 |
||||||||
|
1/03/2003 01:40:00 AM | Timothy Brad Plumer: Pro-Life Bigot or Cannibal Apologist? Brad, you made the implication, which you seem to assert again, that a pro-choicer has no reason to oppose eating dead baby flesh. I hope you can recognize my wryness. I think in your humor there is a serious point: if we treat something as less than a full human, does it have any dignity we are bound to respect (or rather, can we legitimately sanction those who do not respect this dignity)? The reference to "pro-life bigot" in this post's title is not for being pro-life per se. It's asking if Brad is accusing those of us who are pro-choice of having no logical reason to oppose a lesser cruelty than abortion. But Brad, a few questions for you, since you seem to be pro-life (or pro-cannibal; I assume the former, or would ask how you answer your own question). Do you believe that abortion is always wrong for any reason? Do you believe it should never be allowed at any stage for any reason? Is a fetus a human? Should even the life of the mother not be an excuse for abortion, as letting die is better than active killing? I'm not trying to getting into an abortion debate, but if Brad does not answer yes to each of these questions (with the possible exception of the last one), then he does not think that fetuses are persons (within say the limits of the fourteenth amendment). If Brad thinks, say, abortion is acceptable in the first trimester in cases of rape and incest, then he is sometimes willing to allow the killing of fetuses based on factors morally irrelevent to an absolutist stance on the status of the fetus as a person (and not merely as living, or as a potential human). Hence, you would be willing to treat the fetus instrumentally. If you allow that exception, what principled way can you resist doing something with dead babies are stillborn (which are not aborted or not aborted intentionally). I said I was speaking in the mode of parliamentary debate, which means I can play devil's advocate and inject humor about death (and so can you!) So I'll switch gears and challenge everyone: what's wrong with eating the flesh of dead babies? For Brad, what's wrong with a little nibble that hurts no one? Can you be in favor of allowing the death of unborn 'babies' but somehow be appalled at the thought of eating them? I also might mention Brad ignored my stillborn baby/ embryo distinction. Many pro-choicers draw the line at aborting viable fetuses. (also, a still born baby is hardly viable). But this doesn't let us off the hook. Would it be worse, better, or the same to eat a few stem cells in the 2nd week after fertilization than the proto-pinky of a second term fetus? Are these equivilant to eating a baby who died after being alive a week outside the womb? Is it somehow more repulsive to eat baby flesh than adult flesh? Is so, why? Does Brad weep for the 1/3 or so of all pregnancies that end in miscarriage? Is it worse to eat an aborted baby than to eat a miscarried baby? I think the beginning of an answer is that fetuses are not full humans, but neither are they morally irrelevent. You could take a line similar to Kant's instrumental stance on animal rights: we shouldn't treat animals badly not because they have intrinsic rights, but because it may cause us to treat badly those who do have rights and people, who are similar to animals. Simply because something is not fully human does not mean it is trash to be discarded. (obvious trash is not human and can be discarded, but not everything non-human has no moral status). I can eat meat and still animals should have 'humane' conditions when they are alive. I can favor allowing cats to put to sleep without thinking that animal cruelty laws are ridiculous (can't I?) The ridiculousness continues... perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.