


You keep falling back on generic euphemisms about “citizens” or “people,” instead of the “mother” and “her baby.” That’s a rhetorical ruse to deflect attention away from familial obligations.



steve hays

November 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM



Lily said:



"Btw, about 1/5 of all American's women are raped so theres that. Rape is not some rare thing either."


Is that widely-cited factoid accurate?



"According to CIR, one in five women who attend college will be victims of rape or attempted rape during their college career. But when Haavik and Dill looked at their own campus, they found zero incidents reported in 2008, one reported in 2009, and two reported in 2010."





"Regarding this study, 41% (n = 45) of the total disposed rape cases (n = 109) were officially declared false during this 9-year period, that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred and the charge, therefore, was false. The incidence figure was variable from year to year and ranged from a low of 27% (3 out of 11 cases) to a high of 70% (7 out of 10 cases). The 9-year period suggests no trends, and no explanation has been made for the year-to-year fluctuation."


Archives of Sexual Behavior

Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81(12)

False rape allegations.

by Eugene J. Kanin



DL

November 5, 2012 at 8:50 AM



rockingwithhawking (November 5, 2012 at 12:09 AM):

I complimented you earlier, but here I think I need to throw up the red flag.

In correction to your reference above, Steve Hays has never actually answered the "violinist argument" in the previous thread or otherwise. The content of his responses have been limited to: 1) stating that the argument was a thought-experiment written by Judith Jarvis-Thompson and 2) that her argument is morally depraved and that no Christian should ever consider it seriously.



Sorry, but I'm not sure in what world one would have to live in order to see such logic and say, "gee, you've got a good point there!"



Please note: This comment is directed to rockingwithhawking, only.



steve hays

November 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM



This is an open comment thread. Any commenter is free to comment on someone else's comment.



i) Your claim is demonstrably false. I've repeatedly pointed out that her argument from analogy is vitiated by a fundamental disanalogy: the relationship of a female hospital patient to a perfect stranger is hardly equivalent to the relationship between a mother and her baby. Parents have duties to their kids which they don't have to adult strangers.



ii) In addition, I've discussed her argument elsewhere. For instance:







steve hays

November 5, 2012 at 11:47 AM



David



“Steve Hayes, it's interesting how whenever someone brings up a question that you don't have an answer for…”


That’s demonstrably false. On this thread, no one has directed a question at me that I haven’t answered. You’re the one who’s ignoring the answers.



“However, it's intellectually dishonest for you to dismiss Lily's point as a deflection or a ruse instead of answering her. You've had some pretty good defenses on other points (not including the personal insults, of course).”


I didn’t merely say she was using a rhetorical ruse. I also explained the nature of the ruse. You’ve chosen to ignore the supporting reason I gave. So you’re the one who suffers from intellectual dishonesty at this juncture. Try again.



“At the end of the day, I think you (and all Christians) need to have an actual answer to this in order to complete your (our) defense.”


I have provided an actual answer. Either you’re ignoring the answer, or–for some odd reason–you’re unable to absorb the rudimentary distinction I drew. This isn’t difficult.



We’re not talking about the social obligations between two strangers. Rather, we’re talking about the social obligations between mother and child.



For instance, murder is evil. But not all murder is equally evil. Matricide, patricide, and fratricide are cases of aggravated murderous evil. It’s even more culpable than garden-variety murder because the murderer is taking the life of someone to whom he owes a special obligation to care about.



It’s striking that we have commenters on this thread who profess to be Christians, yet they are so morally obtuse that they can’t register these bedrock moral distinctions.



…you either call it a rhetorical ruse or resort to labeling their position mentally deranged, pathological, morally depraved, etc.. You do know that those are not actual arguments, right?


i) Characterizing your opponent or his position is not a substitute for argument. However, I haven’t used that as a substitute for argument. I’ve presented a slew of arguments on this thread.



ii) It is, however, legitimate to include that characterization, in addition to presenting arguments.



iii) There’s such a thing as the ethics of belief. Epistemic duties. Intellectual virtues and vices.



If a skinhead promotes Neonazi ideology, we should point out that his arguments rest of factually false assumptions regarding race and history.



However, we don’t have to stop there. We can rightly point out that his Neonazi ideology is morally reprehensible. Moreover, we can rightly point out that his adopted ideology is a reflection of his own character.



It’s not merely that he’s mistaken. We’re not dealing with an innocent mistake. Rather, it’s culpable for him to promote Neonazism.



iv) Likewise, the Bible isn’t merely concerned with truth and falsehood, but with the source of truth and falsehood. Not merely with being factually correct, but with moral formation. With character.



The Bible routinely traces evil behavior (e.g. murder) and evil beliefs (e.g. idolatry) to an evil heart. What you believe or do is mirrors the kind of person you are. There’s a cause-and-effect relation. You are what you do–or believe.



v) On the one hand, some commenters on this thread are atheists. According to the Christian ethics of belief, their advocacy of abortion isn’t merely misguided, but culpable. What they are doing is evil. It is evil for them to promote evil. And they promote evil because they are evil.



Of course they resent that characterization, but this is a Christian site. Christian commenters like me have the right to render Christian value-judgments.



vi) On the hand, some of the abortion proponents on this thread (or the parallel thread at Taylor’s blog) profess to be Christians. In that event, it’s proper to hold them to Christian standards vis-à-vis the ethics of belief. If you profess to be a Christian, yet you promote evil, then that’s contrary to your Christian profession. That’s impermissible. That’s inexcusable.



This isn’t a value free or morally neutral discussion where you can think whatever you please, but still claim to be a faithful follower of Jesus. If you follow Jesus, then you’re not at liberty to think whatever you please and call it Christian.

14 comments:

  1. Here's an Obama campaign video in which teen and pre-teen girls remind their mothers to vote pro-choice. Apparently, the girls think that their mothers are amenable to the idea of aborting their own grand-children. One wonders at the appeal to depravity under the name of "choice".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO6qtzEiP3k&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, I've known mothers and fathers alike to require their pregnant daughters to abort their grandchildren to assuage the possibility of bringing shame on the family. Apparently for some, regarding shame, appearance is more important than the truth. The victims are their own progeny.

      Delete
  2. Well said Steve,

    >What you believe or do is mirrors the kind of person you are.

    But I think Gump said it better- "Stupid is as stupid does".

    >Christian commenters like me have the right to render Christian value-judgments.

    And have the privilege of being judged likewise (Matt. 7:1).


    Keep up the great judging Steve!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nearly forgot,

    Heard our dear Rachel Held on CBC radio this morning.

    She seemed quite proud of her "vagina" monologues... of fasting from sex for 12 days straight every month for a year.

    Somehow I doubt that her husband or savior was quite as proud.




    ReplyDelete
  4. Great arguments, Steve. The first section is useful in itself for arguing the complementarian position. I'd like to repost that section, with due credit of course. Is there a missing fifth point, or is that just a numbering mishap?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feel free to use it however you wish. I just corrected the enumeration.

      Delete
  5. For what it's worth, my final comments in the thread.

    ---

    Hi Keith,

    Well, maybe what's best is if we get into some of the more technical details (and people can just Google or Wiki if there are any unfamiliar terms or whatever):

    1. Actually, in SCNT, what's happening is we're removing an oocyte nucleus in culture such that the oocyte becomes enucleated, performing a biopsy on a patient and taking out a somatic cell nucleus, and placing this somatic cell nucleus containing genetic material (DNA) into the enucleated oocyte.

    In other words, the key point is SCNT involves *donor DNA*. This donor DNA is ideally taken from a somatic cell to be placed into the enucleated oocyte. We can't simply "cause any human ovum to develop into a new human being" absent additional genetic material.

    2. Not "any human ovum" will do. Oocytes come in various stages of developmental maturity (e.g. primary, secondary, mature ova or an ovum).

    And, of course, an ovum can deteriorate in quality over time.

    3. Similarly, not that you claimed otherwise, but I should mention not any somatic cell will do.

    4. Moreover, after this nuclear transfer, the gene expression patterns of this newly transferred nucleus have to be reprogrammed. This is typically done by DNA modifications like in cytosine methylation, chromatin remodeling, histone protein modification, re-engineering normal methylation patterns, etc. We could delve into further details if necessary. But again this isn't as straightforward as "caus[ing] any human ovum to develop into a new human being."

    5. Assuming we could actually create a human embryo (like Dolly the sheep), we would also need the embryo to be implanted into a pseudopregnant female's uterus in order to carry it to term. Once again, this isn't as simple as "caus[ing] any human ovum to develop into a new human being."

    6. Another reason I mention all this is because it's directly relevant when speculating about future medical and scientific technological possibilities. In light of stuff like this, how realistic is it to claim "20 years from now...we can cause any human ovum to develop into a new human being"?

    7. At any rate, even if using SCNT for reproductive cloning in humans were possible, I don't see how SCNT would be an argument against the clone being a human life if that's what you're suggesting? I mean, why isn't a cloned human being still a human being?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lily,

      You said: "The women you are talking about aren't the same women whom do not want to be pregnant so much that they get an abortion...But the women I'm talking about do not want to be pregnant...A person wants the fetus out of them so desperately that they get an abortion."

      Say a man is married to the most wonderful and most beautiful woman in the world. Say his wife has been nothing but good and loving to him from when they first started dating to the day they got married. She's an exemplary person in all respects. Is it morally permissible for the husband to leave his wife solely because he doesn't want to be married any more?

      "I do not think it should be within the governments power to force people to use their literal bodies as life support for other people."

      There are many good responses to the violinist argument if that's what you're alluding to. For instance, I'm sure you're well aware of Steve Hays' responses in this and the previous thread. I'd also recommend you interact with a book like The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice by Christopher Kaczor.

      Delete
    2. Hi DL,

      Thanks for your opinion. But respectfully I do stand by what I said about Steve Hays and his comment, particularly this comment about the violinist argument.

      What's more, but hopefully without detracting from several other fine comments, I think Steve Hays has quite arguably made many of the most intellectually rigorous and insightful comments in these abortion threads. Not that what I say is probably worth much, but for what it is worth, I would highly recommend everyone interested in the topic at hand take the time to carefully consider Steve Hays' comments.

      Also, if I can gently probe with some slight pushback too, I suspect it's not so much his arguments (or supposed lack thereof) that you find troubling, but perhaps his supposed poor tone? If that's the case, might I please suggest the statement "I'm not sure in what world one would have to live in order to see such logic and say, 'gee, you've got a good point there!'" could arguably be a bit on the poor tone side of the equation?

      Delete
    3. Hi DL,

      Sorry, I'll have to make this quick as I have to rush off to something.

      "Yeah, well, we will have to agree to disagree there. Hays didn't directly answer any of my objections."

      1. Strictly speaking, there's a difference between your objections and Thomson's violinist argument or thought experiment.

      2. Originally you wrote:

      "Steve Hays has never actually answered the 'violinist argument' in the previous thread or otherwise. The content of his responses have been limited to: 1) stating that the argument was a thought-experiment written by Judith Jarvis-Thompson and 2) that her argument is morally depraved and that no Christian should ever consider it seriously."

      The comments Steve Hays made including the one to which I linked do more than (1) and (2). In addition he points out the relationship between a female patient to a stranger violinist is disanalogous to the relationship between a real life mother to her baby. He also alludes to the fact that fathers are involved in creating a child.

      3. However, let's say I'm wrong and you're right with regard to comments Steve Hays made prior to my response to Lily where I recommended she consider these prior comments. Since this point in time, Steve Hays has made follow-up comments with regard to Thomson's violinist hypothetical, he's provided links to his own blog posts over on Triablogue which offer more detailed critiques of Thomson's violinist hypothetical, he's responded to your own comment to me, etc.

      "Define parent"

      Well, if you want a more tangible definition, we could appeal to paternity and maternity testing. I can elaborate if need be but this could involve genetic fingerprinting (e.g. nDNA, mtDNA), blood typing, protein and enzyme analysis, etc.

      Delete
    4. Hi DL,

      "Given your definition above, how do any of those biological facts equate to the decision making process that a woman who has been raped faces within 24 hours of the act? Of any of the facts you've given, which of those would necessitate a motherly care and concern as a determining factor. (Granted, I'm coming at this as a person who was orphaned at birth and whose "biological parents" have never shown any parental concern in the sense you and Steve are arguing for.)"

      1. First of all I'd like to say I'm sorry to hear about your past history as an orphan whose biological parents never showed you any parental concern. I'm sure there's a lot more to this story, and a lot more one could ask such as to clarify some details, but at the same time I don't wish to pry into anyone's personal matters. So I'll leave it there and hope that's okay with you. But in any case my sympathies to you.

      2. As far as the "biological facts" are concerned. Of course, given the necessary info, various scientific techniques can be used to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this child is (or is not) the son or daughter of this man and this woman. In the case where the couple desired to have a baby (i.e. most couples who are pregnant) we could talk about the science behind some of that at least to the extent that science can even explain it. Horomones and stuff like that.

      3. But in the case of rape, each woman could very well feel differently, but I imagine many if not most women who are raped would feel a tremendous mix of emotions in the 24 hours after they were raped. Tremendous sorrow and grief, fear and confusion, hatred and revenge against her rapist a la the girl with the dragon tattoo, etc. Obviously if we were in a position to help we'd want to do as much for her as we could. To show as much active care and concern for her as we can muster.

      4. All that said, I suspect what's at the bottom of most who argue for abortion in the case of rape is that they believe a woman's mental and emotional health caused by her rape (not to mention the added mental and emotional, as well as physical, distress of having to bear this unwanted baby for nine months) is more valuable than the baby's life.

      Hence the real question is whether killing a human being is ever justified in order to alleviate another human being's mental and emotional pain and suffering. Or to put it another way, is killing a human being ever justified in order to save one's own life? As the Jews ask, is your blood redder than his blood?

      5. If the raped woman has the right to kill her baby in order to save her own life including her own mental and emotional health, then what about the baby? Does the baby have no right to life? Instead does the baby have the duty to die for her sake?

      6. By the way, I never quite understood how prolife advocates including in cases of rape are the ones who are being heartless and cruel toward the raped woman by allegedly forcing her to carry the baby to term. After all, wasn't it the rapist who was being heartless and cruel toward the woman by forcing her to carry the baby to term? It's not as if most men including rapists don't realize if they have unprotected sex with a woman then it's possible she will get pregnant. (Prolifers are just trying to protect the baby, trying to say two wrongs don't make a right.)

      7. Regrettably I have some exams coming up for which I'll need to study. So this is probably going to be my last word on the topic in this post. Sorry about that. But thank you and everyone else for the dialogue.

      Delete
    5. Hi DL (Deb),

      Sorry I do have to study, but I'll just try to make a quick response (and apologies in advance if it sounds too brusque, but it may sound brusque because I'm rushing a bit since I shouldn't spend too much time here):

      "Alas, #2 didn't answer the question at hand. Which is where you argued that even in the exceptional case of rape, abortion is unnatural simply because a mother has certain emotional attachments or bonds with her baby. My question was - on what do you base that, especially given that the morning afterpill (preganancy prevention) could be given within 24 hours of the act? There would absolutely not be a maternal connection present; therefore, the original argument you suggested doesn't work."

      1. Perhaps my previous comments weren't clear enough, but I've actually never described abortion as "unnatural." Rather I would simply say abortion even in case of rape is morally wrong. (Someday I may try to say something about "natural" or spontaneous abortions and related.)

      2. Also I don't say abortion in case of rape is morally wrong "because a mother has certain emotional attachments or bonds with her baby." Rather I would say abortion in case of rape is morally wrong because ultimately I believe a baby's life is more valuable than its mother's mental and emotional health including her pain and suffering. (And I don't say this because I don't care about women who were raped. Rather I say this because I think the baby is a human being and I don't think the baby did anything wrong to deserve death.)

      3. I only brought up the science-y bits because you had asked how I define parent. Although admittedly I wasn't quite sure why you were asking about how I define "parent" in the context of my recommending Steve Hays' comment in response to the violinist hypothetical? As I see it:

      a. Steve had said the female patient:stranger violinist relationship is disanalogous to the mother:baby relationship, and I entirely agree. But the inference from this is not therefore that I am against abortion in case of rape "simply because a mother has certain emotional attachments or bonds with her baby." The inference from Steve's point should be that the violinist hypothetical fails because it is based on an analogy and the analogy doesn't work in reality.

      b. In addition, the mother:baby relationship is not primarily "predicated on emotional attachments or bonds with her baby." Sure, in an ideal pregnancy, the emotional bonds are present. But emotional bonds alone are incomplete in defining the mother:baby relationship. It's possible for adoptive parents to feel the same or similar emotional bonds with their non-biologically related child for instance. I'm also not at all suggesting any of this takes away from the adoptive parents' love for their adopted child, which could be even greater than some biological parents would have toward their children. I'm only pointing out the distinction between biological vs. adopted with regard to emotions.

      Rather I think the mother:baby relationship is also predicated on cold hard facts. Hence my response about how I define parent was to appeal to DNA testing and the like.

      By contrast, there are some women who have had such severe post-partum depression that they end up hating their baby. Indeed, an OB/GYN physician told us how one of his past patients with PPD who had otherwise apparently had a normal pregnancy and a loving husband and so forth nevertheless in a fit threw her baby out the window because she didn't want it and somehow thought it was ruining her life. The OB/GYN was walking outside the hospital and suddenly he heard a noise and whirled around to see the baby splat on the ground. Horrible. But I think all this goes to show how emotions come and go, how severe they can be, how emotions are not always indexed to facts and truth, and how emotions alone are insufficient to define the mother:baby relationship.

      Delete
    6. Hi Matthew W,

      Thanks for your comments! I appreciate them. As I said to Deb, I really should go and study, but I thought you had asked a good question here, and I wanted to try to respond to it. And apologies in advance if any of this is brusque sounding too.

      "If, on the other hand, the morning after pill is allowed, the baby suffers the loss of potential life, but he/she does not suffer physically or emotionally. And the woman no longer has the added suffering from the pregnancy and the child; she can concentrate on healing from the suffering that started the whole mess in the first place."

      Nowadays we can kill someone pain-free via anesthesia and analgesia for example. No physical or emotional pain or suffering needs to be involved. But the fact that we can kill someone pain-free doesn't mean it's okay for us to kill them of course.

      Or take people who can't feel pain at all. It doesn't therefore mean it's okay for us to punch them or burn them or whatever. They're still human beings.

      So I think the question still remains: is someone's mental and emotional health or well-being more valuable than someone else's life such that it is justifiable to end the latter person's life for the former person's mental and emotional health or well-being? I don't think so. In fact I'm strongly against it. I could flesh it out in the future, and take counter-examples (e.g. what if the woman wants to commit suicide as a result of being pregnant), but for now I'll have to leave it as is.

      Okay, this is now my very last comment in this thread.

      Thanks again.

      Delete