[extropy-chat] Famous author self destructs in public! Film at eleven.

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sat Jun 4 01:22:17 UTC 2005


On 6/3/05, John-C-Wright at sff.net <John-C-Wright at sff.net> wrote:
> 
> The argument, as it stands, is unexceptional. The first axiom is that parents
> have a duty to care for their children, which means, to protect and love them,
> and safeguard their health. As far as I can tell, no one disputes this axiom.
> 
> The second axiom is that to will the result implies to will the means necessary
> for that result. This axiom is based on the nature of cause and effect. A duty
> to produce a given effect, logically implies a duty to effectuate the cause
> leading to the effect.
> 
> Children pass through a foetal stage of development in the womb. The health of
> the child at a later stage is dependent on the health at the foetal stage.
> 
> If the foetus is safeguarded by proper prenatal care, a healthy child might be
> born. If the foetus is aborted, a healthy child cannot be born: indeed, the
> preventing of the birth of a healthy child is the sole purpose of an abortion.
> Again, as far as I can tell, no one disputes this.
> 
> Prenatal care is logically implied from the duty to care for the child. This is
> a direct deduction from my first two axioms. Prenatal care and abortion are
> mutually exclusive. One cannot kill the foetus and bear a healthy child. Indeed,
> the child after abortion is as unhealthy as it is possible to be: namely, dead.
> 
> Therefore the duty to safeguard the health of the child logically excludes the
> option of aborting the child. QED.

### It is always a pleasure to dissect a thoughtful argument from such
a seasoned rhetorician, especially if, as in this case, I may have
found a minor glitch.

Let's start by reasoning through analogy, so as to approach the
subject in a less inflammatory situation. Consider the duties a
prospective parent may have before conception. After all, it is known
that in many cases the outcome of a pregnancy may be influenced by the
behavior of parents even before they meet for the first time. Intake
of genotoxic substances may damage the germline enough to cause
mutations, but not yet sufficiently to sterilize. Certain incurable
infections, such as herpes, or hepatitis B, once acquired, may have a
deleterious impact on the fetus many years hence. Other infections,
such as syphilis, may be eradicated to save the child from grotesque
malformations.

There are acts of commision and acts of commision with grave impact on
the future child, should one be born, many years later. Given the duty
of caring for children, which I hold to be self-evident, is it
incumbent on *every* man and woman to act in accordance with this
duty?

No, of course not - those who do not intend to have children do not
need to avoid genotoxic influences, and hepatitis B. The duty of
caring pertains only towards actual children, not might-have-beens,
not towards the children a nun or a priest might have had, had they
chosen a different vocation. I hope you will agree with me on this
point.

Now, back to the situation you have considered: I would claim that
there is no material difference between the above issue,
pre-conception duties, and the issue you discuss, post-conception,
pre-natal duties. While some may disagree, asserting ensoulment at the
time of sperm's penetration through the zona pellucida (or maybe at
formation of the pre-nuclei, or maybe their fusion.... proponents of
this idea tend to be quite sketchy here), I will take the liberty of
simply ignoring them, since I don't believe in the existence of souls,
and differences of a spiritual nature are of no interest to me.

So, the situation does not materially change once two cells fuse to
form a zygote - the child is still a thing of the future. A duty to
care exists for consequential reasons, so as to eliminate unwished-for
experiences in actual humans - we need to care for children only
because without care they would suffer and die prematurely, something
most humans intensely dislike. But without the capacity to suffer and
anticipate death, a zygote cannot be by itself the focus of duties so
defined.

Therefore, in general a parent may be held responsible for failing to
fulfill his/her (pre-, per- or post-conception) duties only if the
child is actually formed. Should the new organism die naturally before
birth, as happens with about 85% of conceptuses, no duties have been
breached by the parent, no woman may be prosecuted for having
hepatitis B. Should the embryo be destroyed by an intentional action,
again, no duties have been breached, since the victimized person never
existed at all.

Can I say, QED?

Rafal



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list