[Note: Dr. Parrish ran into some technical difficulties trying to post the response below from his account, so I'm posting it for him.]
Nathan Nobis disagrees with our critique of abortion. We shall respond to the main points he makes.
He starts out by making a red herring argument, focusing on the definition of “child”, or “children.”
Are unborn babies children? Nobis rejects this. He argues that children are young people, and that since is it generally bad to kill people, this defines abortion as being wrong. He claims that this then “assumes” that abortion is wrong. He’s not far from the truth on his conclusion. However, the word child has more than one meaning. A pregnant woman may say that “she is with child.” A person whose children are adults may say that their children have grown and flown. Women who deliver babies go through “childbirth.” The point is, from a very real perspective, the unborn are, indeed, our children, whatever else we may think of the matter. Ask any woman who has suffered a loss of her “child” by miscarriage. In one sense of the word, children are defined by a relationship. Their DNA is a combination of the parents’ genes. People often call embryos or fetuses unborn babies. By pointing out the obvious fact that the unborn are our children, we are merely highlighting that the unborn are the first stages in the existence of what will, under normal circumstance, be a complete human life. They come into existence because of us. So, by calling the unborn children “babies,” etc., we are not “begging the question” (assuming something that needs to be proven); we are merely using the terms in ways that many people do.
Similarly, the word “person” can be used in different ways. It can mean a human being that is born and has the ability to reason (to an extent), but it can also be used in the sense that it is a human being—a being that will, under normal circumstances, achieve adulthood and rationality. The first usage may be the primary one, but people sometimes say that human beings are persons. The dictionary, representing common usage, agrees.
Nobis makes the point that we cannot assume that an embryo or fetus is a person. If “person” is defined as being conscious, then we do not assume that. However, Nobis here is subtly shifting our argument that abortion is wrong because it kills a human being, by focusing on definitions of “human beings”, “persons”, and having consciousness or rational thought.
Nobis objects that we claim that the unborn baby is more than a blob of cells from the beginning. But from the beginning, when they are only one day old, the blueprints of being a human being, and eventually a person, are already there. That we cannot see or observe this is irrelevant.
Granted, since the advent of ultrasounds, few people really believe that unborn babies are merely a blob of cells until birth. Any rational person should agree to that. Some people simply decide not to believe the humanness of unborn babies, because they do not want to grapple with the guilt that would ensue, if they are not amoral psychopaths. However, we were merely pointing out that some people have stridently argued that the unborn are merely a blob of cells, without making distinctions.
Nobis goes on to state that embryos and fetuses are “human beings,” by which he only means biologically human organisms. Well, they certainly are that. Organisms are individual life forms. The key word here is “life”, i.e., living. The main point is that they are human beings, whatever one’s definition of “persons.” This red herring argument, based on definitions, can be solved by checking out your friendly neighborhood dictionary. A person is defined first as a human being.
Nobis then goes on to argue what makes killing wrong. He states that killing is often wrong when (a) the victim wanted to live and (b) killing them decreases, indeed, eliminates their well-being. This is where a fundamental philosophical divide emerges. We hold that killing human beings is objectively wrong. It is wrong to kill innocent people simply because they are human beings with intrinsic value and dignity, and their lives are sacred. Nobis may argue that such a view of humanity is dependent upon a religious theistic concept of what people are. Certainly theists do view humans as having dignity and value, but some secular thinkers also have firmly held much the same view.
Nobis’ theory seems to be that killing human beings is wrong merely because it does not maximize utility. Does Nobis think that if a person is in a moment of despair, perceiving their future is cloudy at best, then there is nothing wrong in killing them? If he does, then he opens the door to the dehumanization of people and all sorts of ensuing atrocities. Some of these tragic acts, like abortion on demand, are already happening. There is a thin line between euthanasia and mercy killing on the one hand, and the killing of people who are supposedly unworthy of life—such as the handicapped in Nazi Germany, not to mention others considered unworthy of living simply by their ethnicities, such as the Jews. Concerns about this are not absurd. One of the problems with euthanasia is that the people may be pressured into accepting being killed, not because they really want to die, but because they are told that it would be better for everyone else—utilitarian.
Nobis argues that nobody he knows thinks that a 35-year-old is somehow more valuable than a 30-year-old. We don’t either. But there are many people who think that the unborn increase in value with age: that killing a baby at 3 months of gestation is acceptable, while killing a 6-month-old is not. The general idea of this argumentation is that the 6-month-old is more like a newborn baby then. The same may be said about babies immediately after birth. There are few people within our culture who argue in favor of infanticide now, but they may be increasing in number. In much of the ancient world, killing or exposing a baby to the elements was not considered wrong. We seem to be moving backwards in that direction. We remember a time when abortion was considered wrong by most people. In those days, the first advocates averred that they were only in favor of abortion in so-called “hard cases.” Now, we have, in increasing regions, abortion on demand until the moment of birth.
Here we finally come to the main point that Nobis holds to. He writes “Many people think this loss of consciousness would be the loss of a person; they may also think that, until a being is conscious, there is no person. That’s a core idea here that wasn’t effectively engaged.” Based on this reasoning, does Nobis believe that if a person goes into a coma, and is no longer conscious, he is no longer a person, even though we know that at some later time he may regain consciousness? If Nobis doesn’t hold to this, how does he avoid denying the principle he endorsed above?
Although he does not specifically say so, he seems to endorse the idea that consciousness is the dividing line. But saying that consciousness is the dividing line has multiple problems. If one takes this bent, that a simple consciousness is what makes a human being a person rather than a blob of cells, then he has a problem with a fetus at a late stage in the pregnancy that shows signs of consciousness and would therefore be considered a person. But he really doesn’t mean this, as we shall show below. . . [Response continues in next comment box.]
We really don’t know for certain when consciousness begins. Scientists think they have some idea, and they may have good reasons and may be right, but unless we have telepathy we cannot know for certain. Some think that the embryo has a soul and may be conscious from the beginning. Even if we take the best guess that we have, it may appear that consciousness occurs several months after conception. This may or may not be true. However, when we are dealing with the matter of killing a human being, and possibly a person in the sense of having consciousness, we should have a strong reason to pause and ponder. If a person is deer hunting, and sees what looks like it might be a deer, but may well instead be another hunter, the ethical thing to do is not to shoot.
Consciousness, whenever it is achieved, is unquestionably an important milestone in human development. But why is that the dividing line? After all, when the unborn truly first have a glimmering of consciousness, it is probably weak and simple. How far down the animal tree does consciousness exist in animals? This is unknown. Mammals and birds almost certainly have awareness, as do reptiles, and probably fish and amphibians. Octopuses seem to, and maybe other invertebrates. Are any insects or worms conscious? Probably not, though we really don’t know for certain.
If one then argues that a person should not be killed only if they don’t consciously want to live and their life is worth living, then not only is abortion at all stages acceptable, but so is infanticide. No one doubts that consciousness is an important aspect of being human and a person, but mere consciousness at any level by itself does not provide the basis of what can be allowed to be killed. As shall be shown, Nobis is really arguing for a particular kind of consciousness.
If in the early stages of pregnancy, the unborn is not conscious, which may well be true, what is happening in almost every case is that the fetus is being prepared to support consciousness. The early stage is hardly irrelevant to the question, as it is the basis for everything that comes later.
In fact, Nobis is being quite disingenuous at this point. We believe that anyone reading his response would think that he makes “having consciousness” the distinction between the unborn of whom it is permissible to abort and those that are not, though he doesn’t specifically say this. In part of the discussion about aborting the unborn, he writes, ”[S]o, such “lines” can and should have buffer zones, so to speak: we can and should be cautious in drawing such lines.” This seems to indicate that we should be cautious about where abortion is permissible. One would believe that he would think that it is permissible to abort the unborn if we have good reason to think that they are not conscious, while wrong to do so afterwards. But one would be wrong.
Nobis is the co-author of a book entitled, Thinking Critically About Abortion: Why Most Abortions Aren’t Wrong & Why All Abortions Should Be Legal. If this is what Nobis thinks, and since he wrote a book with that title, it almost certainly is, then his statements about consciousness being the dividing line are not his real view. If he thinks that, then the unborn could have a well-developed consciousness and Nobis would hold that it is still permissible to abort them. Indeed, Nobis is apparently one of those people who thinks it’s permissible to abort an unborn baby an hour before birth but to kill it an hour after birth would be murder. Indeed, if what he really believes is that only people whose consciousness is complex enough to want to die and think that there is no hope for a happy life have consciousness enough to be called persons, this opens the door to killing far beyond abortion. If he doesn’t believe that, he should have said where exactly the dividing line where a human being is a person is. Based on what he wrote, it seems that killable human beings would also include born babies, young children, and anyone whose intellect of whatever age cannot think about these matters. If this is his real belief, why bring up consciousness in the unborn at all? If it is not, then he should show the precise point where the line is drawn, and why he draws it there.
Nobis’ view is a puzzle. He doesn’t believe that being conscious is enough to make a human being a person, because if he did, he would be against abortion at some point of the pregnancy. On the other hand, he doesn’t believe that being able to wish that you were dead and foresee a bad future life doesn’t work either, for if it did, he would be in favor of infanticide. So where does he really draw the line and why? He owes us an explanation, if he is going to present contrary views.
Nobis finally makes the following point:
NN: are these always true?
If X has an “inborn capacity” for Y, then it’s wrong to prevent X from becoming Y.
If X has an “inborn capacity” for Y, then someone else is obligated to try to ensure that they become Y.
We doubt that anyone holds that these are always true. Few would say that it is wrong to kill a weed before it is fully grown. But certainly, it is often wrong to prevent an X from becoming Y. It may not be as wrong to destroy a book manuscript before it is written (if the author doesn’t want it destroyed) as much as when it is finished. But it is still wrong, and even worse if the book cannot then be written. When we are dealing with human beings, the issue is even starker. For to destroy an unborn baby, at whatever stage of gestation, is to interrupt (abort) its growing to become a full human person eventually. To kill the unborn at any stage is to destroy the person that the unborn could become. Every abortion is an act of violence. Further, Nobis misstates the issue when he writes that one is obligated to ensure that some X becomes Y. In the case of the unborn, abortion is not merely just ensuring that the unborn does not become a fully developed person, but it is actually destroying the unborn and any chance that the unborn could have.
Nobis might reply that to see his full argument one should read his book, that he couldn’t say everything that should be said here. We can say the same thing. We wrote a short essay, not a book. If one wants to read a book making the pro-life case, then read Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, by Francis J. Beckwith.
Nobis also says that one should pay attention to the “best” pro-abortion arguments. However, if our argument is correct, it overrules the objections from the other side, for it would take a very exceptional disputation to override the concept that killing innocent human beings is intrinsically wrong.
[Nathan, Dr. Parrish said this brief response will be his last. Many thanks.]
Nobis has responded to our rejoinder. We have no desire for this to go on indefinitely. So instead of a point-by-point refutation of what he wrote, we will concentrate on one important issue. We hold that destroying a living being before it is complete is often about as bad as destroying something when it is finished. It is the same life, the same organism, from conception to death. It is a living, developing organism both before and after birth. What comes first is the foundation of what it will become. Nobis appears to disagree. A thought experiment should help clarify things.
Suppose that a man is in a coma, completely unconscious, but will regain it in three months. Would it be wrong to kill him, because being unconscious he has a much smaller value than he otherwise would? We believe this to be obviously false. Nobis attacked this argument. He writes, "why not make this more extreme: would anyone think that if you take a nap, and are no longer conscious at that time, you cease to be a person and/or are OK to kill or steal all your stuff? No, of course not. Why not? Apply better answers to a temporary coma case, please." We agree that it would be wrong to kill the napping person, and we count this as an argument against Nobis’s position. Our point is, *it is not just what we have at present, but what one will eventually have, that makes for value.* And this is a crux of the matter.
The reason that it is wrong to kill an unconscious person who will become conscious is the same as why it is wrong to kill an unconscious fetus. It is not only what one is, but what one becomes that shows the value. This also applies to the unborn—they have value not just because of what they are, but because of what they will become. Otherwise, why is it wrong to kill an unconscious person taking a five-minute nap?
Nobis has responded to our rejoinder. We have no desire for this to go on indefinitely. So instead of a point-by-point refutation of what he wrote, we will concentrate on one important issue. We hold that destroying a living being before it is complete is often about as bad as destroying something when it is finished.
NN - yes, the hope was some kind of good reason to believe this. None was given.
It is the same life, the same organism, from conception to death.
NN - nobody denies it's the same organism. That's not the issue.
It is a living, developing organism both before and after birth.
NN - nobody denies it's the same organism. That's not the issue.
What comes first is the foundation of what it will become. Nobis appears to disagree. A thought experiment should help clarify things.
Suppose that a man is in a coma, completely unconscious, but will regain it in three months. Would it be wrong to kill him, because being unconscious he has a much smaller value than he otherwise would? We believe this to be obviously false.
NN - nobody denies this. This is not the issue.
Nobis attacked this argument. He writes, "why not make this more extreme: would anyone think that if you take a nap, and are no longer conscious at that time, you cease to be a person and/or are OK to kill or steal all your stuff? No, of course not. Why not? Apply better answers to a temporary coma case, please." We agree that it would be wrong to kill the napping person, and we count this as an argument against Nobis’s position. Our point is, *it is not just what we have at present, but what one will eventually have, that makes for value.* And this is a crux of the matter.
NN - the "one" here is what's at issue. It's a person that takes the nap; it's a person who falls into the coma. The presently unconscious being has a past as a person. An embryo does not have that: you are assuming an embryo is a person or that there's something about that an embryo that makes it (usually) wrong to kill. You did not plausibly identify what that might be.
The reason that it is wrong to kill an unconscious person who will become conscious is the same as why it is wrong to kill an unconscious fetus.
NN - no: it's wrong to kill a napper in part, because they have a concious past that will be pychologically connected to the present when they awake and their future:
It is not only what one is, but what one becomes that shows the value. This also applies to the unborn—they have value not just because of what they are, but because of what they will become.
NN - yes, the hope was some kind of good reason would have been given believe this. None was given.
Otherwise, why is it wrong to kill an unconscious person taking a five-minute nap?
NN - I suggest asking thoughtful people that question and seeing how they answer it. Many of their answers will relate to things that relate to and depend on their their past experiences, memories, knowledge, hopes, etc. -- none of which an embryo has -- and how that relates to their future. More on this, such as stealing their stuff, here:
Thank you for your thoughtful article. When I began covering the abortion issue in 1967 as an atheist journalist the scientific information available at the time was somewhat unclear. I believed (and still do) in 'following the science.' When the question went to the Supreme Court the science was a bit clearer and I had become a Christian by that time. As the years have moved on from the early 1970's to the present day the science is extremely clear. The unborn is a human being with separate DNA from both his or her parents. As far as personhood is concerned, follow the science if you're an atheist or agnostic. Being a 'person' begins when someone is a human. Someone is a human when they are conceived. If allowed to develop rather than be eliminated through abortion, a conceived human will eventually demonstrate what so many people view as human characteristics (e.g. consciousness, self-awareness, capacity for social interaction, etc). Killing an unborn human is not killing a non-person. It is the killing of a person who will not be allowed to develop what many view as the characteristics of being a human. Unborn children are humans and they are persons. Follow the science.
Someone asked for my reactions to this. Here they are:
https://abortionarguments.substack.com/p/comments-on-what-age-is-it-morally
[Note: Dr. Parrish ran into some technical difficulties trying to post the response below from his account, so I'm posting it for him.]
Nathan Nobis disagrees with our critique of abortion. We shall respond to the main points he makes.
He starts out by making a red herring argument, focusing on the definition of “child”, or “children.”
Are unborn babies children? Nobis rejects this. He argues that children are young people, and that since is it generally bad to kill people, this defines abortion as being wrong. He claims that this then “assumes” that abortion is wrong. He’s not far from the truth on his conclusion. However, the word child has more than one meaning. A pregnant woman may say that “she is with child.” A person whose children are adults may say that their children have grown and flown. Women who deliver babies go through “childbirth.” The point is, from a very real perspective, the unborn are, indeed, our children, whatever else we may think of the matter. Ask any woman who has suffered a loss of her “child” by miscarriage. In one sense of the word, children are defined by a relationship. Their DNA is a combination of the parents’ genes. People often call embryos or fetuses unborn babies. By pointing out the obvious fact that the unborn are our children, we are merely highlighting that the unborn are the first stages in the existence of what will, under normal circumstance, be a complete human life. They come into existence because of us. So, by calling the unborn children “babies,” etc., we are not “begging the question” (assuming something that needs to be proven); we are merely using the terms in ways that many people do.
Similarly, the word “person” can be used in different ways. It can mean a human being that is born and has the ability to reason (to an extent), but it can also be used in the sense that it is a human being—a being that will, under normal circumstances, achieve adulthood and rationality. The first usage may be the primary one, but people sometimes say that human beings are persons. The dictionary, representing common usage, agrees.
Nobis makes the point that we cannot assume that an embryo or fetus is a person. If “person” is defined as being conscious, then we do not assume that. However, Nobis here is subtly shifting our argument that abortion is wrong because it kills a human being, by focusing on definitions of “human beings”, “persons”, and having consciousness or rational thought.
Nobis objects that we claim that the unborn baby is more than a blob of cells from the beginning. But from the beginning, when they are only one day old, the blueprints of being a human being, and eventually a person, are already there. That we cannot see or observe this is irrelevant.
Granted, since the advent of ultrasounds, few people really believe that unborn babies are merely a blob of cells until birth. Any rational person should agree to that. Some people simply decide not to believe the humanness of unborn babies, because they do not want to grapple with the guilt that would ensue, if they are not amoral psychopaths. However, we were merely pointing out that some people have stridently argued that the unborn are merely a blob of cells, without making distinctions.
Nobis goes on to state that embryos and fetuses are “human beings,” by which he only means biologically human organisms. Well, they certainly are that. Organisms are individual life forms. The key word here is “life”, i.e., living. The main point is that they are human beings, whatever one’s definition of “persons.” This red herring argument, based on definitions, can be solved by checking out your friendly neighborhood dictionary. A person is defined first as a human being.
Nobis then goes on to argue what makes killing wrong. He states that killing is often wrong when (a) the victim wanted to live and (b) killing them decreases, indeed, eliminates their well-being. This is where a fundamental philosophical divide emerges. We hold that killing human beings is objectively wrong. It is wrong to kill innocent people simply because they are human beings with intrinsic value and dignity, and their lives are sacred. Nobis may argue that such a view of humanity is dependent upon a religious theistic concept of what people are. Certainly theists do view humans as having dignity and value, but some secular thinkers also have firmly held much the same view.
Nobis’ theory seems to be that killing human beings is wrong merely because it does not maximize utility. Does Nobis think that if a person is in a moment of despair, perceiving their future is cloudy at best, then there is nothing wrong in killing them? If he does, then he opens the door to the dehumanization of people and all sorts of ensuing atrocities. Some of these tragic acts, like abortion on demand, are already happening. There is a thin line between euthanasia and mercy killing on the one hand, and the killing of people who are supposedly unworthy of life—such as the handicapped in Nazi Germany, not to mention others considered unworthy of living simply by their ethnicities, such as the Jews. Concerns about this are not absurd. One of the problems with euthanasia is that the people may be pressured into accepting being killed, not because they really want to die, but because they are told that it would be better for everyone else—utilitarian.
Nobis argues that nobody he knows thinks that a 35-year-old is somehow more valuable than a 30-year-old. We don’t either. But there are many people who think that the unborn increase in value with age: that killing a baby at 3 months of gestation is acceptable, while killing a 6-month-old is not. The general idea of this argumentation is that the 6-month-old is more like a newborn baby then. The same may be said about babies immediately after birth. There are few people within our culture who argue in favor of infanticide now, but they may be increasing in number. In much of the ancient world, killing or exposing a baby to the elements was not considered wrong. We seem to be moving backwards in that direction. We remember a time when abortion was considered wrong by most people. In those days, the first advocates averred that they were only in favor of abortion in so-called “hard cases.” Now, we have, in increasing regions, abortion on demand until the moment of birth.
Here we finally come to the main point that Nobis holds to. He writes “Many people think this loss of consciousness would be the loss of a person; they may also think that, until a being is conscious, there is no person. That’s a core idea here that wasn’t effectively engaged.” Based on this reasoning, does Nobis believe that if a person goes into a coma, and is no longer conscious, he is no longer a person, even though we know that at some later time he may regain consciousness? If Nobis doesn’t hold to this, how does he avoid denying the principle he endorsed above?
Although he does not specifically say so, he seems to endorse the idea that consciousness is the dividing line. But saying that consciousness is the dividing line has multiple problems. If one takes this bent, that a simple consciousness is what makes a human being a person rather than a blob of cells, then he has a problem with a fetus at a late stage in the pregnancy that shows signs of consciousness and would therefore be considered a person. But he really doesn’t mean this, as we shall show below. . . [Response continues in next comment box.]
We really don’t know for certain when consciousness begins. Scientists think they have some idea, and they may have good reasons and may be right, but unless we have telepathy we cannot know for certain. Some think that the embryo has a soul and may be conscious from the beginning. Even if we take the best guess that we have, it may appear that consciousness occurs several months after conception. This may or may not be true. However, when we are dealing with the matter of killing a human being, and possibly a person in the sense of having consciousness, we should have a strong reason to pause and ponder. If a person is deer hunting, and sees what looks like it might be a deer, but may well instead be another hunter, the ethical thing to do is not to shoot.
Consciousness, whenever it is achieved, is unquestionably an important milestone in human development. But why is that the dividing line? After all, when the unborn truly first have a glimmering of consciousness, it is probably weak and simple. How far down the animal tree does consciousness exist in animals? This is unknown. Mammals and birds almost certainly have awareness, as do reptiles, and probably fish and amphibians. Octopuses seem to, and maybe other invertebrates. Are any insects or worms conscious? Probably not, though we really don’t know for certain.
If one then argues that a person should not be killed only if they don’t consciously want to live and their life is worth living, then not only is abortion at all stages acceptable, but so is infanticide. No one doubts that consciousness is an important aspect of being human and a person, but mere consciousness at any level by itself does not provide the basis of what can be allowed to be killed. As shall be shown, Nobis is really arguing for a particular kind of consciousness.
If in the early stages of pregnancy, the unborn is not conscious, which may well be true, what is happening in almost every case is that the fetus is being prepared to support consciousness. The early stage is hardly irrelevant to the question, as it is the basis for everything that comes later.
In fact, Nobis is being quite disingenuous at this point. We believe that anyone reading his response would think that he makes “having consciousness” the distinction between the unborn of whom it is permissible to abort and those that are not, though he doesn’t specifically say this. In part of the discussion about aborting the unborn, he writes, ”[S]o, such “lines” can and should have buffer zones, so to speak: we can and should be cautious in drawing such lines.” This seems to indicate that we should be cautious about where abortion is permissible. One would believe that he would think that it is permissible to abort the unborn if we have good reason to think that they are not conscious, while wrong to do so afterwards. But one would be wrong.
Nobis is the co-author of a book entitled, Thinking Critically About Abortion: Why Most Abortions Aren’t Wrong & Why All Abortions Should Be Legal. If this is what Nobis thinks, and since he wrote a book with that title, it almost certainly is, then his statements about consciousness being the dividing line are not his real view. If he thinks that, then the unborn could have a well-developed consciousness and Nobis would hold that it is still permissible to abort them. Indeed, Nobis is apparently one of those people who thinks it’s permissible to abort an unborn baby an hour before birth but to kill it an hour after birth would be murder. Indeed, if what he really believes is that only people whose consciousness is complex enough to want to die and think that there is no hope for a happy life have consciousness enough to be called persons, this opens the door to killing far beyond abortion. If he doesn’t believe that, he should have said where exactly the dividing line where a human being is a person is. Based on what he wrote, it seems that killable human beings would also include born babies, young children, and anyone whose intellect of whatever age cannot think about these matters. If this is his real belief, why bring up consciousness in the unborn at all? If it is not, then he should show the precise point where the line is drawn, and why he draws it there.
Nobis’ view is a puzzle. He doesn’t believe that being conscious is enough to make a human being a person, because if he did, he would be against abortion at some point of the pregnancy. On the other hand, he doesn’t believe that being able to wish that you were dead and foresee a bad future life doesn’t work either, for if it did, he would be in favor of infanticide. So where does he really draw the line and why? He owes us an explanation, if he is going to present contrary views.
Nobis finally makes the following point:
NN: are these always true?
If X has an “inborn capacity” for Y, then it’s wrong to prevent X from becoming Y.
If X has an “inborn capacity” for Y, then someone else is obligated to try to ensure that they become Y.
We doubt that anyone holds that these are always true. Few would say that it is wrong to kill a weed before it is fully grown. But certainly, it is often wrong to prevent an X from becoming Y. It may not be as wrong to destroy a book manuscript before it is written (if the author doesn’t want it destroyed) as much as when it is finished. But it is still wrong, and even worse if the book cannot then be written. When we are dealing with human beings, the issue is even starker. For to destroy an unborn baby, at whatever stage of gestation, is to interrupt (abort) its growing to become a full human person eventually. To kill the unborn at any stage is to destroy the person that the unborn could become. Every abortion is an act of violence. Further, Nobis misstates the issue when he writes that one is obligated to ensure that some X becomes Y. In the case of the unborn, abortion is not merely just ensuring that the unborn does not become a fully developed person, but it is actually destroying the unborn and any chance that the unborn could have.
Nobis might reply that to see his full argument one should read his book, that he couldn’t say everything that should be said here. We can say the same thing. We wrote a short essay, not a book. If one wants to read a book making the pro-life case, then read Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, by Francis J. Beckwith.
Nobis also says that one should pay attention to the “best” pro-abortion arguments. However, if our argument is correct, it overrules the objections from the other side, for it would take a very exceptional disputation to override the concept that killing innocent human beings is intrinsically wrong.
Thanks!
Here are comments on comments! https://abortionarguments.substack.com/p/comments-on-comments
[Nathan, Dr. Parrish said this brief response will be his last. Many thanks.]
Nobis has responded to our rejoinder. We have no desire for this to go on indefinitely. So instead of a point-by-point refutation of what he wrote, we will concentrate on one important issue. We hold that destroying a living being before it is complete is often about as bad as destroying something when it is finished. It is the same life, the same organism, from conception to death. It is a living, developing organism both before and after birth. What comes first is the foundation of what it will become. Nobis appears to disagree. A thought experiment should help clarify things.
Suppose that a man is in a coma, completely unconscious, but will regain it in three months. Would it be wrong to kill him, because being unconscious he has a much smaller value than he otherwise would? We believe this to be obviously false. Nobis attacked this argument. He writes, "why not make this more extreme: would anyone think that if you take a nap, and are no longer conscious at that time, you cease to be a person and/or are OK to kill or steal all your stuff? No, of course not. Why not? Apply better answers to a temporary coma case, please." We agree that it would be wrong to kill the napping person, and we count this as an argument against Nobis’s position. Our point is, *it is not just what we have at present, but what one will eventually have, that makes for value.* And this is a crux of the matter.
The reason that it is wrong to kill an unconscious person who will become conscious is the same as why it is wrong to kill an unconscious fetus. It is not only what one is, but what one becomes that shows the value. This also applies to the unborn—they have value not just because of what they are, but because of what they will become. Otherwise, why is it wrong to kill an unconscious person taking a five-minute nap?
Nobis has responded to our rejoinder. We have no desire for this to go on indefinitely. So instead of a point-by-point refutation of what he wrote, we will concentrate on one important issue. We hold that destroying a living being before it is complete is often about as bad as destroying something when it is finished.
NN - yes, the hope was some kind of good reason to believe this. None was given.
It is the same life, the same organism, from conception to death.
NN - nobody denies it's the same organism. That's not the issue.
It is a living, developing organism both before and after birth.
NN - nobody denies it's the same organism. That's not the issue.
What comes first is the foundation of what it will become. Nobis appears to disagree. A thought experiment should help clarify things.
Suppose that a man is in a coma, completely unconscious, but will regain it in three months. Would it be wrong to kill him, because being unconscious he has a much smaller value than he otherwise would? We believe this to be obviously false.
NN - nobody denies this. This is not the issue.
Nobis attacked this argument. He writes, "why not make this more extreme: would anyone think that if you take a nap, and are no longer conscious at that time, you cease to be a person and/or are OK to kill or steal all your stuff? No, of course not. Why not? Apply better answers to a temporary coma case, please." We agree that it would be wrong to kill the napping person, and we count this as an argument against Nobis’s position. Our point is, *it is not just what we have at present, but what one will eventually have, that makes for value.* And this is a crux of the matter.
NN - the "one" here is what's at issue. It's a person that takes the nap; it's a person who falls into the coma. The presently unconscious being has a past as a person. An embryo does not have that: you are assuming an embryo is a person or that there's something about that an embryo that makes it (usually) wrong to kill. You did not plausibly identify what that might be.
The reason that it is wrong to kill an unconscious person who will become conscious is the same as why it is wrong to kill an unconscious fetus.
NN - no: it's wrong to kill a napper in part, because they have a concious past that will be pychologically connected to the present when they awake and their future:
https://www.abortionarguments.com/2020/04/if-abortion-is-not-wrong-then-its-ok-to_25.html
It is not only what one is, but what one becomes that shows the value. This also applies to the unborn—they have value not just because of what they are, but because of what they will become.
NN - yes, the hope was some kind of good reason would have been given believe this. None was given.
Otherwise, why is it wrong to kill an unconscious person taking a five-minute nap?
NN - I suggest asking thoughtful people that question and seeing how they answer it. Many of their answers will relate to things that relate to and depend on their their past experiences, memories, knowledge, hopes, etc. -- none of which an embryo has -- and how that relates to their future. More on this, such as stealing their stuff, here:
https://www.abortionarguments.com/2025/07/reply-to-christopher-kaczor-on-abortion.html
Thank you for your thoughtful article. When I began covering the abortion issue in 1967 as an atheist journalist the scientific information available at the time was somewhat unclear. I believed (and still do) in 'following the science.' When the question went to the Supreme Court the science was a bit clearer and I had become a Christian by that time. As the years have moved on from the early 1970's to the present day the science is extremely clear. The unborn is a human being with separate DNA from both his or her parents. As far as personhood is concerned, follow the science if you're an atheist or agnostic. Being a 'person' begins when someone is a human. Someone is a human when they are conceived. If allowed to develop rather than be eliminated through abortion, a conceived human will eventually demonstrate what so many people view as human characteristics (e.g. consciousness, self-awareness, capacity for social interaction, etc). Killing an unborn human is not killing a non-person. It is the killing of a person who will not be allowed to develop what many view as the characteristics of being a human. Unborn children are humans and they are persons. Follow the science.