Pro-abort prof argues babies not ‘persons’ til 18 months, not an ‘offense’ against child to kill it

LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/10/11 | Patrick B. Craine

[wagglebee]

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, March 9, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-abortion activists sought, unsuccessfully, to disrupt a debate on abortion at Dalhousie University Tuesday night by ripping down ads, setting off stink-bombs, and covering the ceiling with helium balloons featuring pro-abortion slogans. In the end, they even turned on the pro-abortion speaker.

Representing the pro-life side of the debate was Stephanie Gray, co-founder and executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform. Facing Gray was Dr. Mark Mercer, chairperson of the philosophy department at Halifax’s St. Mary’s University, who has in the past won the ire of pro-abortion activists for defending the rights of pro-lifers to express their opinions on university campuses.

While Gray argued that the unborn should be protected in law because abortion is the violent killing of innocent human life, Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.

The event, which was organized by the new student group Pro-Life at Dal, attracted about 150 students and members of the public.

In her remarks, Gray pointed out that the scientific community is unanimous that life begins at fertilization. At fertilization, she explained, the child “has everything she needs within herself to direct her growth and to move to the next more mature stage of her development.”

Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality.

Gray, however, maintained that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights deliberately speaks of ‘human’ and not ‘person’ rights because the powerful have often sought to subjugate or kill the vulnerable by claiming they are not persons. She pointed to examples like the Holocaust and the enslavement of African Americans.

“We have a nasty history as human beings of denying our fellow human beings the right to live because we divorce the concept of human and person as to treat them as two separate things,” she said.

She said the criteria used to define personhood come down to non-essential differences - namely size, level of development, environment, and dependency - and that these criteria are constantly changing for an individual. “Human is an objective term that we can determine scientifically,” she explained. “Person is a philosophical or legal term which has had a changing definition throughout history.”

“Our humanity, our right to life, should be based on that which is unchanging, which is our human nature - rather than that which is changing, which is our functions and abilities,” she added.

Gray argued that all humans carry intrinsic worth because of our common human nature, by which we are “moral, rational agents.” If an individual doesn’t exhibit signs of rationality, such as a developing baby or a disabled person, they nevertheless have the “inherent ability,” even if they don’t have the “current ability.”

“I don’t understand what this thing humanity is or the property of being human,” retorted Mercer, “such that an anancephalic infant is a rational being just as the rest of us. ... Here’s a creature who doesn’t have a capability and yet it’s still in the essence of that creature that it has that capability. That makes no sense to me.”

Gray said, however, “just because some humans are damaged, so to speak, I would say that doesn’t mean that we can end their lives because they’re not as developed or ‘perfect’ as we are.”

According to Mercer, a child likely only gains personhood at around 18 months to two years of age, and he also suggested at one point that adult pigs might be persons. Though he said he couldn’t imagine a reason to justify killing a born child given the availability of adoption, he said upon further questioning that “if the child isn’t a person, it’s not an offense against the child to kill it.”

A principled vegetarian, he agreed that it could be wrong to kill a pig even though he believes it’s acceptable to kill a child in the womb.

Asked by Gray how he justified defining a person based on his list of properties, Mercer responded, “Why should I take humanity to be ... a morally salient property?”

The most vocal pro-abortion voices at the event were obviously displeased with Mercer’s presentation, slamming him in the open forum at the end of the evening. “You didn’t even attempt to make any arguments that would convince anybody of anything,” said one activist. “You did not represent the pro-choice position at all.”

Though inviting them to e-mail him better arguments, Mercer nevertheless defended his view as the only cogent approach. He dismissed arguments based on “women’s struggle for equality” saying that that they fail to address the “moral status of the fetus,” and disagreed with approaches that claim a woman’s “right to choose” outweighs the unborn child’s “right to life,” saying that these only come into conflict in a “narrow range of cases,” such as rape.

Another pro-abortion advocate even suggested that the pro-life group had deliberately brought in a poor representative for their side, while flying Gray in from Calgary. Yet Mercer noted that he has published his arguments in national newspapers, and local pro-life advocates insist he’s been the only one willing to even debate the issue, despite efforts to find a representative through local university pro-abortion groups.

[wagglebee]

Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality.

This sick thinking is typical of the pro-abortion movement.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Nonstatist]

18 months? The previous estimate used to be 6 months... I’m just just waiting until it hits 18 years; then I can take my kid out for wrecking the car.

[Jim Robinson]

Evil bastard!

[PATRIOT1876]

Next argument:

Conservatives are not fully developed persons (ask Bill Maher)

People who disagree with the AGW scam are not fully developed persons

People who disagree with the State or engage in OldSpeak are not fully developed persons

Who will be the next 100 million to go at the whim of the Leftist leaders?

[TribalPrincess2U]

Amazing how they can spin their evil.

If it has a heartbeat, it’s alive.

[MrB]

The natural conclusions of evolutionary thinking -

humans are nothing special, just one species along the long trail of chemicals fighting for supremacy.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality.

In other words, we have to earn the right to be human. And Mercer intends to appoint himself to the Death Panel that gets to decide who qualifies - regardless of their chronological age. So I guess those racist Tea Partiers are next on his list...

[SecondAmendment]

> he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection
> because they possess certain “ethically salient properties”

So by this standard, we may safely say that Liberals cannot be considered to be "persons" !

[Americanexpat]

This SOB could have worked in a mazi concentration camp.

[melsec]

“Mercer nevertheless defended his view as the only cogent approach. He dismissed arguments based on “women’s struggle for equality” saying that that they fail to address the “moral status of the fetus,” and disagreed with approaches that claim a woman’s “right to choose” outweighs the unborn child’s “right to life,” saying that these only come into conflict in a “narrow range of cases,” such as rape. “

The mad feminists would not have liked these answers he gave though as it undercuts ALL of their arguements. I love it when lefties pull the rug out from under each other! So nice to see them fall on their a#rse.

Mel

[hinckley buzzard]

It's the linchpin of the whole death culture. Note that by this guys' reasoning the demented elderly would cease to be "persons" and therefore also become disposable without penalty. Welcome to Nazi Germany and latterday Holland--and Princeton Univesity.

[hinckley buzzard]

It's the linchpin of the whole death culture. Note that by this guys' reasoning the demented elderly would cease to be "persons" and therefore also become disposable without penalty. Welcome to Nazi Germany and latterday Holland--and Princeton University.

[Soothesayer]

I will have to disagree with Gray on one point:

sometimes humans are not people.

Anyone leftist who says that an 18 month old child is a “non-person” is too evil to be considered a person.

Leftists are so diabolical that they ought to be exterminated on sight.

[little jeremiah]

I've only read a bit and just what I've read so far is so heartbreakingly evil I can't hold back tears.

Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality.

[MsLady]

Our youth are the victims twice, once by being seduced into thinking this is ok and a right. And the second by having so many of their generation missing, including siblings. They are taking up their cross and moving us forward into victory. I so admire these kids. God bless them.

Link

[Celtic Cross]

Evil SOB. Sitting there, arguing that only 'persons' have a right to life. Well, in my book, this bastard isn't even human, let alone a 'person'.

Lord help him to see the light.

[MikeSteelBe]

I agree sympathetically, but that would make us no better then them.

It’s not easy to have to wait for the other side to shoot first.

[raybbr]

Spawn of Satan...

---

Philosophy Faculty

Dr. Mark Mercer - Department Chair Degrees: B.A. (Hons.), M.A. (Carleton), Ph.D. (Toronto) Courses Recently Taught: Epistemology;  Ethics; Philosophy of Mind; Plato and the Presocratics Recent Publications: “In Defence of Believing Wishfully,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHILOSOPHY (2010). “The Significance of Christmas for Liberal Multiculturalism,” CHRISTMAS: PHILOSOPHY FOR EVERYONE (2010); "Folk Psychology's Epistemic Credentials," FACTA PHILOSOPHICA (2007); "Metaphor and Sentence Meaning," FACTA PHILOSOPHICA (2006); "In Defence of Weak Psychological Egoism," ERKENNTNIS (2001); "Grounds of Liberal Tolerance," JOURNAL OF VALUE INQUIRY (1999); "Psychological Egoism and Its Critics," SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY (1998) Home Page: markmercer Phone 902-420-5825 mark.mercer@smu.ca Office Hours:  Mon. & Wed. 8:00 am to 10:00 pm and 12 noon to 2:00 pm