Applied Epistemology

Vintage contortions. This is pretty old hat among philosophers, though. There's no reason to think our pre-scientific categories (such as 'life', 'human', or 'planet') should meaningfully map onto new discoveries.

Imagine the following conversation:

A: How many things are in my bag?

B: Four.

A: No. There are 1.32^9 things in my hand.

B: What the hell? I see two marbles and two crayons.

A: I said "things". And I'm counting hadrons.

----

We have lots of concepts that are defined in terms of everyday experience and use, but don't have exact boundaries. (Is a stool a chair? Is synchonized swimming a sport? Is ketchup a vegetable?) If we need to be precise, we stipulate a more precise definition. But that's a job for lawyers, judges, and citizens. The "AbortionFacts" page is trying to pretend that "life" and "human being" are scientific concepts, like "ohms" and "chromosomes". But the latter terms have clear operational definitions. "Life" and "human being" aren't exact enough when we're talking about zygotes. Trying to apply inexact concepts to exact situations yields all sorts of Procrustean absurdities, like twins being the "children" of a "parent" zygote, or this bit:

But can you then call an acorn an oak tree?

That is like saying "can you call an infant an adult?" Rather, you must ask "are they both complete oaks?"

Yes they are, all the acorn needs to develop into an adult tree is time and nutrition.

So I can lift a dozen complete oaks in one hand! That's letting ideology make you talk nonsense.

If a coach wants to decide which player he wants to put in a game, it would be no help at all to tell him to put in his "best player". "Best" is simply too inexact. Ask the coach to be precise about what he wants or needs in this situation in the game -- a scorer or a defender? A strong player or a fast one? Etc. That more exact concept will be what's "best". Form (in this case, meaning) follows function.

So what counts as a human, or as alive, depends on our interests, needs, practices, and values. Terry Shiavo, e.g., had a complete chromosome set. So does a zygote speck smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. But calling them "human lives" is inevitably a value judgment, not a scientific one. Ask the critics of abortion what it is that defines humanity. It's not a set of chromosomes: their own practices give the lie to this claim. If zygotes were full human beings, they'd have to have funerals after spontaneous miscarriages -- fully 31% of pregnancies. Unless they start mobilizing priests to give last rites to sanitary napkins, they're not serious. They're being ideologues.

If you're under 30 and single, the Bush Administration doesn't want you to get any, like, ever. Seems like a goofy policy, but if you accept the predicate that birth control demeans women, I guess it makes perfect sense. So what's next? Is HSS going to advise me that I shouldn't look down in the shower?

Onanism is harmful to your health, as Victorian science proved, of course.

But the contra-contraception movement, bizarrely enough, seems to be asserting itself here in the 21st century. Heck, Roberts and Alito are clearly dismissive of privacy rights, so why not go back to the source -- Griswold?

I'd bet money on that.

As for Griswold - don't be so overreaching. Lawrence v. Taylor is a much better proximate target. If you're going to get all the way back to the penumbral right of privacy (and get there through Roe v. Wade for mad 1Up's) you'll have to start small and work your way back. If there's one thing it seems that Americans can agree on it's discriminatin' against them homos and outside of the northern suburbs of LA, I don't think there is a significant hetero population or industry that will wave the flag for buggery.

I was being facetious. IIRC, during his confirmation hearings, Roberts grudgingly admitted that Griswold was reasonable. You're right to think that Lawrence wouldn't fly under the current court, and that Kennedy's eloquent defense of the flamer-American community would today be a dissenting opinion. But are there any challenges to Lawrence coming up the federal pipe? Abortion seems the hotter target. We're going to get a decision on the partial-birth ban soon, and other, more direct challenges to Roe and Casey are likely on their way.

Of course, if the evangelicals ever got their wish and a reversal of Roe, it would be bad news for the Republicans at the polls. I could see it putting Hillary in the White House.