I recently discussed comedian Sarah Silverman’s pro-choice argument. In a recent comedy special, Silverman said that pro-lifers mislead us by depicting early term fetuses using large pictures, which falsely suggest fetuses are similar to bigger and more developed organisms. In my post, I said that there’s a reason we “save the whales” but we don’t “save the amoebas.” We seem to value complex creatures over simpler life forms. In response to my comment, substacker andré writes:
there is, but i don’t think that reason is simply scale. amoebae aren't in danger of extinction or at risk of destabilizing ecosystems. we “save the whales,” but we also “save the bees” (which, for reference, are much smaller than a fetus by the end of the first trimester). while there might be something to this kind of size-based moral intuition, i don’t think it’s enough to “[possibly] explain why secular societies are more permissive of abortion.” still, it’s interesting argument.
andré doesn’t buy the whole argument I offer, but he does make an interesting point. Scarcity is a factor that influences whether we value a living creature, as well as its role in the eco-system. Once you concede those points, you quickly get to a bigger point: there seem to be many factors that affect where some form of life, human or otherwise, merits protection while other forms are not protected.
The opposite position is that all life is to be protected. This is a very tough position to take, as it makes all kinds of implications that most folks probably can’t take. At the very least, it implies vegetarianism or veganism and avoiding all animal products. I might even argue that the strong “life is sacred” position implies that you can’t do agriculture, build homes, or otherwise alter the environment in any way that kills animals. This is not flippant. These activities inevitably harm animals.
In other words, we may disagree agree about which criteria should be used to figure out which animals or life forms will be protected, but very few of us can accept the hard core “life is sacred” is rule. Getting back to Silverman and her pro-choice argument, once you back off from the strong “life is sacred” view, it is not very hard to get back to a pro-choice stance because early term fetuses would not be protected under many criteria that people routinely use.
Bottom line: “Life is sacred” is an incredibly hard line to tow.
+++++
Buy these books!
Grad Skool Rulz - cheap advice manual for grad students
Obama and the antiwar movement
great elaboration on the first post! thanks for responding to my comment! :)