« Help a Philosopher Fight Leukemia and Lymphoma | Main | Bienvenidos Desert Landscapes »
June 4, 2004
Sorites in the Senate
The Rough Woodsman presents a battle between Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Barbara Boxer over partial birth abortion. What struck me as hilarious in this exchange was that it's a classic example of a sorites series from one party with the usual resistance to engage in the discussion from the other.
Here's the transcript: Sen. Santorum: Once the baby is born, is completely separated from the mother, you will support that that baby has, in fact, the right to life and cannot be killed? You accept that; right? Sen. Boxer: I don't believe in killing any human being. That is absolutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure. Sen. Santorum: So you would accept the fact that once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed? Sen. Boxer: I support the right -- and I will repeat this, again, because I saw you ask the same question to another senator-- Sen. Santorum: All the person has to do is give me a straight answer, and then it will be very clear to everybody. Sen. Boxer: And what defines "separation"? Define "separation." You answer that question. You define it. Sen. Santorum: Well, let's define that. Okay, let's say the baby is completely separated. In other words, no part of the baby is inside of the mother. Sen. Boxer: You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's arms? That baby is a human being. Sen. Santorum: Well, I don't know if it's necessarily in its mother's arms. Let's say in the obstetrician's hands. Sen. Boxer: It takes a second, it takes a minute. I had two babies, and within seconds of their birth-- Sen. Santorum: We've had six. Sen. Boxer: Well, you didn't have any. Sen. Santorum: My wife and I had babies together. That's the way we do things in our family. Sen. Boxer: Your wife gave birth. I gave birth. I can tell you, I know when the baby was born. Sen. Santorum: Good! All I am asking you is, once the baby leaves the mother's birth canal and is through the vaginal orifice and is in the hands of the obstetrician, you would agree that you cannot abort, kill the baby? Sen. Boxer: I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born, and would then have every right of every other human being living in this country. And I don't know why this would even be a question, to be honest with you. Sen. Santorum: Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the senator from California, if the baby was born except for the baby's foot, if the baby's foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed? Sen. Boxer: The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question. Sen. Santorum: I am asking you to define for me what that is. Sen. Boxer: I don't think anybody but the senator from Pennsylvania has a question with it. I have never been troubled by this question. You give birth to a baby. The baby is there, and it is born. That is my answer to the question. Sen. Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born-- Sen. Boxer: "The process of being born." This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn't obvious. Sen. Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby's foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed. Sen. Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way! Sen. Santorum: I am asking. Sen. Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born. Sen. Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that? Sen. Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother's body. The baby is born. Sen. Santorum: I am not going to put words in your mouth. Sen. Boxer: I hope not. Sen. Santorum: But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby's toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby. Sen. Boxer: Absolutely not. Sen. Santorum: OK. So if the baby's toe is in, you can't kill the baby. How about if the baby's foot is in? Sen. Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements. Sen. Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here. Sen. Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions! Both senators reveal some simple-mindedness in this debate. Boxer's position is a fairly bad version of a pro-choice view, i.e. that a fetus isn't a human being immediately before birth and then immediately upon birth is, with no acknowledgement of a process of birth during which the partial-birth abortion procedure would take place (either that or she's an epistemicist frustrated by the fact that explaining her position in the Senate wouldn't exactly be easy, but somehow that seems unlikely). She also doesn't seem aware of the distinction pro-choice philosophers created in the 1970s between being a human being and being a person. Santorum, on the other hand, doesn't seem to show any awareness of more sophisticated positions that could, if their holder were smarter than Boxer, avoid his argument (though admittedly they involve premises she doesn't seem to want to grant, e.g. that a newborn isn't a person either, that whether it's ok to kill something isn't dependent on personhood alone, etc.). How can someone be in the United States Senate as long as these two have and be as unfamiliar such basic arguments in the abortion debate as the points made by Judith Jarvis Thomson?
Posted by Jeremy at June 4, 2004 12:59 PM
Trackback Pings
Send TrackBack to this page:
http://movabletype.ektopos.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.r120.cgi/1426
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sorites in the Senate:
» Sorites in the Senate from Parablemania
I just said that I'd continue my discussion of Ochuk in my next post, but as I was writing that next post I decided that it would be better to post this first. I posted this at OrangePhilosophy already, but... [Read More]
Tracked on June 4, 2004 1:33 PM
Comments
Wow, that's an embarrassing (but entertaining) exchange. I can't believe Rick 'next thing it's bestiality' Santorum would come out looking better than any interlocutor, even Boxer, who I voted for once. Ick.
Posted by: marksteen at June 5, 2004 10:37 AM
Santorum wasn't arguing that legalizing homosexual sex would cause the legalizing of bestiality. He just thought the same principle for legalizing one would provide a reason to legalize the other, which he took to be a reductio of legalizing the one. As you know, this is something even our own philosophy grad students were fairly divided on (i.e. whether the same moral principles give the same result in both cases), though I think everyone in the debate agreed that homosexual sex should be legal.
I think Santorum was widely misinterpreted and misrepresented on this issue. I don't agree with everything he said in that speech, but his general point is defensible.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at June 5, 2004 10:53 AM
Well, if there's a misinterpretation, then it is understandably due to being quoted out of context. Do you know where the transcript of that is? (don't go looking for it, just in case you know)
Posted by: marksteen at June 5, 2004 11:06 AM
I don't offhand know, but I remember blogging about it back in the early days of my blog. Since I've transferred all the old entries, you can search for his name and probably find every time it appears.
My search function actually searches all the Ektopos blogs, and if the OrangePhilosophy one works the same way you can probably even search from here.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at June 5, 2004 11:45 AM
The "man on dog" comments had to do with marriage; on the other hand I do not think that context makes Santorum look better. He does explicitly equate homosexuality with priestly pedophilia cases, and he brings homosexuality up without being prompted.
Posted by: Matt Weiner at June 7, 2004 7:09 PM
He said priests' paedophilic relations with post-pubescent males is a kind of homosexual relation. He doesn't equate homosexuality in general with those cases. Look back at the order he puts it in. He does miss the fact that the standard liberal view of sex has resources to say some of these cases are morally wrong while not saying that of homosexual relationships in general, but he doesn't equate these particular kinds of homosexual relationships with all homosexual relationships.
His point about the sodomy law really was that if a right to homosexual sodomy is based purely on a right to privacy, that should theoretically also give a right to all those other things on the same grounds, and he's right about that. Of course, privacy isn't the only consideration. Harm and consent also enter in, and you might think it's worth restricting some of those acts on those grounds.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at June 7, 2004 9:54 PM
Well, I do think that the following:
In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship
constitutes an equation of the relations with post-pubescent males with homosexuality in general, since "basic homosexual relationship" seems to be used to describe the priests's conduct. Probably I shouldn't have described it as an explicit equation.
I agree with your analysis of his argument about privacy, in any case; Santorum is arguing that privacy means anything goes, but he's overlooking some arguments.
Posted by: Matt Weiner at June 8, 2004 2:45 PM
I think what he meant isn't that it's just like every other homosexual relationship but that it is a basic homosexual relationship, just as the Greek equivalent was. With little kids, it isn't. It's not a relationship between people two people who can reciprocate, and this is. It's under the age of consent, but that doesn't mean there isn't the basic relationship to it. I don't think he meant anything more than that (and I think it's uncharitable to attribute to him any more than that).
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at June 8, 2004 3:04 PM