the salt makers

I would first like to make the observation that Christiaan's and my blog, while not fully compatible, are by no means mutually exclusive.  In fact, I see his "as if" principle as very similar to my "erring" principle.  I feel the posts supplement each other quite well.

But now onto Hampton's response:

Hampton, you are drawing the dots beautifully, but you refuse to connect them.  Certainly we define life, not something objective that we discover.  But you fail to realize that we define life with objective standards which we have discovered.

You seem to be advocating moral relativism in a very nocuous manner, and frankly I'm surprised that you would even entertain the idea of moral relativism given your Platonic and Socratic knowledge.  Surely, many views are molded by social convention, but to say that because a society has different moral views than another, and that neither can be wrong, is multicultural drivel. 

Hampton:
"Further, even if we agree that something is alive, we still must answer the question of whether it is immoral to kill it. This too, is moulded by social convention. It is not a concept that is forever unchanging. It must be applied selectively depending on our culture, our situation, and so on."

Do I really need to address the contention that because a society has deemed it morally acceptable to rape their women then is must be respected?  Or to sew their vagina's to ensure virginity for their wedding night?  Does anyone actually believe that because one society has deemed this acceptable that it is, in fact, moral?  I think it would be hard to seriously entertain this idea, but it is essentially what you are saying.  If a society decides if it is immoral to kill something, then they must decide every moral decision.  And I know you don't believe this.  I know you believe that rape is objectively immoral, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Suffice it to say that a quote from facebook was not the best way to introduce your argument, but the fact that people have different definitions of life does not mean that what life is changes. 

Hampton:
"This has nothing to do with one group of people "erring on the side of life." It has everything to do with differing definitions."

Once again, you are drawing the dots, but you don't connect them.  This discrepancy in beliefs may exist due to "differing definitions," but you fail to understand why the parties have differing definitions.  While I refer you to both Christiaan's and my blog for a fuller picture, I will reiterate that the pro-lifer's definition exists because life cannot be proven.  In order to be 100% sure one is preserving innocent human life, the definition must begin at conception.  In order to be 100% sure they can preserve their life style, pro-choicer's choose their definition as when they don't feel like taking responsibility for their actions. 

Hampton:
"So if you truly wanted to "err on the side of life" then you should logically be a vegan, because can you really be sure that animals aren't alive? You can claim that you are sure, but then, a pro-choice feminist can claim that she is sure that fetuses aren't alive, and with equal validity."

Allow me to digress even further and make an easily deduced point from your logic: since plants are actually alive themselves, and since we cannot be sure that plants are not "morally" alive, the to "err on the side of life" I wouldn't be able to eat cabbage.  So if I eat a salad tonight, I'm supporting abortion!

Let's demonstrate this logic with syllogisms:

Premise 1:  Sharks live in water.
Premise 2:  There is water in my toilet.
Conclusion:  Sharks live in my toilet.

Premise 1:  It is always better to "err on the side of life."
Premise 2:  Plants and animals may or may not be alive.
Conclusion:  It is always better to not kill plants or animals.

What's wrong with these two syllogisms, the second which you seem to be advocating?  Well, in the first one, premise one is obviously considering "water" as oceans, so the conclusion is wrong.  In the second one I am obviously speaking about human life, not animal life.  So, unless you're prepared to argue that killing a human is morally tantamount to killing an animal, this argument is not relevant.  I am not prepared, nor do I care, to debate whether eating an animal is immoral.  Perhaps it is.  But what we can agree on is that it is always more immoral to eat a human than an animal, if for no other reason than pure intuition.

I will amend my principle if it makes it easier for you:  It is better to err on the side of human life.

Your strongest argument is one you haven't elaborated on yet: that abortion ultimately saves life, and serves the greater good.  Yet, you've also told me that abortion supports destructive cultures.  How are these not contradictory?  I would like you to explain the reasons why abortion serves the greater good (briefly, if possible...and no entropy please).  I know you will say that it reduces crime,  but what else is on your plate?

Also, you really haven't addressed the "erring" principle beyond noting some of its innocuous implications.  You haven't spoken to the content of the "as if" principle, either.  It seems to me that your best move at this point is to say that maybe we're killing humans, but it's better for society to take that risk than to prevent abortion. 

The questions you also have to answer is whether the destructive culture you are supporting is better than the culture that disallows abortions.

Maybe Chris Rock isn't the best source, but here is a quote that I think perfectly illustrates the culture you are supporting:

"Far from an encomium to fetus killing, Rock's abortion bit is an attack on women for the frivolous manner in which they decide whether or not to keep a child. "When a woman gets pregnant, it's a choice between the woman" — here Rock pauses, a mischievous grin barely restrained — "and her girlfriends." From there: "One girlfriend goes, 'Child, you should have that baby — that man got some good hair…' And the other girlfriend says, 'Child, why we even talking about this — ain't we supposed to go to Cancun next week? Get rid of that baby!' " And that, Rock says, "is how life is decided in America."

I'm also starting to give a lot of weight to the argument that the existence of abortion is actually harmful for women because it allows men to treat them much more like an object because they know they won't have to deal with the consequences!  Although I'm quite sure that many of your "sexually liberated" friends in Ann Arbor wouldn't give a shit about being treated as a sex object.  Also, really interesting fact:  for years more men have been pro-choice than women.  Why the hell do you think?  So they know they can have an easy escape hatch...it's got shit to do with their feelings for women's rights.

Here's the article where this is all from.  Very poignant:

http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001054.cfm

--
Zachary Sonnier
337-250-5778