Magnifisyncopathological

From my MySpace Anarcho-Capitalism group: Anti-Abortion: A Collectivist Position

Some Guy. What Guy? That Guy. Who? wrote:

Certainly the most common argument against abortion is that it's human life. It may not be conscious, but it's human life, which makes it valuable.

But species is a group distinction. An individual may be a member of one species or another, but the label of a certain species is a group distinction.

Currently, only members of Homo sapiens sapiens meet my qualifications for sentient, rights-bearing individuals. That very may well change over time if extra-terrestrial life is discovered. Until then, Wise Man (Wiki) is valuable because he or she is a member of Wise Man Group due to the requirements of belonging to that group.

Think of it this way. If an organization only allowed men to join and rigidly enforced that requirement, we'd know that all members were male. Similarly, if part of what defines membership in Homo sapiens sapiens is a rational faculty capable of not only knowing the difference between right and wrong but figuring out why knowing that difference is important in the first place (a Randian approach to species and rights), then we know that those life forms categorized as Homo sapiens sapiens are intrinsically valuable due to their rights-bearing nature.

The essentially collectivist approach to organizing individual things into like categories doesn't necessarily mean the approach is Collectivist in the political sense. You have an interesting argument, but I think it doesn't get much further than step one. Or perhaps I'm horribly misunderstanding you?

However, whether it be Hitler or MLK, Einstein or Paris Hilton, Mozart of Barry Manilow, etc. everybody's equally human. Nothing can make anyone "More" human than anyone else. & Even body parts qualify as "Human." Furthermore, you're no more human than a tumor.

Err, so are battlefield medics who amputate hemorrhaging limbs and cancer surgeons murderers? I think I've misread you here because it contradicts what you write later.

I'm not at all shy of asserting tumors and arms have no moral weight whatsoever.

The distinction of a given species bears no moral significance. & While it's true that certain species are more intelligent than others, one's biology is the cause of one's individual traits, but it's the effect that matters.

If actual, living Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalensis were discovered, then I think your point would be more valid. Currently, the only species that morally matters (and as a cat lover it pains me to say this) are existing human beings. It just happens to be a fact that all known human beings belong to the same species.

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by species. Humans and dogs are not examples of different species; they belong in significantly different classifications.

"Human" is to "Sapient" what "Automobile" is to "Transportation."

Correct. Humans are sapient and that doesn't exhaust the possibilities of other creature being sapient either. Of course, sapience is not the only measure of individual moral worth.

To say that a being which is nothing more than a cluster of cells is just as important as a fully conscious being with dreams & aspirations, just because they're both human, reveals this argument's Collectivist thinking. A fetus lacks what makes individuals valuable, such as consciousness, so Pro-Lifers appeal to something it has in common with another individual, rather than rely on any traits that it already possesses.

How do you respond to the issue of the crippled, the unconscious, and the comatose? They lack at various times some of the critical features that make humans distinct from other animals.

Furthermore, to attribute one's importance to one's species is extremely Anti-Individualistic since valuable traits such as intelligence are individual traits, not group ones.

Intelligence is absolutely important to determining moral worth...but it isn't the true fundamental as I see it. Other animals show signs of nontrivial intelligence. What sets humans apart is intelligence combined with rationality and self-awareness. Again, classification in order to enhance understanding doesn't imply political Collectivism to me. It can certainly lead to it, but that's an individual decision (read: error!) to make in the abuse of reason for illegitimate ends.

Espousing the "Sanctity of Human Life" detracts from what makes a individual valuable, & without the Species Card, a fetus loses its value since it quite simply has no value whatsoever.

Of course, my perspective in this is radically different from most people who tout Sanctity of Life arguments.

The other commonly used argument against abortion is that a fetus is a potential individual.

I'm with ya on this one. :)

As well, to help illustrate my point, a fully-developed human may have the potential to do many things in the future, but that's not what gives it value; what gives it value is its ability to think, feel, & act.

I will reiterate my question above: How do you respond to the issue of the crippled, the unconscious, and the comatose? They have the potential to become "full" again.

So, what's the point of this blog? The point is, you can't be a Classical Liberal if you're Anti-Abortion.

The point of my reply is to suggest this conclusion - at least the portions derived from the first half - shouldn't be welcomed so soon.

I'm not anti-abortion, mind you. Just playing a little Devil's Advocate and curious to know what further thoughts you (or anyone else) have.