I like the distinction of "human being" -- i.e. separate individual person -- for the purposes of the conversation. That said, I'm still a bit fuzzy on what line we would draw for when something is and isn't a separate individual person. I've read various arguments, none of which seems to survive scrutiny. One centers around not being self-sustaining (which causes problems when compared to accident victims who will recover but are presently in need of life support equipment to survive -- yet seem to obviously still be human beings). Another concerns the fact that they are connected to the mother's blood supply and require the use of her organs (which causes problems with conjoined twins who always share a blood supply and who often may be dependent upon an organ of the other -- yet are generally regarded -- by me anyway -- as individuals with their own separate rights). Another argued that since they are in darkness and cannot perceive the world by the senses that we take for granted, they can't be human beings (but then perhaps that would mean Helen Keller wasn't either). Again, perhaps I've just not read the right argument yet.
I'll start by saying that my use of the term "dogma" was unnecessarily inflammatory and a poor choice. I did not mean to apply it to everyone who disagrees with me -- I mean it in the context of those who treat things as dogma and parrot them without much apparent independent questioning of the validity. Even then, "dogma" was a poor choice. Point taken.
My reason it should replace the "standard argument" is that the standard argument: a) seems arbitrary, and can never be expected to be convincing except to people who already agree with your position on abortion. Heck, it's not convincing to me and I do agree with your position on abortion. I think it couches the conversation on an un-winnable position that is not truly the central question. Thus the argument is sabotaged without any apparent beneficial purpose.
And perhaps I'm just too dense to get it, but exactly why are the questions "when does hominization occur" and "when do rights begin", "vital" or even meaningful to the analysis? If I could prove by a means wholly satisfactory to your mind that the fetus is hominized, and has rights, would it change your position on abortion? Would you then say "well, this hominized, rights-bearing person now absolutely has the right to conscript the body of another hominized, rights-bearing person to their own purpose"? I assume you would not. And if it would lead you to conclude that the now-proven-hominized being can conscript the body of another, then certainly you would agree that the State may compel a parent to donate a portion of their liver to their dying 3 year old in need of a transplant, right? I assume you would not. And if you would not, doesn't that render those two questions not only "not vital", but in fact pointless?
I'm thinking my "3 year old child in need of a liver transplant" cleanly does away with that argument (that the fetus does have a right to be in its mother). I have not yet found even a single anti-abortion person that thinks the State may compel a parent to donate part of their liver to the child. Of course they all say they would readily do so, but say that they do not feel the State may compel it.
But you can never show that because it can't be shown. It depends on an underlying moral premise that is not widely enough shared. To the religious life begins at conception, so abortion is murder and murder is wrong and the State may oppress it. But even those people don't seem to think the State can make you donate part of your liver to your 3 year old. Somewhere therein lies a more universal moral principle that is a better basis to build an argument from.
Agreed - if the hominization argument were universal enough to be widely held - and it's not.
I reach neither conclusion about the fetus because a conclusion of those questions is not necessary for me to determine the moral outcome of the question. Because of that, and all that I have said above, I am compelled to condemn as flawed the "standard argument". I suppose (in hindsight) that "flawed" is also too strong a term. Perhaps less-than-optimally-convincing would have been better. If you couch your argument based on a position that only a narrow few agree is true, then, other than in the midst of those same people, it isn't worth much.
This is a great conversation. Hopefully everyone is enjoying it in the spirit of a good intellectual exercise and isn't put off by my occasional poor word choice. I too am immensely fallible.
