How to apply BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice against those who insist a mother’s “right to bodily autonomy” justifies abortion. This is a brief, rapid response while the original response to this argument can be found here.

Over the last few years I’ve run into an increasing number of very hard core abortion supporters who make statements like this:

Not that whether or not a fetus is a child should matter to the debate. Child or not, no one has the right to use a person’s body against his or her consent.

and from another:

Human beings may not occupy another human body unless they are welcome there.

This is a variant of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s violinist argument supported by Eileen McDonagh, David Boonin et al.

It’s an absolute absurdity in circular reasoning. Do they really expect the embryonic human being to change their own environment/development process?

By rejecting developmental differences of human beings, one stage of human development is equated with every other. “Being a child doesn’t matter”, thus they assume a pro-life premise: all humans are “equal”. Time doesn’t matter.

Yet, they reject the child’s critical development time within the womb – that’s the reason for the abortion! So time within that environment does matter to them.

You can’t avoid the absurd contradiction. Either time as a child present within the environment of the mother’s womb matters or it does not.

Thompson, McDonagh, Boonan, et al. obfuscate this critical premise.

If this issue was irrelevant to the abortion argument, both humans would have the same legal “rights”. So, if mother and daughter swapped places (putting the mother into her daughter’s womb), then the daughter would have the “legal right” to abort her mother. (?!)

If you say no she doesn’t have the right to abort her, you’ve just contradicted yourself, because there’s one body within the other. If you say yes she can, you’ve also contradicted yourself because you’ve now upheld the bodily autonomy of the daughter. What’s it gonna be?

If you claim the mother daughter swapping places is absurd and could not happen – then you’re validating that the mother-child relationship is unique and cannot be compared to non-parent relationships. In fact, to reduce the parent relationship to one of simple physical dependency is to eliminate the most essential aspect of the relationship!

So claiming abortion is justified by bodily autonomy is an argument that commits suicide via absurd circular reasoning.

You can’t escape the reality of the sequential, biological and ever growing basis of life.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED, bodily-autonomy, Debate

This is the best rational argument against abortion in it’s most basic form.

As a culture, we uphold the just, moral principle that innocent human beings ought not be intentionally killed. (”ought” is legal for “any, at all, under all circumstances”.)

So —

1. It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being;
2. Elective abortion* intentionally kills an innocent human being;
3. Therefore: elective abortion is morally wrong.

*performed for any reason other than saving the life of the mother.

There’s only one question in the abortion debate:
What is “it”?

Few argue it’s okay to kill innocent human beings. Most agree something is killed, and virtually all agree some sort of human flesh and blood is destroyed.

So what is destroyed during an abortion? Is that an innocent human being? If it is an innocent human being, and we agree with the 1st premise, then one cannot reasonably uphold abortion as a right.

Reasoning: Every abortion-choice person depends on others identifying them as a innocent, immeasurably valuable, living human being, and respecting their inherent right to life. Rejection of the 1st premise leaves only subjugation of the weakest by the strongest.

When advocating life, we need to identify the unborn as human beings by showing they share a universal biological human nature with the abortion-choicer, then affirm the moral principle by explaining why it’s always applicable despite human physical variations. In effect upholding the moral principle of non-discrimination.

There’s one, easy to remember acronym that summarizes the technique we use to advocate life:

BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice.

Remember, the objective is not to win the argument, but to win-over the other person.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED, Debate, pro-choice

How to apply BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice against those who believe a mother’s “right to bodily autonomy” justifies abortion.

In abortion debates, some concede the pre-born are human beings, but they’ll say:

Abortion is justifiable, because the mother has the right to control how her own body is used.

Such arguments justify abortion by asserting that the mother’s right to her bodily autonomy is greater than her own child’s right to life during gestation, or even later.

All bodily autonomy arguments play on Dependency. They deny the intrinsic value of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) that the responsibility to be morally humane can have exceptions. They subvert the intrinsic value of the mother and the definition of motherhood by insisting that an act of violence against an innocent dependent human being is moral, humane and beneficial.

BioSLED Response: “Can you name one act of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral, humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent?”

Who receives the benefits of the violence?

After live birth, is it okay to kill dependent newborns, toddlers, kids, teens?

Reasoning: Show there are no exceptions for violence against dependent human beings. This pits a person’s understanding of self-determination up against their own victimizing behavior. If someone genuinely believes in the goodness of humanity and self-autonomy, when they resort to violence to benefit themselves, they desecrate their own humanity and cruelly victimize others.

Killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct application of force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf, and the violence only happens because she is a mother.

Those who defend bodily autonomy violence provide a circular argument. They reject the notion of the intrinsic value of the dependent human child while at the same time demanding the intrinsic-value of the mother be upheld. Such inequality of basic human rights is the hallmark of discrimination.

Further, some claim the Environment – the natural location of the child in the mother’s womb, justifies the abortion, but admit bodily dependency ends when birth occurs. Others, like Peter Singer, and President Barack Obama, aim to sever relational dependency, to permit the killing of dependent newborns.

So the issue is not gestational dependency alone, but violence explicitly against a dependent. On this planet, we are all dependent upon each other to some degree. There are no exceptions to being humane with dependents.

For Legalists: Legalists place functionality above morality by falsely assuming human rights are granted by a government. The documented, legally demonstrable view is that human rights are endowed by a Creator (meaning they are intrinsic) and merely defended by a government. Some claim gestation is a special right granted to the pre-born by the mother but this rejects the notion that life is a right granted from outside of man’s control, and rejects the very process of motherhood by which all humans live. So it condones the use of violence against the very nature of human life itself.

Another variation, pregnancy as slavery, is invalid because pregnancy is a humane, survivable natural good, beneficial to all of humanity, while murder of posterity is not. Consent to intercourse was free-will consent to a dependent human being, as that is the natural purpose of intercourse. Demanding one uphold their responsibilities to other human beings, such as respecting the life you participated in creating, is a far cry from imposing situations upon human beings who had no choice in the outcome – which is precisely what those who demand abortion do to the unborn human beings.

So legally, the government is failing to uphold the very human rights they are incorporated to defend.

Human Rights abortion, autonomy, bioSLED

How to handle personhood arguments using BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice.

In abortion debates, one often hears:

“Abortion is okay because the fetus is not a person.”

Non-personhood arguments play on Level of Development. They deny the intrinsic nature of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) two components (body and person), instead of one. They justify abortion by asserting a “person” is not present at the time of an abortion by defining what it means to be a person.

BioSLED Response: “Can you prove to me you are a person without using your physical body in any way?” The other person won’t be able to.

Reasoning: Self-awareness doesn’t require communicating your own awareness to others. Yet body presence indicates you exist – your body is your means of communication. A test for intangible personhood which ignores the human body is an invalid test, because no natural human being can pass it.

Science tells us the pre-born are human beings, based on numerous established facts, such as embryological development, uniqueness of DNA and that life comes from life – the Law of Biogenesis. After amphimixis humans exist – they have human flesh and blood. Given a proper environment and nourishment they thrive.

Demanding the pre-born communicate at an advanced level of development is unfair because it smuggles in the idea that communication only occurs according to a presumed definition provided by the abortion-choicer.

The abortion-choicer imposes a conditional test of self-awareness they cannot pass, and assumes their own level of development is sufficient. So abortion-choicers discriminate against the pre-born due to their level of development, but use their own level of development as a definition of their humanity.

Placing the abortion-choicer back at the same level of development as the pre-born should alter their perspective, if they are intellectually honest, on what it means to be a human person.

For the Philosophers: Ontological vs Epistemilogical Statements
Ontological thoughts have to do with the metaphysical – existence/being/nature. Epistemological has to do with knowing – beliefs, opinions etc. We shouldn’t confuse these terms or switch their meanings. Descartes, no matter how much thinking he did, did not exist due to his thinking. He existed prior to his conscious thoughts and that existence was a pre-requisite for his ability to communicate his beliefs. “I think, therefore I am” is putting Decartes before the horse.

If you find this valuable – please link to it. If you think it needs improvement – let me know in the comments. Thanks!

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED

Squiggling in the word “choice” allows people a conscientious backdoor to escape.

When someone says “choice” they need to be asked – what is the result of an abortion-choice?

Because the only factual answer is: a dead human being.

And birth-choice terminates pregnancy with a live baby.

If abortion-choicers complain, ask them questions based on BioSLED.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED

This is the best rational argument against abortion I’ve found to date. Every counter-argument comes right back to these same human rights issues, and is thus refutable.

Everyone concedes abortion kills something. The crucial question is “what is killed?”

If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate. (Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons, p. 7)

Morally, it’s wrong to kill innocent human beings.

We base that morality on three factors:

1. Intrinsic value of human beings – an intangible quality.
2. Common nature of human flesh and blood – biological evidence of Law of Biogenesis, uniqueness of DNA & embryological/anatomical science.
3. The equality of common physical attributes of human beings - Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency (SLED). 

If we do not morally discriminate against human beings outside the womb with these attributes (we treat them equally as humans under the law) then such conclusions also apply to pre-born human beings because:

• Size - Hillary Clinton is not less human than Shaquille O’Neal. An embryo is not less human than a newborn.
• Level of Development – Toddlers are less developed than pre-adolescents who are less developed than adults. An embryo is the organ development stage of a human being while in the next stage, a fetus’s organs mature, just as an adolescent’s organs mature through puberty.  
• Environment – Astronauts and scuba divers do not lose their human nature in non-supportive environments.  A womb is the natural environment for the pre-born at their level of development. Exposing human beings to unnatural, uninhabitable environments is an act of murder.
• Dependency – We don’t kill those who depend upon us. Infants depend upon parents/guardians for all their primary needs. Our dependencies extend to each other, and without the defense of the goodness of meeting human dependencies, none of us would be alive.

Discussing pro-life views shouldn’t be a monologue. Provide your reasoning, but also ask others questions to bring them into conversation. Seek points you agree on; ask why they are important. Establish common ground before refuting objections. Your response will then be appropriate.

Here’s how to refute two very common objections to BioSLED: 1) Non-Personhood and 2) Mother’s Rights.

1. Refuting Non-Personhood Arguments – such arguments deny the intrinsic quality of human beings by falsely assuming (petitio principii) two components (body and person), instead of one. These are a play on Level of Development. Gently ask: “Would you be willing to undergo the same destruction of your body that is performed on the unborn during an abortion, and if not – why?” They can’t prove their own personhood without referring to their own physical body, so gently question them until they do. We know scientifically from the moment of conception the pre-born also has a human body. We can’t establish tests for denying the rights of pre-born human beings that we, who also have human flesh and blood, are unwilling to take – that’s discrimination. Refuting this works best in-person, not over the Internet.
2. Refuting Bodily Autonomy Arguments (aka Mother’s Rights) – some argue gestation is a special right granted by the mother. This goes back to Dependency. We don’t kill those who are dependent upon us. Some argue biological dependency is different, but this falsely assumes (petitio principii) the responsibility to be humane can have exceptions because an innocent human being is undeniably killed. Further, such killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf. Specifically, force is appealed to based on the victim’s Environment – the natural location in the womb of the child’s mother. We wouldn’t want anyone we were dependent upon to justify killing us because we existed in an environment they claimed.

Although BioSLED is an exceptionally strong argument against abortion, it needs to be conveyed gracefully, and the best way to do that is in person in a non-threatening way. Those who defend abortion usually do so for very personal reasons. So no matter how logical, the heart has to change.

This argument is like a very sharp Japanese Samurai sword – it is not meant to be handled without great discipline, respect or care for the other person. Use it only in love.

If you find this valuable – please link to it. If you think it needs improvement – let me know in the comments. Thanks!

This argument is based on the work of Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, Francis Beckwith’s Defending Life and the SLED acronym came from Stephen Schwarz who wrote The Moral Question of Abortion.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED, Debate, pro-life

Refuting Thompson’s Violinist Argument (AKA Parasite Pregnancies)

Lileigh Lehnen was an 8-1/2 month developed unborn child who suffered an injury prior to birth, was born via c-section, then died. Technically, the judge ruled her death a non-homocide because she wasn’t considered a person at the time of the attack based on Colorado law. Her location was critical, both to the cause of her death, and how she was treated by the court. Lileigh’s death highlights the irrational logic of abortion-choice, where one can legally be a non-person human-being.

Lately over at Jill Stanek’s blog I’ve run into several abortion-choice advocates who acknowledge the child is a human being, but argue the mother’s bodily-autonomy (sovereignty actually) overrules all rights of her child including the right to life.

In short – consent is for sexual intercourse, but not the resulting pregnancy.

Francis Beckwith, in Defending Life, points out the bodily autonomy argument has been made extensively by Judith Jarvis Thompson, Eileen McDonagh, David Boonin and others in variations on Thompson’s violinist example.

Here’s the scope of issues (addressed in 3 articles):

1. Metaphysical: The intrinsic nature of contestants – procreation & relationships;
2. Morality: agency of rights/responsibilities;
3. Intuitions, analogies and philosophical anthropologies – rationale & application.

1. Metaphysical: Intrinsic Nature of Contestants

Since the contest is about rights between two humans, we must first examine the metaphysical basis of origin, substance and existence of the human beings to determine if they are equal on every morally relevant point to decide this contest.

Thompson et al. concede the child is a human being. However, the child’s rights as a human being are contested, immediately indicating that the personhood of the unborn child is somehow different than born human beings. We need to discuss relationship, personhood and non-intrinsic objections to resolve the metaphysical question.

a. Relationship

With pregnancy there are 3 specific relationships: procreative/paternal relationship, location within mother, and dependency upon the mother.

The procreative/paternal relationship provides a strong basis for rejecting the other philosophical anthropology offered by Thompson et al., because through pro-creation, the very existence (not merely on-going life) of one of the beings is dependent, in part, upon the other being. The other part, the DNA for that child’s substance, was provided by the father. So quite literally, at the completion of conception (amphimixis), two have become one flesh. All human existence depends upon an unbroken chain of pregnancies – a relational continuum of life.

Thompson’s violinist arguments beg the question by leaning exclusively upon dependency upon mother, and assuming the pro-creative/paternal relationship is non-essential to the question of human rights. They throw out motherhood as a procreative process and assume an incomplete definition of motherhood. a metaphysical grounding detached from this means of origin within the context of the vital relationship that brings about humanity.

What they throw out cannot be thrown out: the procreative process and the substance nature of both mother and child are of the same nature, an on-going human nature. (They redefine motherhood.)

However, does 1) being of the same substance of human flesh and blood and 2) the existence of both “beings” brought about through a unbroken chain of pregnancies make them morally equal on all bodily rights?

Well, with criminal violations aside, we treat all born human beings of that same substance and that procreative process equally. In fact being human (in the flesh) is the very basis of human rights equality, since it’s critical we hang those rights off something tangible. And since all other born human beings arrived on this planet the same way, the human substance – flesh and blood, and the conception & gestational process is universally equal to all human beings. Clearly both substance and gestational process are pivotal to our discussion, while age and time is not.

b. Personhood

Arriving at the issue of personhood, the question must be raised: do the two contestants have the same moral basis for personhood? That is, not do they possess the same degree of development of person, but do they each possess all the essential common characteristics we recognize as necessary for a human person?

I believe this is the great schism in the debate, because the abortion-choice position assumes human beings can redefine the personhood of other human beings.  This would require an isolation of the person from their bodies – a nullification of the intrinsic nature of human beings.

Can that be rationally done? The issue is critical because we’re dealing with personal autonomy. How can we test this?

Because the mother-child existence relationship is unique, the only reasonable test of this detached sense of personhood is to swap the two contestants physical locations making the daughter the mother and the mother the daughter. The mother’s “person” is now within the body of the daughter – think of the movie Freaky Friday, then zoom back to the time of pregnancy. (But unlike Freaky Friday, the bodies are exchanged as well.) Granted this is a conceptual swap, but from a practical sense, our chain of unbroken pregnancies acknowledges the mother was a daughter at one time. So the proceative/gestational relationship is not rejected and the only assumption is removal of time constraints so we can exchange the spatial & birth order relationships between the two contested human beings.

Should that change the moral basis of the mother’s person, by exchanging places with the daughter?

One would reasonably say no – it shouldn’t and that’s precisely my point: to claim it would change the moral basis would be a circular argument (and reveal the personhood begging schism) because the claimed abortion “right” shouldn’t change no matter who was in the womb.

So far we’ve run into two problems:

1. The abortion choice position begs the question by assuming a rationale based upon a non-sequitur and in so doing they reject the metaphysical basis of their own personhood – the natural human procreative/gestational process.
2. They beg the question again by assuming a definition of personhood that cannot logically exist in the world of living, propogating humanity.

I know – that’s some deep thinking, so let me clarify: As human beings we don’t morally possess the right to redefine the personhood of any other other human being because such redefinition can be applied to yourself as a human being. It subjects humans and is circular. For logicians out there – whole (intrinsic or universally true) human beings cannot be declared non-whole, (partial or universally false) human beings. That’s self refuting, like saying TRUE is FALSE.

c. Non-intrinsic objections

Human Rights abortion, autonomy, bioSLED, intrinsic-value, pregnancy, Relationships