Killing a baby is murder; killing a beast is slaughter
When you say that a blastula is not the “offspring” of a human mating, you are misusing the term. My dictionary defines the term ‘offspring’ as: The progeny or descendant of a person, animal, or plant; a child of particular parentage; a result; a product. I believe this is the normal way the word is used.
But I will not insist on particular terms. You may substitute an even more neutral word than “offspring”, if you wish. You can call my baby “the Object” if you wish, but all that will happen is that I will interpret the phrase “object-killing” to be the same as the phrase “baby-killing”. Changing terms does not change facts.
The comment that “it is only the advent of very recent science that one can engage in the sophistry of calling a fertilized egg a complete human being or offspring” is itself sophistry. It is what is called a straw man argument. What I said was that we have a duty to care for our offspring whether baby despite that baby is not human YET. How could I be claiming babies were complete humans when I deny that they are humans at all.? Good grief, man! My baby is not even as “complete” as my pet cat, who at least knows how to use the litter box!
I will politely overlook your gratuitous comment that I am a sophist: I am a lawyer. All lawyers are sophists by definition. If, at any point, this discussion with me no longer engages your interest, you may withdraw with no dishonor.
Texts written in the Middle Ages deal with how far along a fertilized egg or “homunculi” must be developed before it has a human soul. I must smile at your conceit that “modern science” has some unique contribution to make to the discussion. My friend, your ancestors knew where babies came from.
If you admit that aborting a blastula ‘destroys’ him, it must follow as a matter of logic that destroying someone is not the same as caring for him. If the object we are discussing, the baby, is a product of human mating, and if we humans have a positive duty to protect the products of our mating, then the conclusion that destroying the products of our mating is a dereliction of the duty is unavoidable.
I am amused by your claim that the highest duty we owe someone may be to destroy him. Nonsense. There may be many reasons to destroy someone; there may be higher goods to which we can ruthlessly sacrifice a baby without regret; but it is not done for the sake of the baby’s highest good.
My turn to answer your questions:
I do not know what you mean by a “worthwhile proposition”? What an odd phrase! I thought we were discussing duties. The duty of a soldier may be to emerge from this foxhole and rush the enemy barb-wire under machine-gun fire. The duty of a fireman may be to rush into a burning building every reasonable man would want to rush out of. Brother, this is what anyone would call a rum deal. Duties are rarely worthwhile propositions.
My wife’s roommate from college is married and has two children. Her daughter is so severely mentally retarded that she can hardly move. Her eyes rarely track objects. Her name is Maia Aron. She has blond hair.
Her mother cares for her. I am not wise enough to say whether her life is a ‘worthwhile proportion’ or not: but I am certainly not heartless enough to say to her mother’s face that her daughter’s life is “not worthwhile”. The very idea of judging whether another person’s life is ‘worthwhile’ or not is an arrogant one. But it is obvious that the mother is carrying out her duty to care for her child.
Consider the severe consequences of a mistaken judgment about the worthiness of a child’s life, I was told, early on, that tests showed that my first born son would have spina bifida. The doctor warned us that he might be born hydrocephalic, deformed, retarded, the whole nine yards. The doctor recommended aborting the child. Should I mention that the test turned out to be mistaken? That my son is now a fine and healthy and four-year-old?
Would I be willing to sacrifice my wife to save my baby during child-birth? No, I would not. My first child was breach-born. I was prepared to instruct the doctor to kill Orville and let Jagi live if it came to that.
She was heavily sedated at the time, which is fortunate, for she would have countermanded the order, and sacrificed herself to save the baby.
Thanks to modern medicine, the birth was carried out by caesarian section, with no long-term complications. I was spared from having to make the very choice you mention.
It should be clear that I can indeed think of a circumstance where I would be justified in killing my own son, because I was nearly in one.
It should also be clear that my wife cannot think of a circumstance where she would be justified in killing her own son, because she would rather die.
Can you imagine, can you even begin to imagine, how much contempt a man married to a woman as cheerfully brave as my wife has for women who destroy their own young for light and frivolous reasons?
I hope you will forgive a tiny amount of impatience that may be creeping into my argument. I have lived through the situations you are discussing only as a hypothetical. The questions involved are profound.
Sorry. Must go. Baby crying.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
