Science without Philosophy Can’t Resolve Abortion Debate
This article presents both sides of the argument. the article is lengthy and sometimes convoluted but worth a read regardless of your position on the debate.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
From a biological point of view there is a continuity from conception to death. A genetically unique, identifiably human creature is formed and then grows, is born and lives. It never becomes something different. There are a few distinct events that happen, implantation, the heartbeat, removal from the mother and the first independent breath. "Viability" is not a distinct event and is subject to technological advancement.
The article talks a lot about fetal pain, but that's pretty much a red herring, we deal with pain all the time -- as the article says. One wonders why the author spent so much time on an issue he had dismissed.
The question becomes not "when is it human", but "when does society decide to protect it." And that, most definitely, becomes a matter of philosophy.
I completely agree that science does not tell us when we can use force to protect a fetus.
So we don't want arbitrary axioms/values that come from our ancestors' religion, but we don't want to pretend science has easy answers to philosphical questions either.
If not, then the parts of the body are not human life.
So, what part of a body in the womb constitutes human life, if any?
The article is correct in that such an answer is not purely in the realm of science, nor is it purely in the realm of philosophy.
If only speaking of the physical, then human life has one type of meaning. If speaking about those non-things that differentiate us from other forms of life, then human life means something else. Such as; sense of humor, patience, imagination, use of imagination, tears of joy, tears of sadness, thinking, contemplative thinking, etc.
The article is quite long - read WilliamShipley's note above which succinctly calls out the difference better than the article does.
The article's main point, I think, was to call out that you have to ask a proper question to get a meaningful answer. Scientific observation is one thing and interpretation of the data is another.