Dialogue With a Pro-Choice Bodily Autonomist

I feel myself forced to agree with something many people (at least in the Catholic world) have observed: dialogue is dead. or at least, it's nearly dead. If one isn't devolving into personal attacks, then they're going in a hundred different directions, or ignoring legitimate questions in the course of a discussion. Below is a prime example of such a "dialogue".

Rare is the person who can be intellectually honest and actually have a legitimate conversation. It has happened before, in my experience... but man alive, is it rare. What you will read below stems from a meme that was posted on social media. The pro-choice person went on many different tangents, so I'll only include relevant portions of the thread. His words will be in red, mine in blue, and other persons' in varying colors. As you'll see as you're reading, I post this (and kept engaging this person) because some people may have encountered his arguments in the past and not known what to say. As this Facebook page gets a lot of traffic, I at least wanted to reply for their benefit, if not my interlocutor's, so as to show how ridiculous his position is. That fact will become increasingly clear as the conversation progresses.

The meme in question

Tom: I didn't realize you were being forced to have abortions.

Harriet: Each baby is forced to die without a choice in the matter.

Tom: "Baby"? I thought we were talking about fetuses. Do people abort babies now?

Harry: Oops, Tom has apparently swallowed the lie that fetuses aren't also babies.

Tom: Oops, Adam has apparently decided that his morality should extend beyond things that apply to him. I support you carrying your choice to carry your fetus all the way until it becomes a baby.

Jen: Fetus is an ugly, dehumanizing word. Yes, abortion advocates frequently use the word, but their ignorance is their problem. It’s a baby, an innocent. A little life that was given absolutely no say in its creation or slaughter.

Tom: Jen is an ugly and dehumanizing person. Yes, those who hate the fact that other humans are autonomous and make choices for their own lives and morality often want to force their definition onto others. It's a fetus, in a person.

Nicholas: "Baby" is a colloquial term. Adults can be "babies" too. But let's use more scientific terms. Infant. Fetus. Embryo. These all describe humans at different stages of development. 

Let's instead look at Harriet's statement as "Each human [who resides in a mother's womb and is subject to an abortion] is forced to die without a choice in the matter."

This is absolutely true.

Tom: Well, no, a fetus isn't a "human being", but thanks for moving science into a moral conversation.

Nick LaBanca Wow... the irony here:

"Well, no, a fetus isn't a 'human being', but thanks for moving science into a moral conversation."

Says the guy who just flatly asserted fetuses aren't human beings. As if there is such a thing as a human who is not a "human being".

Tom: Nicholas, just look up human being in the dictionary. That should sort you out.

It's very simple, you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Other people don't view the fetus as a full human and therefore whilst it resides inside their body, their morality is the rule of law. If you view the fetus as a full human, great! Keep it! If you do not, and do not want the fetus residing inside your body, then that's the beauty of choice, because you don't have to abide by the morality of weirdos who believe in sky ghosts. Win-win

Kate: Please don't feed the troll.

Tintoretto- Allegory of the morality of earthly things

Nicholas: Oh, don't worry; well aware he's a troll. But lots of other people read this page besides strawmen hurling trolls. Some may have heard these arguments and, at that time, were not able to adequately respond to them. They can benefit from seeing how ridiculous his arguments are, because a lot of honest people who are pro-choice do use some of the same wording that he does.

Take this whopper:

"Other people don't view the fetus as a full human and therefore whilst it resides inside their body, their morality is the rule of law."

Why should "their morality" be the rule of law? Why not "my morality"? Sounds like this assertion is an attempt to push your morality on to others.

And this is another common (and tired) non-argument too:

"It's very simple, you don't want an abortion, don't have one."

Let's follow that through to its logical conclusion by comparing it to other scenarios:

"You don't want global warming to continue? Don't pollute."

"You don't want to own a slave? Don't have one."

"You don't want human trafficking to continue? Don't have sex with any of the women being trafficked."

We can see the path we're going down. We advocate for human rights because we see people being oppressed. Just because I'm not pregnant doesn't mean I should sit back and say nothing while abortions continue throughout the country, much in the same way white people in the free states before the Civil War were not obligated to follow the "morality" of white slave owners in the South.

Rich: Tom, your argument makes zero sense. If it did, you wouldn't be forcing your morality on us. Abortion is righteous in your moral code, and abortion is wrong in ours. Do you see where I am going with this? We absolutely can "force our morality" on others because it *is* moral. All you can say in your defense is "that human isn't a human yet", which is scientific crap. I would feel pretty silly if I were you. You're being scientifically schooled by Catholics, who are always made fun of for being "unscientific"

Tom: But, see, Rich, you're wrong, because I believe in giving people the choice to follow their own morality. Whereas your stance is that people should have to do what you think is right. So if you don't want an abortion, once again, Rich, don't have one. And nobody thinks "abortion is righteous", that's stupid.

Nicholas, your simpleminded refutations are equating global problems involving mass populations with the choices one person makes in regards to their own body, so nice strawman, but do one [sic]. 

Nobody is questioning a species. And the determination of personhood is up to the human in whom the fetus resides, choice.

Tess: Tom, you haven't outright said it, so I'm not certain...do you believe it is OK to have an abortion regardless of gestational age? In short, whether a woman is 3 weeks along or 36, is abortion OK? I don't want to make assumptions about your position, I hope you don't mind my asking.

Tom: I have said it outright, I don't care. If it's inside of a human, they get to make that moral decision for themselves. You haven't said outright, why does everyone have to abide by your morality rather than determine their own in matters of their own body?

Tess: Tom, so your argument is that even a full-term fetus can be terminated if birth hasn't occurred, correct? Is the act of birth - or the separation of the fetus from the mother - is your position that the fetus becomes a human being at that point, but not before?

The Sleeping Christ Child

Tom: My argument is that it's up to the person inside of whom the fetus is. You failed to answer my question though... Weird, that.

Rich: Who gave people the right to kill? Before abortion even existed, it has always been a universally accepted truth that the unborn are human beings and that killing any human being is murder. Nothing has changed. This is a disagreement over heart, and there is no moral or scientific argument for abortion. The only arguments people make for abortion are irrelevant excuses.

Tom: Before abortion existed? Ha! And pretending that morality is objective is childish and myopic. What are you, ten?

Ed: Tom, if morality isn't objective what makes Hitler wrong? What makes rape wrong? If the person raping says its morally fine than he can go around and rape right? Same with Hitler.

Tom: Societal consensus and mutually defined harm. This is really basic stuff, kids.

Ed: Tom, so what if society says rape is ok? What if society says Jews aren't human so we can kill them? In both cases those societies have and do exist. That's not a good standard to use. (In both cases it's not seen as harm but a good). 

Tom: If you're making a claim of an objective moral code, I do expect irrefutable evidence of the source. So, by all means, proceed.

And keep in mind, choice allows for each of you individuals to maintain what you believe to be true, whereas your imposition necessitates you to at the very least, prove beyond question that you have an airtight reason as to why you get to tell other fully fledged and recognized humans what to do inside their own bodies. So, I'm looking forward to your absolutely unquestionable evidence of a morality source.

Nicholas: Tom said,"Nicholas, your simpleminded refutations are equating global problems involving mass populations with the choices one person makes in regards to their own body, so nice strawman, but do one."

If the refutations you were given are "simpleminded", it's because your arguments are weak to begin with and your logic is extremely faulty. 

I am not "equating global problems" with the choices a single person makes. On the contrary, I would argue that abortion IS a global problem. Anyways, here's your premise:

"If you don't like 'A', don't do what causes 'A'." 

You gave one example, and I gave others to show how absurd your premise is. I could've given several different examples, but those few sufficed. You seem to believe that the choices of one person doesn't affect others. Our choices have consequences on multiple levels; no man is an island in our modern day society, and if you believe that, you're lying to yourself. For one simply state your premise and to leave it at that... it's basically an affirmation that humans should not fight injustices or advocate for other humans who are being withheld basic human rights.

"And the determination of personhood is up to the human in whom the fetus resides, choice."

Really... Here's a simple question:

Why? 

Why should we trust the judgement of the person who is carrying the fetus? Why is that person's judgement of what a person is better than anyone else's? 

Furthermore, your statement implicitly states that something about the human in utero is different once that human is born. Once the child is born, can the mother still decide if the child is a person or not?

"So, I'm looking forward to your absolutely unquestionable evidence of a morality source."

Scientific evidence? If so, you won't find what you're looking for. But you know that already. The mistake here is believing that all things are knowable simply through the scientific method.

Tom: To answer your question, Nicholas. No.

And I'm sorry if you can't provide evidence of an objective morality, but that doesn't mean the goalpost moves, the sensible person then moves their position. Which you're not doing, so I guess we can agree that you're at least a person, if not a sensible one.

Nicholas: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time. "No" to what, because I asked you two specific questions. 

Tom said, "I'm sorry if you can't provide evidence of an objective morality, but that doesn't mean the goalpost moves"

Clearly, it's not about moving goal posts. Again, the scientific method cannot measure all things that can be known. Are you a parent? Do you know a parent? I want you to give me absolutely unquestionable evidence that said parent loves their child.

Nord de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Laon

Tom: There is a specific difference between "human" and "a human being". If you don't understand that, I'm sorry, but you may be out of your depth. And, if you're admitting that you can't prove an objective morality than you must allow folks the choice to their own morality when it comes to decisions that affect their own body. Subjectivity is the default as objectivity comes with a burden of proof you've not met.

And this is why I have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just simple, and not being intentionally obtuse.

I mean seriously, if you can't differentiate something that is related to humans as a species and an actual person, what kind of hubris is required for you to impose your limited capacity views on to other's bodies? If I took a dump, that dump is of human origin, so it is human feces. If I clipped my nails, those clipping are of human origin, so they are human clippings. When I get my haircut and there is hair on the floor, what kind of hair is it? Human.

Sean: A fetus is a human being, it has a unique human DNA code. And by unique I mean it is different from the mother or anyone else. And by human I mean if you took a DNA sample and gave it to a lab they would tell you it is from a human. Therefore it is a human being. And since it is growing/evolving we also know it is alive. The way to beat this argument would be to name one real world object that is considered not alive and yet grows/evolves.

Tom: No, a human being is different from "human dna". Feces, nail clippings, and hair all have human dna, so are you gonna snuggle with my waste products?

And there is nothing about "growth" or "evolving" that creates an objective morality. So, unless you want to meet the baseline requirements for your right to impose your beliefs on to others, have a water and a seat.

[Also,] I didn't say "a human", I said "human". Is it really so hard to relinquish this idea that you get to control what happens inside other people's bodies that you have to fabricate arguments to make excuses for your own selfishness and power hunger?

And this obsession with missing the point that slaves, and homeless people, and Jews don't, and I'll type this super clear for the slow people who seemingly aren't grasping this dead simple concept, didn't live inside of other people. As in, inside. Like "within" their bodies. There is a distinction there that you're obviously missing, or lying about because none of you morons has even approached it. And this whole Nazi equation is lazy, and yet more evidence of just simple minded myopathy. Just don't have an abortion if you don't want one. If it doesn't fit your, obviously subjective moral code, then you do you.

How about this. If you engage in any infraction of society, any slight mistake, even common ones, say speeding a few miles over the posted speed limit, you are subject to having me sewn to your body, where I will hinder your movement, cause you pain, endanger your life, and use your bodily processes. You brought this on yourself as a willing partner or at least not paying attention to the speed at which you travelled. I'm sewn to you for eighteen years. Are you okay with this arrangement? Why or why not?

And let me add, that I am sewn to your body due to the fact that my organs have failed. I need yours. So. I assume you're fine with this forced organ sharing due to minor common infraction program?

And so help me God, anyone who isn't perfectly fine with this is a hypocrite out the gate.

Tess: Your hypothetical about being "sewn in" to a person for 18 years is invalid. Babies are a natural result of sex, have been for thousands of years. It would be better to focus on the problems women face that make them feel like they should abort their children...I think that's the bigger issue here.

Tom: [B]eing sewn in is a natural consequence of speeding. Already covered. And I'm all for maternal support through pregnancy, which like it or not includes bodily autonomy.

Ed: You can’t make something that not natural natural for some dumb hypothetical argument. When you do that you’re creating false world with different rules. Sorry no not going there. 

The baby is where it’s supposed to be. 

A human, human, and human being all mean the thing. So you’re just a sick twisted person that uses severe mental gymnastics to make it ok to kill another or your species because you have the power and you don’t want them around.

Nicholas: Tom said, "Subjectivity is the default as objectivity comes with a burden of proof you've not met."

You really don't get it. You speak dogmatically without realizing that turnabout is fair play. You've just given an absolute with the above statement. You believe the above statement to be objective. But that's the problem when you, and materialists, deny absolutes, specifically moral absolutes. If I and others have a burden of proof regarding objective moral absolutes, then you, too, have a burden of proof to show that your statement ("Subjectivity is the default") is true. I reject your statement; subjectivity is not the default, and my point is that we are not going to be able to prove our statements by utilizing the natural scientific method.

It's sad that Tom likes to ignore legitimate questions (they're too "simple") yet expects us to answer his. I'd love to answer the questions given above, but not after mine and others' questions have been ignored. Tom's position pretty much comes down to this:

1. Not all humans are human beings (probably the most nonsensical premise out there, and in itself is unprovable by natural means)

2. Morality is determined by the passage of time; societies change as time goes on. (Therefore, we couldn't look back and condemn the Mayans as being wrong for making human sacrifices, nor could we condemn chattel slave owners during the 16-19th centuries because those cultures viewed those actions as morally good.)

3. The embryo/fetus/etc. that resides in a woman's uterus does not have personhood, unless in the mother's subjective determination, said fetus is a person. (we still don't know if this same measure of personhood that Tom believes in can be applied to the first, let's say, 24 hours of an infant's life outside of the mother's womb)

4. A mother has a right to bodily autonomy, and that right entails the idea that a person (or the state) can't force said person to use her body to sustain another human's life. (While this is probably the strongest argument out there for the right to an abortion, it ultimately fails when you pull back the layers. To see more on Tom's variation on the "Violinist argument" that he gave above, check out this paper for a refutation, and answer to his question:

That being said, I am curious to know this: If there are some humans in utero who are not "human beings" are there also born humans that are not human beings? If so, at what point did these living breathing humans lose their personhood, or the title of "human being"? Furthermore, if this is the case, how does one irrefutably determine that such a human is no longer a "human being"?

I think there's a great essay written by one Joe Heschmeyer that I'd like to present for everyone's consideration that's relevant to this topic: whether or not all humans are "human beings". It's as if he took the words right out of my mouth, as he deals with someone much like Tom, albeit Joe puts it a bit more eloquently than I:

"If you argue that abortion is okay because unborn children don't meet the requirements to be protected human life, you're not showing that unborn children aren't scientifically and materially human beings. Instead, you're either saying that they're not really humans, for some immaterial and non-scientific reason, or that they are a group of humans that it's okay to intentionally kill. ... 

"[My interlocutor] accuses me of conflating terms, between biological humans (1) and metaphysical humans (2). I'm actually doing no such thing: I mean human in the same sense in both (1) and (2), and reject the whole idea of humans who are biological-but-not-metaphysical (or vice versa). It's immoral, and ought to be illegal, to murder those that we recognize, scientifically, as human beings. Furthermore, any sort of metaphysical definition of 'human' that fails to capture the entire set of all humans is a bad definition."