It’s Texas Abortion Law Freakout Friday! First Up, Comment Of The Day And Comment Of The Day Reply On “Texas’s Clever Anti-Abortion Law”

Baby in grave

First up on “Texas Abortion Law Freak-out Friday is Extradimensional Cephalopod’s timely exploration of the popular “we should be able to kill unborn babies while they can’t think, before they can” justification for legal abortion. As that characterization might suggest, I hate that argument, which has been made passionately by some abortion advocate every time the topic has arisen on Ethics Alarms. The reason I find it ethically objectionable is that the theory was devised to justify a position that had already been decided. Extradimensional Cephalopod’s comment begins by calling it intellectually honest. I admire his presentation of the argument, but that’s exactly what it isn’t. Abortion advocates, desperately seeking a way to get around the inconvenient fact that a human life was being snuffed out in the procedure and not willing to embrace the “Baby? What baby?” shrug that defines most pro-abortion rhetoric, came up with the “not sentient, ego not human” dodge after already endorsing abortion. This is scientifically and logically dishonest, because a bias—“we really, really want abortion to be legal”—drove the conclusion.

As E.C. makes clear, it is still a better defense of abortion than the fiction that only one human being’s life is at stake. As Isaac also makes clear in his Comment of the Day in response, it’s still not good enough.

First, here is Extradimensional Cephalopod’s Comment of the Day on “Texas’s Clever Anti-Abortion Law.” Isaac’s rebuttal will follow.


“The intellectually honest argument for abortion, which I’m still baffled most proponents don’t seem to bring up, is that a person–a sapient being–is not defined by having human DNA or a heartbeat, but by patterns of information in their brain (or whatever module they use to think with).

“There’s disagreement on whether to draw a meaningful distinction between patterns that are sapient and patterns that are subsapient–often called animals–as well as what ethical obligations sapients have to animals. In any case, proponents of abortion regard any information patterns in the brain of a human fetus as being less than sapient, and therefore not subject to the same ethical protections as fully sapient humans. For at least some of a human pregnancy, that belief would be supported by a developing brain not yet having achieved the complexity required to support a sapient consciousness. At some point, it may be that the brain is decently complex but hasn’t absorbed enough information to start forming a consciousness.
I’ve read somewhere that developing humans may start learning sounds and linguistic phonemes while still in the womb, though, and while I haven’t investigated the studies supporting this claim, it’s a claim that must be challenged by those who would argue that unborn humans haven’t absorbed any information.

“In the past and in less wealthy countries, there is a secondary concern of whether the parents or the community are able to raise an additional child in a healthy manner. There’s a consequentialist argument in favor of abortion based on a child’s quality of life without capable parents, and the long-term impacts on a society that keeps having children it can’t care for. However, Other Bill pointed out that adoption is often a viable alternative to abortion in wealthy enough countries.

“I consider it foolish to frame the question of abortion in terms of women’s rights, because it completely ignores every serious argument against abortion and is therefore intellectually dishonest. That would be like… well, trying to frame a discussion about slavery in terms of states’ rights. Saying “stop trying to control me!” is completely dodging the question of whether or not what you’re doing is horribly unethical, which is itself horribly unethical regardless of what the answer to the question is.”


Now here is Isaac’s Comment of the Day in response:


“Yes, this a thousand times.

“I have engaged people making that intellectually honest argument. It’s usually the male pro-choice advocate who invokes the insentience of the fetus. I don’t consider it a valid argument though, unless they also believe that slipping into a coma makes a person immediately devoid of their right to life. A person in a coma actually has less of a chance of BECOMING sentient than a fetus, which, if allowed to go on living, will end up sentient as a natural matter of course.

“For that matter, since the odds of a fetus becoming sentient in short order is just about 100%, should it not also be legal to kill sleeping people, who have a 100% chance of eventually waking up? They’re both not conscious, and they both will become conscious if you don’t kill them at roughly the same odds. Just how sentient is a sleeping person? What if we can be sure to kill them when they’re not dreaming?

“Then there’s the matter of whether a creature is really non-sentient if they only lack understanding at a temporary phase of development. All fetuses are genetically-complete members of a sentient and intelligent species. Does that offer them no protection? Smashing the eggs of endangered sea turtles is just as illegal as killing them, but are eggs turtles? The law treats the eggs as turtles. Science would say, certainly, they are turtles if the egg is fertilized. It seems a bit of a reach to claim that a member of a sentient species is actually something different if you catch it early in the life cycle. Sounds kinda anti-science, really. If humans went through different phases like butterflies, could we arbitrarily pick a certain form at which to deny their humanity?”

7 thoughts on “It’s Texas Abortion Law Freakout Friday! First Up, Comment Of The Day And Comment Of The Day Reply On “Texas’s Clever Anti-Abortion Law”

  1. For that matter, since the odds of a fetus becoming sentient in short order is just about 100%, should it not also be legal to kill sleeping people, who have a 100% chance of eventually waking up?

    Or perhaps even more apropos, a medically-induced coma. Such people are about as far from sentience as it is possible to be while still living and capable of becoming sentient again. Should those people now be subject to euthanasia if it’s convenient? Is not the argument for that equally convincing as for aborting a fetus, particularly a late-term fetus?

    Smashing the eggs of endangered sea turtles is just as illegal as killing them, but are eggs turtles?

    Really excellent question. Apparently, the lives of potential sea turtles are more worthy of protection than those of complete, but unborn human beings. And there are many such examples.

  2. It may be that people are using that argument to justify something that they want, but that doesn’t make the argument invalid.

    I have no personal stake in this conflict, although I’d like to think that my reasoning process is relatively unaffected even when I do have a stake in something. Do you think that I might be lying about what I think regarding life versus consciousness because I want the ability to have consequence-free sex by killing unborn babies? Or is it possible that this is my reasoned opinion based on what I think I know of biology and consciousness?

    • I didn’t say it was invalid. It is intellectually dishonest. The advocate is saying “I believe Y because X<" when in truth it is “I believe X so I can support my pre-existing commitment to Y.”

      But I also believe it is invalid.

      • Fair enough. If a hypothetical statement were to be true, but someone didn’t believe it for some reason, they might still say they believed it in order to convince others to do what they want, or to alleviate a feeling of guilt. That would still be unethical even if their outwardly stated beliefs happened to align with reality, and I find it profoundly disappointing that humans can’t be trusted not to do that.

      • I should also point out that this potential for intellectual dishonesty cuts both ways, though.

        No matter how much science and philosophy we see brought in on the abortion opponent side, some of the motivation comes from cultural evolution rather than any scientific rigor or philosophical integrity.

        If a group of humans believes that humans should only seek orgasm in situations which could result in new humans being born, then the pursuit of orgasms will lead that group of people to become more populous than other groups, the better to conquer those groups and acquire their resources for the glory of the great giver of life (while spreading a religion of love and peace and doing it raw).

        This conquering group of humans will prosper, ethically or otherwise, and the beliefs they carry (and that carry them) will be taken for granted, while their intellectuals will come up with reasons to retroactively justify them.

        I agree, though, that it’s important to keep in mind what people really want. If we can address their fears some other way, then they might just pack up their disingenuous arguments and we won’t even need to bother with figuring out how much merit those arguments really have, because the conflict will be resolved.

  3. Reposting my response to Isaac’s CotD from the previous article (updated for clarification):

    What is more ethically obligatory? To bring back someone who once was and then was lost, or to ensure that a person who never was, but might yet be, will come to be?

    Endangered turtle eggs are treated as turtles under the law because we’re trying to increase the number of turtles [and protecting turtle eggs helps that goal], not because we care about the ethical rights of whatever’s in the egg.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.