𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: 𝗔 𝗧𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗭𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗬𝗦𝗜𝗦 (𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝟮)

On 18 December Mr David Abela wrote an opinion piece in The Malta Independent on Sunday which he entitled “Abortion: A scientific analysis” (I’m putting a link in the comments). I had already debunked the whole non-argument (there is actually no philosophical argument at all that he proposes to support his premises). My whole rebuttal of that article may be found here.

However, I also chose to write a short paragraph as a comment underneath his own newspaper article which said: “Will there be a second instalment? I'm still waiting for your investigation on rights, the right to life and your analysis of abortion. Your article seems to suggest that either everything (including rocks) has rights, or nothing does, since everything is essentially just wave particles”. Mr Abela chose to reply to my comment, but conveniently, the comments section was closed shortly after, so I will give my response here.

Mr Abela tells me that in his article he focused only on the physics aspects (so far so good) and how they translate to a right to human life. The only problem is that he actually didn’t even touch on the latter, as I will show.

He says in a note beneath his reply, that “when mentioning 'human life' (he is) referring to the fact that it's a member of the homo sapiens species”. He goes on to say that “there are plenty of philosophical publications (which it is safe to say he hasn't read) discussing whether this implies a right to live; in fact some entirely disagree”. His take on it, he says is that “yes, given the aforementioned physical similarities and that it's a member of the homo sapiens species”.

So, let us begin. That (human life) is a member of the homo sapiens species simply begs the question, being a circular argument. It’s like saying “a human life has the right to life because it is human”. Thankfully he acknowledges that “there is disagreement in the philosophical publications”. He should perhaps note that part of that is because some philosophical arguments are consistent and sound, and others not, and that is why one should build an argument and not just make blanket assertions.

Then he goes on to say that “(his) take on (whether human life has the right to life while other beings or things presumably don’t) is, “given the aforementioned physical similarities (?) and that it’s a member of the homo sapiens species” (yes, the sentence ends abruptly there). So according to Mr Abela, human life has rights because it is a member of the homo sapiens species, or to put it simpler, humans (or human body parts, for that matter, given they are also human) have rights simply because they are human. Again, a question-begging circular non-argument that relies only on prejudice.

Mr Abela then tells me that “The time of fertilisation represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual". The mistake he makes, perhaps due to having read little philosophy, is that the starting point of the individual as a person (which is what matters morally (more on this here) is the moment when the brain is sufficiently developed to give a being the ability to have any kind of experience (including but not limited to pleasure and pain). Before that, the foetus is just a living body with only the potential of becoming a sentient conscious person. There is no such thing as an “I” without a sufficiently developed brain that enables one to experience the world. Before that, a body (human or otherwise) cannot even care whether it exists or not, let alone will anything at all. One cannot harm that which cannot be harmed. But of course, Mr Abela must be a novice in philosophy, so he does not address such pertinent questions that actually matter when dealing with topics such as the morality or immorality of abortion.

Mr Abela then tells us that he “repeatedly mentioned the words ‘adult human’ and also the fact that many things share the exact same physical concepts such as the wave-particle duality”. Yes, Mr Abela, and that’s exactly why in the absence of arguing for the assignment of rights to humans and not to non-humans (including objects), while repeatedly mentioning the similarities at the micro-level, your assertions may only conclude either that all material objects (including rocks) have rights, or none (including humans) do.

Then, he goes on to say that “by understanding that we're comparing human life at its earliest stages to an adult human, we can definitely say that they share some similarities. Both consist of matter that obeys the wave-particle duality, and their particles have mass => they warp space-time, and -both are human lives-. That is what differentiates rocks from human lives”.

So according to Mr Abela, the only difference between rocks and humans (and the one that matters morally) is that humans are humans and rocks are rocks. Not much of an argument is it? I, on the other hand, claim that the morally relevant difference between sentient humans (i.e. starting from mid-term foetuses, but definitely not before then, as the science shows) and rocks, is that the former have an experiential welfare (which makes rights matter to them) while the latter clearly don’t. My position is both rational and consistent. His is only based on prejudice. Any preconceived opinion that is not backed by rational arguments applicable to relevantly similar cases is just prejudice.

Mr Abela concludes by saying that “hence, if we consider the concise points (he) mentioned in the article, we can state that (all foetuses and adult humans) should both be treated equal with respect to the right to life given that all humans who have been born ‘are still different (as everything in the known universe, except identical particles)’. This means that even though all particles exhibit the wave-particle duality, there is an extra piece to the puzzle: both are human lives in space-time at any point in their history, from conception until their death”.

And there you have it, repeated ad nauseam. Humans have rights because they are humans. Move along all philosophers since Thales. You have wasted decades and centuries of thought and tonnes of paper on useless moral philosophy. All that was required was Abela’s seven words: “Humans matter morally because they are humans”. No further argument is necessary or perhaps even admissible.

“I hope that answers your question”, Mr Abela tells me. Well, actually it doesn't at all. You haven't even started yet. Keep in mind that in moral matters, science is as useless without philosophy as philosophy is without science. But perhaps I should let this pass and move on, since he clearly has no idea.

First published on Facebook on 21 December 2022.