Speaking Of ‘Based On Belief’

Posted on | April 14, 2010 | 75 Comments

by Smitty

Salon again, this time Tracy Clark-Flory, emphasis mine:

On Tuesday morning, Nebraska passed a bill outlawing abortions at 20 weeks based on the belief that fetuses begin to feel pain at that stage.

Couple of questions:

By what magic means does a fetus become a baby?
By what additional magic means does nerve tissue incapable of transmitting the information we call ‘pain’ suddenly acquire the ability to do so?

Repeat after me: life is life is life.
The intellectual capacity of humans to create artificial distinctions through the power of language does not, itself, render those artificial distinctions valid.

Category: Abortion

Comments

75 Responses to “Speaking Of ‘Based On Belief’”

Mr Black
April 17th, 2010 @ 10:39 am

Lets say that my religion states that god only delivers a soul to a baby when it takes its first breath and that before that it shares the soul of its mother. Thus an abortion is no different from getting a haircut in my gods view.

Now give that is the case, explain to me why your religious view deserves to be made law or deserves any kind of recognition what-so-ever while mine doesn’t?
smitty
April 17th, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

@Mr. Black,
This is a theologically fascinating viewpoint, but, again, you’ve kicked the discussion up to a mystical level.

I’ve been striving to keep things away from the mystical, and down at the intellectual level where we get to interoperate, regardless of worldview.

At that level, the heaviest argument to bring to bear is that I don’t want to pay for activities that I feel immoral. My most moderate posture is that the Federal Constitution should not be used as a means for either of us to coerce each others’ behavior.

If the citizens of a State decide that they want to protect life at all stages, then that is their political will.

Even though your god deems otherwise, I hope you can agree that conception as the starting point of life is a simple, rational, enforceable rule. I’ll grant, as Roe vs. Wade did, that the legal system can and does find other rules that are simple and rational, if not wildly immoral by the standards of some.

The burden of proof lies with your god to afford some higher-order explanation to the meaning of life that some how justifies the atrocity. I could give you mine, but I anticipate you’ve already heard them.
smitty
April 17th, 2010 @ 11:57 am

@Mr. Black,
This is a theologically fascinating viewpoint, but, again, you’ve kicked the discussion up to a mystical level.

I’ve been striving to keep things away from the mystical, and down at the intellectual level where we get to interoperate, regardless of worldview.

At that level, the heaviest argument to bring to bear is that I don’t want to pay for activities that I feel immoral. My most moderate posture is that the Federal Constitution should not be used as a means for either of us to coerce each others’ behavior.

If the citizens of a State decide that they want to protect life at all stages, then that is their political will.

Even though your god deems otherwise, I hope you can agree that conception as the starting point of life is a simple, rational, enforceable rule. I’ll grant, as Roe vs. Wade did, that the legal system can and does find other rules that are simple and rational, if not wildly immoral by the standards of some.

The burden of proof lies with your god to afford some higher-order explanation to the meaning of life that some how justifies the atrocity. I could give you mine, but I anticipate you’ve already heard them.
Dell
April 17th, 2010 @ 6:46 pm

“At the moment of conception, an egg has no human characteristics at all. No brain, no thought, no heart, no nervous system and so on.”

And a human is born with no kneecaps, a soft spot instead of a skull,undeveloped lungs, undeveloped EVERYTHING. Most humans aren’t fully developed until puberty, or beyond.

That argument is totally bogus; a self-serving reason to abort.
Dell
April 17th, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

“At the moment of conception, an egg has no human characteristics at all. No brain, no thought, no heart, no nervous system and so on.”

And a human is born with no kneecaps, a soft spot instead of a skull,undeveloped lungs, undeveloped EVERYTHING. Most humans aren’t fully developed until puberty, or beyond.

That argument is totally bogus; a self-serving reason to abort.
Mr Black
April 18th, 2010 @ 1:45 am

On the second point I agree with you completely but on the first I think there is more difficuly in finding common ground. My own view is that as abortion is an elective surgery, no different than cosmetic surgery essentially, so there can be no justification for using taxation to pay for lifestyle choices. I’d guess neither of us would want to pay for our neighbors facelift, neighter of us should have to pay for any other kind of medically unnecessary procedures either. So while we conceive of the issue differently we can arive at the same place.

The problem I see is with defining some medical procedures as “immoral” as a justification for refusing other people to undergo them. Where would that lead for instance, if the jehovah’s witnesses refused to pay taxes because that money would pay for blood transfusions that are necessary during all kinds of life threatening operations? What about another sect refusing to pay taxes for organ transplants because they deem it immoral?

If you believe your moral objections are sufficient grounds to uphold a ban on abortion, why shouldn’t their objections (and the objections of every other religion) also be sufficient grounds to uphold bans on the procedures they find offensive to their morality? Privilaging your own moral view of medicine but denying the moral views of others is indefensible in this case.

This is why I choose to see abortion in biological terms and why I find the use of morality as a blanket to be thrown over the entire issue an invalid argument, even should I agree with the conclusions.

“You will obey my morality but I will not obey yours”

That is to me, a more dangerous road to go down than allowing abortion to be a personal choice. This is why it matters to me to know what is a person and what is a blob of cells. Biologically they are not the same. Morally you want them to be deemed the same but that leads to the problem I have covered here. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts regarding this.
Mr Black
April 17th, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

On the second point I agree with you completely but on the first I think there is more difficuly in finding common ground. My own view is that as abortion is an elective surgery, no different than cosmetic surgery essentially, so there can be no justification for using taxation to pay for lifestyle choices. I’d guess neither of us would want to pay for our neighbors facelift, neighter of us should have to pay for any other kind of medically unnecessary procedures either. So while we conceive of the issue differently we can arive at the same place.

The problem I see is with defining some medical procedures as “immoral” as a justification for refusing other people to undergo them. Where would that lead for instance, if the jehovah’s witnesses refused to pay taxes because that money would pay for blood transfusions that are necessary during all kinds of life threatening operations? What about another sect refusing to pay taxes for organ transplants because they deem it immoral?

If you believe your moral objections are sufficient grounds to uphold a ban on abortion, why shouldn’t their objections (and the objections of every other religion) also be sufficient grounds to uphold bans on the procedures they find offensive to their morality? Privilaging your own moral view of medicine but denying the moral views of others is indefensible in this case.

This is why I choose to see abortion in biological terms and why I find the use of morality as a blanket to be thrown over the entire issue an invalid argument, even should I agree with the conclusions.

“You will obey my morality but I will not obey yours”

That is to me, a more dangerous road to go down than allowing abortion to be a personal choice. This is why it matters to me to know what is a person and what is a blob of cells. Biologically they are not the same. Morally you want them to be deemed the same but that leads to the problem I have covered here. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts regarding this.
Mr Black
April 18th, 2010 @ 1:52 am

Oops, I was refering to this statement in my reply.

At that level, the heaviest argument to bring to bear is that I don’t want to pay for activities that I feel immoral. My most moderate posture is that the Federal Constitution should not be used as a means for either of us to coerce each others’ behavior.
Mr Black
April 17th, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

Oops, I was refering to this statement in my reply.

At that level, the heaviest argument to bring to bear is that I don’t want to pay for activities that I feel immoral. My most moderate posture is that the Federal Constitution should not be used as a means for either of us to coerce each others’ behavior.
smitty
April 18th, 2010 @ 2:16 am

My own view is that as abortion is an elective surgery, no different than cosmetic surgery essentially, so there can be no justification for using taxation to pay for lifestyle choices. I’d guess neither of us would want to pay for our neighbors facelift. . .
That is a logical conclusion of a reductionist viewpoint.

The problem I see is with defining some medical procedures as “immoral” as a justification for refusing other people to undergo them. Where would that lead for instance, if the jehovah’s witnesses refused to pay taxes because that money would pay for blood transfusions that are necessary during all kinds of life threatening operations? What about another sect refusing to pay taxes for organ transplants because they deem it immoral?
If you believe your moral objections are sufficient grounds to uphold a ban on abortion, why shouldn’t their objections (and the objections of every other religion) also be sufficient grounds to uphold bans on the procedures they find offensive to their morality? Privilaging your own moral view of medicine but denying the moral views of others is indefensible in this case.
Oh, do you mean the way that the Amish don’t contribute to Socialist Security?

This is why I choose to see abortion in biological terms and why I find the use of morality as a blanket to be thrown over the entire issue an invalid argument, even should I agree with the conclusions.
“You will obey my morality but I will not obey yours”
How, pray tell, do you assert your analysis superior? I’ll offer you a deadlock at the intellectual level. Let’s call it even, and support individual responsibility.

That is to me, a more dangerous road to go down than allowing abortion to be a personal choice. This is why it matters to me to know what is a person and what is a blob of cells. Biologically they are not the same. Morally you want them to be deemed the same but that leads to the problem I have covered here. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts regarding this.
Really, we’re boiling down to “Does not/Does too” here. Life is life is life, as I stated in the original post. That you can make blurry developmental distinctions about various stages, rather like Monet working out on a haystack, I shan’t deny. But I don’t think that gives you any needle in that haystack which points to a moment when blob goes to person. Further, I don’t that such a distinction justifies the destruction of life, as if you were somehow not life between conception and birth when you gestated in your mother. You were certainly not dead, were you? Are you magically purporting some womb-purgatory state for yourself when you were in ‘blob of cells’ mode?
The real problem here is that the scope of government has crept beyond reasonable. While the answer to lousy free speech may be more speech, the answer for lousy legislation is not more legislation. In particular, robbing from Peter to pay for Paul’s abortion is, itself, a policy abortion. And letting that crappy policy die, regardless of trimester, is at last, an abortion I can support and encourage.
smitty
April 17th, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

My own view is that as abortion is an elective surgery, no different than cosmetic surgery essentially, so there can be no justification for using taxation to pay for lifestyle choices. I’d guess neither of us would want to pay for our neighbors facelift. . .
That is a logical conclusion of a reductionist viewpoint.

The problem I see is with defining some medical procedures as “immoral” as a justification for refusing other people to undergo them. Where would that lead for instance, if the jehovah’s witnesses refused to pay taxes because that money would pay for blood transfusions that are necessary during all kinds of life threatening operations? What about another sect refusing to pay taxes for organ transplants because they deem it immoral?
If you believe your moral objections are sufficient grounds to uphold a ban on abortion, why shouldn’t their objections (and the objections of every other religion) also be sufficient grounds to uphold bans on the procedures they find offensive to their morality? Privilaging your own moral view of medicine but denying the moral views of others is indefensible in this case.
Oh, do you mean the way that the Amish don’t contribute to Socialist Security?

This is why I choose to see abortion in biological terms and why I find the use of morality as a blanket to be thrown over the entire issue an invalid argument, even should I agree with the conclusions.
“You will obey my morality but I will not obey yours”
How, pray tell, do you assert your analysis superior? I’ll offer you a deadlock at the intellectual level. Let’s call it even, and support individual responsibility.

That is to me, a more dangerous road to go down than allowing abortion to be a personal choice. This is why it matters to me to know what is a person and what is a blob of cells. Biologically they are not the same. Morally you want them to be deemed the same but that leads to the problem I have covered here. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts regarding this.
Really, we’re boiling down to “Does not/Does too” here. Life is life is life, as I stated in the original post. That you can make blurry developmental distinctions about various stages, rather like Monet working out on a haystack, I shan’t deny. But I don’t think that gives you any needle in that haystack which points to a moment when blob goes to person. Further, I don’t that such a distinction justifies the destruction of life, as if you were somehow not life between conception and birth when you gestated in your mother. You were certainly not dead, were you? Are you magically purporting some womb-purgatory state for yourself when you were in ‘blob of cells’ mode?
The real problem here is that the scope of government has crept beyond reasonable. While the answer to lousy free speech may be more speech, the answer for lousy legislation is not more legislation. In particular, robbing from Peter to pay for Paul’s abortion is, itself, a policy abortion. And letting that crappy policy die, regardless of trimester, is at last, an abortion I can support and encourage.
Mr Black
April 18th, 2010 @ 3:21 am

I really would like to clarify this point with you.

I asked why you believe your morality is sufficient justification to deny someone else a medical procedure yet you discount their morality as a basis for denying you a procedure? If the jehovahs witnesses succeeded in banning blood transfusions of all kinds at the state level as a “moral” imperative, would you support this as a matter of morality or would you fight it, privilaging your own particular views above those of everyone else?

I think we are in general agreement about the unnecessary growth in government size, power and instrusion into personal lives and decisions so we can put that issue to bed.
Mr Black
April 17th, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

I really would like to clarify this point with you.

I asked why you believe your morality is sufficient justification to deny someone else a medical procedure yet you discount their morality as a basis for denying you a procedure? If the jehovahs witnesses succeeded in banning blood transfusions of all kinds at the state level as a “moral” imperative, would you support this as a matter of morality or would you fight it, privilaging your own particular views above those of everyone else?

I think we are in general agreement about the unnecessary growth in government size, power and instrusion into personal lives and decisions so we can put that issue to bed.
smitty
April 18th, 2010 @ 3:50 am

Sure. I don’t see that there is a moral imperative to provide _anyone_ medical procedures. It’s certainly a great thing when you can, at an intellectual level. We can make all kinds of utilitarian arguments in favor.

When you use the ‘M’ word, all bets are off. Morality is among the most purely subjective things conceivable. This is as opposed to ethics, which operate at the intellectual level. I realize that the dictionary defines morality and ethics in a circular way, but we need to express these notions of what you or I ought to do objectively vs. what we feel like we ought to do subjectively.

How can you make a general rule about procedures? My father has helped make Marlboro rich. Should your wallet be held accountable for his lung cancer? Only if we go to a totalitarian state, wherein everyone is thoroughly constrained for diet and exercise, would this notion that we’re all one ant colony and should therefore pay for each others’ procedures somehow be tenable. True, that is the direction some would move us.

Now, answer my questions: if your state at conception was not ‘life’, and we can assume you were not dead, then what were you? And what means altered that state to life? Do you think these alterations similar to that moment when samples from the periodic table of the elements also became ‘life’?
smitty
April 17th, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

Sure. I don’t see that there is a moral imperative to provide _anyone_ medical procedures. It’s certainly a great thing when you can, at an intellectual level. We can make all kinds of utilitarian arguments in favor.

When you use the ‘M’ word, all bets are off. Morality is among the most purely subjective things conceivable. This is as opposed to ethics, which operate at the intellectual level. I realize that the dictionary defines morality and ethics in a circular way, but we need to express these notions of what you or I ought to do objectively vs. what we feel like we ought to do subjectively.

How can you make a general rule about procedures? My father has helped make Marlboro rich. Should your wallet be held accountable for his lung cancer? Only if we go to a totalitarian state, wherein everyone is thoroughly constrained for diet and exercise, would this notion that we’re all one ant colony and should therefore pay for each others’ procedures somehow be tenable. True, that is the direction some would move us.

Now, answer my questions: if your state at conception was not ‘life’, and we can assume you were not dead, then what were you? And what means altered that state to life? Do you think these alterations similar to that moment when samples from the periodic table of the elements also became ‘life’?
Mr Black
April 18th, 2010 @ 4:26 am

I had not indicated that someone else had to pay for an “immoral” procedure in my example. It has already been established that we both agree, although for different reasons, that abortion should not be funded through taxation or coercion. I would assume however that you’d support measures intended to outlaw this procedure under any circumstances, regardless of who paid based purely on your belief that such a procedure is immoral for anybody to undergo.

That is the key point here. You would like to use state powers to enforce your moral views on others regarding abortions, I am trying to determine if you privilage your morals above all others or if you are consistent and thus would agree to place yourself at the mercy of anothers morals too. I’d expect not, nor would most of us. I would like to futher explore this, as it forms the basis of our disagreement on how exactly our own morals should be forced on an unwilling population.

Now, answer my questions: if your state at conception was not ‘life’, and we can assume you were not dead, then what were you? And what means altered that state to life? Do you think these alterations similar to that moment when samples from the periodic table of the elements also became ‘life’?

I never stated that an egg was not life, I stated that it was not a person. As humans we grant ourselves the privilage of freely terminating every other form of life on this planet except for each other so clearly meeting the minimum standard of “life” is insufficient grounds for moral protection by that standard. Personhood is what we protect, not life.

You grant yourself a religious privilage in deeming that an egg has a soul and that it is this soul that confers the notion of personhood upon the egg. Religious belief alone though cannot possibly be used to justify secular policy. Biologically however, that egg is not a person, just as biologically a caterpillar is not a butterfly even though one day it will be so. Without recourse to this notion of soul, there is nothing in biology to support the idea that an egg is a person. It may become one but it is in itself, not one. It is no more a person than your liver cells are a person until it develops its own sentience.
Mr Black
April 17th, 2010 @ 11:26 pm

I had not indicated that someone else had to pay for an “immoral” procedure in my example. It has already been established that we both agree, although for different reasons, that abortion should not be funded through taxation or coercion. I would assume however that you’d support measures intended to outlaw this procedure under any circumstances, regardless of who paid based purely on your belief that such a procedure is immoral for anybody to undergo.

That is the key point here. You would like to use state powers to enforce your moral views on others regarding abortions, I am trying to determine if you privilage your morals above all others or if you are consistent and thus would agree to place yourself at the mercy of anothers morals too. I’d expect not, nor would most of us. I would like to futher explore this, as it forms the basis of our disagreement on how exactly our own morals should be forced on an unwilling population.

Now, answer my questions: if your state at conception was not ‘life’, and we can assume you were not dead, then what were you? And what means altered that state to life? Do you think these alterations similar to that moment when samples from the periodic table of the elements also became ‘life’?

I never stated that an egg was not life, I stated that it was not a person. As humans we grant ourselves the privilage of freely terminating every other form of life on this planet except for each other so clearly meeting the minimum standard of “life” is insufficient grounds for moral protection by that standard. Personhood is what we protect, not life.

You grant yourself a religious privilage in deeming that an egg has a soul and that it is this soul that confers the notion of personhood upon the egg. Religious belief alone though cannot possibly be used to justify secular policy. Biologically however, that egg is not a person, just as biologically a caterpillar is not a butterfly even though one day it will be so. Without recourse to this notion of soul, there is nothing in biology to support the idea that an egg is a person. It may become one but it is in itself, not one. It is no more a person than your liver cells are a person until it develops its own sentience.
smitty
April 18th, 2010 @ 11:58 pm

I would assume however that you’d support measures intended to outlaw this procedure under any circumstances, regardless of who paid based purely on your belief that such a procedure is immoral for anybody to undergo.
Your attention is drawn to Romans 7:7-12. There are bazillions of things with which I disagree, but I don’t think you can legislate morality. If the people of a State want to outlaw abortion, fine. If it came up on a ballot, I might consider the arguments for and against in detail. However, I’m biased in favor of a libertarian indifference. Abortion, though morally reprehensible, is frequently symptomatic of other, central problems. Those problems are highly subjective, and do not lend themselves to generatlization in law. Outawing abortion is like outlawing broken bones by legislating casts on all limbs. Sure, in a perfect world, no one would break an arm, but is this really a good idea? Does the possibility of a Christian anti-Theocrat make your head ‘splode?

I never stated that an egg was not life, I stated that it was not a person. As humans we grant ourselves the privilage of freely terminating every other form of life on this planet except for each other so clearly meeting the minimum standard of “life” is insufficient grounds for moral protection by that standard. Personhood is what we protect, not life.
In the first place, I don’t like the use of the word ‘moral’ in the discussion, as that has such religious baggage attached. I’ll buy off that ethically we discriminate against other forms of life for food, and that we privilege human life for the most part, Donner Party notwithstanding or eating. The life/person dichotomy and the transition from animals to people seems a non-sequitur. Either we privilege people, or we don’t. Then again, placenta was a form of food. Your argument implies that rejoicing parents, free from being ‘punished’ with children, could get their Cronus on with full ethical chewing satisfaction. No, I won’t be doing that.
Also, if the notion of ‘person’ enters in, we have this subtle threat that all we have to do is get you to invalidate your ‘personhood’ in some way–plenty of chemicals can make you goofy for a while–and then terminate you. After all, if we’re going to make some flimsy legal definition (the exact nature of which you may not be able to define unambiguously) the basis for action, then we now have a tool with which to carry out all manner of mischief.
This ‘person’ slope is as slippery as the theocratic one, I fear.

You grant yourself a religious privilage in deeming that an egg has a soul and that it is this soul that confers the notion of personhood upon the egg. Religious belief alone though cannot possibly be used to justify secular policy. Biologically however, that egg is not a person, just as biologically a caterpillar is not a butterfly even though one day it will be so. Without recourse to this notion of soul, there is nothing in biology to support the idea that an egg is a person. It may become one but it is in itself, not one. It is no more a person than your liver cells are a person until it develops its own sentience.
Sure, the ‘necessary but not sufficient’ argument. Time, resources, protection from predators, and energy required.
Again, as a God-fearing individual, I do think that “God knew me in my mother’s womb”, but, taking the libertarian tack, don’t think that my moral assertion translates unambiguously into an ethical legislative formulation. No, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. I’m not Roman Catholic, and the very thought of Holy Tradition as a basis for deciding behavior worries me.
smitty
April 18th, 2010 @ 6:58 pm

I would assume however that you’d support measures intended to outlaw this procedure under any circumstances, regardless of who paid based purely on your belief that such a procedure is immoral for anybody to undergo.
Your attention is drawn to Romans 7:7-12. There are bazillions of things with which I disagree, but I don’t think you can legislate morality. If the people of a State want to outlaw abortion, fine. If it came up on a ballot, I might consider the arguments for and against in detail. However, I’m biased in favor of a libertarian indifference. Abortion, though morally reprehensible, is frequently symptomatic of other, central problems. Those problems are highly subjective, and do not lend themselves to generatlization in law. Outawing abortion is like outlawing broken bones by legislating casts on all limbs. Sure, in a perfect world, no one would break an arm, but is this really a good idea? Does the possibility of a Christian anti-Theocrat make your head ‘splode?

I never stated that an egg was not life, I stated that it was not a person. As humans we grant ourselves the privilage of freely terminating every other form of life on this planet except for each other so clearly meeting the minimum standard of “life” is insufficient grounds for moral protection by that standard. Personhood is what we protect, not life.
In the first place, I don’t like the use of the word ‘moral’ in the discussion, as that has such religious baggage attached. I’ll buy off that ethically we discriminate against other forms of life for food, and that we privilege human life for the most part, Donner Party notwithstanding or eating. The life/person dichotomy and the transition from animals to people seems a non-sequitur. Either we privilege people, or we don’t. Then again, placenta was a form of food. Your argument implies that rejoicing parents, free from being ‘punished’ with children, could get their Cronus on with full ethical chewing satisfaction. No, I won’t be doing that.
Also, if the notion of ‘person’ enters in, we have this subtle threat that all we have to do is get you to invalidate your ‘personhood’ in some way–plenty of chemicals can make you goofy for a while–and then terminate you. After all, if we’re going to make some flimsy legal definition (the exact nature of which you may not be able to define unambiguously) the basis for action, then we now have a tool with which to carry out all manner of mischief.
This ‘person’ slope is as slippery as the theocratic one, I fear.

You grant yourself a religious privilage in deeming that an egg has a soul and that it is this soul that confers the notion of personhood upon the egg. Religious belief alone though cannot possibly be used to justify secular policy. Biologically however, that egg is not a person, just as biologically a caterpillar is not a butterfly even though one day it will be so. Without recourse to this notion of soul, there is nothing in biology to support the idea that an egg is a person. It may become one but it is in itself, not one. It is no more a person than your liver cells are a person until it develops its own sentience.
Sure, the ‘necessary but not sufficient’ argument. Time, resources, protection from predators, and energy required.
Again, as a God-fearing individual, I do think that “God knew me in my mother’s womb”, but, taking the libertarian tack, don’t think that my moral assertion translates unambiguously into an ethical legislative formulation. No, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. I’m not Roman Catholic, and the very thought of Holy Tradition as a basis for deciding behavior worries me.
Mr Black
April 19th, 2010 @ 11:26 am

Also, if the notion of ‘person’ enters in, we have this subtle threat that all we have to do is get you to invalidate your ‘personhood’ in some way–plenty of chemicals can make you goofy for a while–and then terminate you.

I don’t think that particular fear is well justified. The line for being dead is already drawn at brain death, the same line I am using to define “not a person” prior to birth simply because there is no brain in the early stages. In either case it is the loss of or the lack of sentience that draws the distinction between personhood and non-personhood for me.

Now of course there will be other advocates who want to expand that line to “almost dead” as a justification for euthanasia of the obviously living but that is a different legal battle and I feel a different moral battle than this one. As a mostly libertarian thinking person I support the right to suicide as we are the ultimate owners of our own bodies however the experiences of the Dutch in particular worry me as to how it is used in practice when a 3rd party is empowered to make this decision.

Your argument implies that rejoicing parents, free from being ‘punished’ with children, could get their Cronus on with full ethical chewing satisfaction.

You are getting a little ahead of the game here. I’m not an advocate for on demand abortion nor do I feel children are in any way a punishment, let’s leave that sentiment to Obama (I think he spoke those words, yes?)

My position is one of resisting all forms of authoritarian law where the momral choices one group are forced upon the remainder of an unwilling population. I find the case for early term abortions quite easy to make on the basis of non-sentience and the case for late term abortions very difficult to make for the opposite reason. Between the two extremes I’m without the information necessary to make a sound judgement from facts.

I’d be perfectly happy though to live in a world were abortion were legal and easy in the early non-sentient stages while doctors and hospitals could refuse to perform the procedure in accordance with their moral views on it. My fear is where it can lead and what it means when government starts deciding what morality is for us, a fear you share it seems.
Mr Black
April 19th, 2010 @ 6:26 am

Also, if the notion of ‘person’ enters in, we have this subtle threat that all we have to do is get you to invalidate your ‘personhood’ in some way–plenty of chemicals can make you goofy for a while–and then terminate you.

I don’t think that particular fear is well justified. The line for being dead is already drawn at brain death, the same line I am using to define “not a person” prior to birth simply because there is no brain in the early stages. In either case it is the loss of or the lack of sentience that draws the distinction between personhood and non-personhood for me.

Now of course there will be other advocates who want to expand that line to “almost dead” as a justification for euthanasia of the obviously living but that is a different legal battle and I feel a different moral battle than this one. As a mostly libertarian thinking person I support the right to suicide as we are the ultimate owners of our own bodies however the experiences of the Dutch in particular worry me as to how it is used in practice when a 3rd party is empowered to make this decision.

Your argument implies that rejoicing parents, free from being ‘punished’ with children, could get their Cronus on with full ethical chewing satisfaction.

You are getting a little ahead of the game here. I’m not an advocate for on demand abortion nor do I feel children are in any way a punishment, let’s leave that sentiment to Obama (I think he spoke those words, yes?)

My position is one of resisting all forms of authoritarian law where the momral choices one group are forced upon the remainder of an unwilling population. I find the case for early term abortions quite easy to make on the basis of non-sentience and the case for late term abortions very difficult to make for the opposite reason. Between the two extremes I’m without the information necessary to make a sound judgement from facts.

I’d be perfectly happy though to live in a world were abortion were legal and easy in the early non-sentient stages while doctors and hospitals could refuse to perform the procedure in accordance with their moral views on it. My fear is where it can lead and what it means when government starts deciding what morality is for us, a fear you share it seems.
smitty
April 19th, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

@Mr. Black,
So, if it seems we can converge on a libertarian indifference, then the matter is more or less settled.

I can retreat to the obvious case that some people think various forms of abortion at least ethical, for all I can’t label it moral, ever.

I’m thankful that we’ve avoided trying to argue corner cases as if they were the majority.
smitty
April 19th, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

@Mr. Black,
So, if it seems we can converge on a libertarian indifference, then the matter is more or less settled.

I can retreat to the obvious case that some people think various forms of abortion at least ethical, for all I can’t label it moral, ever.

I’m thankful that we’ve avoided trying to argue corner cases as if they were the majority.
Mr Black
April 20th, 2010 @ 5:11 am

Sir, I do not believe that is how internet debates are concluded so…

You’re just wrong.

lol

It’s been enlightening and a pleasure.
Mr Black
April 20th, 2010 @ 12:11 am

Sir, I do not believe that is how internet debates are concluded so…

You’re just wrong.

lol

It’s been enlightening and a pleasure.

The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Speaking Of ‘Based On Belief’

Comments

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

THE PATRIARCH TREE

Recent Posts

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Search the Blog

Blog-Fu Ninja Masters

ADVERTISEMENT

Axis of Fedorables

AMAZING SAVINGS NOW!

Archives

Wombat's Wizards of Blog

SHOP NOW FOR AWESOME COMPUTER DEALS!

Can't Get Enough of That Hot Bloggy Stuff

Blogroll