• Home
  • Blog: Ministry in Romania
  • Get Some Answers
    • Holy Week Answers
  • Get In Touch
  • Catechism
  • Videos
    • Sermons
  • Newsletters
  • Home
  • Blog: Ministry in Romania
  • Get Some Answers
    • Holy Week Answers
  • Get In Touch
  • Catechism
  • Videos
    • Sermons
  • Newsletters
   

Abortion (2): How to Determine Value

2/1/2007

0 Comments

 
Picture
The simplicity of the SLED argument is helpful in identifying a common misstep in our grounding of human value. The problem with using any of the distinctions identified in SLED as a reason for disqualifying the unborn from having human rights is that these attributes are what we call "degreed properties." A degreed property is simply a property or characteristic which can be held in degrees. Speed, for instance, is a degreed property. Some people can run faster than others or can read faster than others. Speed is an attribute which can be held by individuals in greater or lesser degrees. ​
Properties which aren't degreed, however, are all or nothing. You either have these properties or you don't. Humanity is one of these properties. An individual is either human, or they're not. Unlike degreed properties which can usually be suffixed with "er" (smarter, taller, prettier), all or nothing properties can make no such comparisons. 
 
Pro-choice advocates who justify abortion based on degreed properties step into a very tenuous field of landmines. For if an individual gains their value and rights based on degreed properties, then our value is degreed. Some humans deserve more respect and rights than others. In fact, some humans (fetuses) are so lacking in particular degreed properties, that we have the right to take their lives. 
 
Beyond the undermining of certain human rights for particular groups, embracing degreed properties is problematic even further in that it is unclear at what degree rights should be conferred. Who gets to judge the level of intellect, size, or productivity that grants an individual their rights? Furthermore, who gets to judge which degreed properties are irrelevant to the consideration of rights? If a fetus can be killed because it hasn't yet developed certain abilities, why can't we kill others who have failed to develop (or who have lost) certain abilities (the blind, the deaf, etc)? Why does a degreed property like consciousness go into the equation of right conferral, but the degreed property of vision or the senses don’t? Basing human rights on degreed properties makes those in power the arbiters and definers of rights and value. Who can say that their arbitration is wrong and on what grounds?  
 
With this more detailed evaluation of the common pro-choice problem, I would like to point out two other pro-choice arguments built on degreed properties: consciousness and personhood. 
 
Consciousness: Some argue that a fetus does not yet have the right to life because they are not yet conscious. That a fetus is not conscious for a portion of its existence seems indisputable. But that consciousness determines rights and value is far from clear. 
 
First, consciousness is an attribute which can be held in degrees. A fetus is less conscious than a four month old, and a four month old less so than a toddler. Even some adults with certain disabilities or injuries (permanent or temporary) are less conscious than others. If consciousness confers value and rights, then at certain times in all our lives we had less value than we now have, and there were/are times in our lives when some animals were/are more valuable than us. 
 
Even if we assume that the mere presence of consciousness conferred value, and not any degree of it, we still run into problems. There are times in our lives when we are unconscious (sleeping, knocked out, etc), or perhaps placed in an induced coma, yet we believe we retain our rights and value. To argue that our value exists during these moments because we have a reasonable belief consciousness will return in the future is to undercut this argument's basis for denying rights and value to the unborn.

Finally, if one wants to continue arguing that the mere existence of consciousness confers value and rights, then we must confer value and rights upon anything that has the remotest semblance of  consciousness. If one argues that mere consciousness confers rights and values in order to avoid the problem of degreed properties, this means many animals (crows, parrots, cats, etc) should be afforded the same rights and value as humans. Such a thing seems absurd, that I should spend life in prison if I kill a crow because the existence of a consciousness within it confers the same rights to him as it does to me. The argument from consciousness cannot be sustained. 
 
Personhood:
Another option pro-choice advocates have embraced is the personhood argument. It is argued that a fetus doesn't have a right to life until it becomes a person. Such an argument runs aground on all the same problems as the argument from consciousness (it's degreed, one can gain and lose value and rights at various times in their life, some animals are more valuable than some people, and defining how much personhood confers rights is arbitrary). However, the argument from personhood has one other problem, which is its ambiguous and arbitrary definition. 
 
Personhood, as I've seen argued, isn't really its own quality, but rather a conglomeration of qualities. Some of the qualities argued for creating personhood are metacognition (self-awareness), desires, the ability to plan for the future, etc. Requiring a number of degreed properties in order to assign rights and value simply exacerbates the problem, it doesn't solve it. Who determines that these specific sets of attributes confer rights? Who determines the degree necessary? 
 
It's always unsettling when value and rights are determined and defined not by that which is objective and inalienable, but by that which the ruling class defines. One only needs to take a cursory glance at history to see how indigenous peoples, outcasts, heretics, the handicapped, and those who were deemed societal and economic hindrances have been treated in times and places where value and rights have been defined and quantified rather than observed and recognized. 


1. The Foundational Question: What is killed in abortion?
2. How to Determine Value and Rights: What quality and types of qualities confer rights and value to an individual?
3. Justified Reasons for Taking Human Life: What justifies the taking of human life?
4. Unjustified Reasons for Taking Life: What reasons fail to justify the taking of human life?
5. Bad Christian Arguments and Witness: Common pro-life/Christian arguments and actions which can undermine the pro-life position. 
6. Counterrebuttals: A response to significant objections to the pro-life arguments.
7. Conclusion: 
8. Resources: 
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    *The views and ideas on this site are in no way affiliated with any organization, business, or individuals we are a part of or work with. They're also not theological certainties. They're simply thinking out loud, on issues and difficulties as I process things.

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Abortion Counterrebuttals
    Afterlife
    Apologetics
    Atheism
    Atonement
    Baptism
    Christian Life
    Church
    Cosmology
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    Death
    Free Will
    Generosity And Wealth
    G.K. Chesterton
    Government
    Grace And Mercy
    Incarnation
    Inerrancy
    Joy
    Love
    Materialism
    Meaningpurpose
    Media
    Ministry-and-outreach
    Ministry-and-outreach
    Morality
    On-guard
    Pacifism
    Pacifism-counterrebuttals
    Podcast
    Poetry
    Politics
    Politics-of-jesus
    Pragmatism And Consequentialism
    Prayer
    Problem-of-evil
    Race-and-unity
    Rapid Fire
    Rebellion
    Reformed
    Relationships
    Salvation
    Social-issues
    Social-justice
    Sovereignty-of-god
    Spirit
    Spiritual-warfare
    Spontaneous-expansion-of-the-church
    Suffering
    Tradition
    Trinity
    When-helping-hurts


    Archives

    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2013
    March 2009
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007

    RESOURCES

    Check out some of our favorite online resources for theology and apologetics by clicking on the images below. 

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly