Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice

[Hermit]

Because "survivability" is a reasoned parameter. It's not arbitrary.

And survivability is not an arbitrary criterion because...?

It is arguable, and not set in concrete, but it is based on a reasoned position, rather than random choice. So, not arbitrary...

How many more times...

Yes, there is reasoning behind all choices one makes in regard to abortions. It's backfill.

[pErvinalia]

You're carting those goalposts around. If you want to prove your case, you'll have to start with proving it's "backfill".

[JimC]

If that is "backfill", then any attempt to make a reasoned position on any issue, making use of at least some observable facts, must be regarded as arbitrary, and thus dismissed. That way lies utter nihilism, and the end of reason...

[Brian Peacock]

What do you think moral reasoning backfilling from Hermit? Mawkish sentitmentality, capricious whim, tradition, evolved responses and predispositions, etc, or something else? What consequences do you think 'backfilling' has as far as morals and ethics go?

[JimC]

If Hermit is merely wanting to say that any particular position on abortion, particularly any limitations on when it is allowed is not a moral absolute, then fair enough. But he seems to want to pursue it a great deal further...

[Hermit]

If that is "backfill", then any attempt to make a reasoned position on any issue, making use of at least some observable facts, must be regarded as arbitrary, and thus dismissed. That way lies utter nihilism, and the end of reason...

Or you could begin a discussion on whose backfill is preferable. There will be no recourse to some kind of ultimate arbitrator (teehee ) of course, but if anybody can't live with that, that's just bad luck for him or her - unless one quite unexpectedly turns up.

[Hermit]

What do you think moral reasoning backfilling from Hermit? Mawkish sentitmentality, capricious whim, tradition, evolved responses and predispositions, etc, or something else? What consequences do you think 'backfilling' has as far as morals and ethics go?

Anything that comes to hand, really. Human rationality is vastly overrated. Just look at pErvin, for example. He mixes anger, abuse, bile and hot air, then labels it "my reasoning".

The consequences are what you say they are, and what you say they are in turn depends on where you're coming from. Someone who gets his morals out of the Bible will undoubtedly think they are the bee's knees of virtue. Richard Dawkins types might not entirely agree.

[Hermit]

If Hermit is merely wanting to say that any particular position on abortion, particularly any limitations on when it is allowed is not a moral absolute, then fair enough. But he seems to want to pursue it a great deal further...

No, I actually do not. My first post on the issue stands on its own, and I don't know where you have found words in subsequent posts where I have as much as hinted at wanting to pursue it a great deal further, whatever "it" is supposed to be.

[pErvinalia]

What do you think moral reasoning backfilling from Hermit? Mawkish sentitmentality, capricious whim, tradition, evolved responses and predispositions, etc, or something else? What consequences do you think 'backfilling' has as far as morals and ethics go?

Anything that comes to hand, really. Human rationality is vastly overrated. Just look at pErvin, for example. He mixes anger, abuse, bile and hot air, then labels it "my reasoning".

Anger, abuse and bile are not mutually exclusive from 'reason'. That you didn't know that tells me a lot about "your reasoning". Just look at Cali and Hack.

The consequences are what you say they are, and what you say they are in turn depends on where you're coming from. Someone who gets his morals out of the Bible will undoubtedly think they are the bee's knees of virtue. Richard Dawkins types might not entirely agree.

That's nice, but basing it on the cut-off point (albeit fuzzy) of survivability isn't "arbitrary".

[pErvinalia]

If Hermit is merely wanting to say that any particular position on abortion, particularly any limitations on when it is allowed is not a moral absolute, then fair enough. But he seems to want to pursue it a great deal further...

No, I actually do not. My first post on the issue stands on its own, and I don't know where you have found words in subsequent posts where I have as much as hinted at wanting to pursue it a great deal further, whatever "it" is supposed to be.

He's saying, in a nicer way, that you are sounding like a postmodernist where words don't have concrete meanings.

[Forty Two]

I think even Hermit accepts that as far as abortion goes things change as the pregnancy progresses...

What do you mean with "even"? I acknowledged as much in two consecutive posts: "A foetus ceases to be a foetus when we say it becomes a person." "The very fact that we choose one particular stage of development or another as a criterion for deciding if we are speaking of a foetus or a person is completely arbitrary." That things change is not an issue. To me, the issue is when and why abortion is (un)acceptable, and I argue that any criteria we use is arbitrary. This is why the timeframe ranges from never to always. It just depends whom you ask.

The fact that our decisions are arbitrary should not be surprising. We have no objective criterion by which we can say "at this particular stage of development the foetus becomes a person." Even if we did, what of it? The right to life of a human being is also something we just made up.

This is sort of true, although I don't think that any jurisdiction in western countries has a single gatekeeping "person law" which operates to give rights and protections of "personhood" at a given stage or when designated "person." The term "person" is often defined differently from law to law, and some laws use the term "human," others "human being" and others "person." Moreover, being a "person" doesn't mean being treated exactly the same as all other persons - even persons can be killed under legally allowed circumstances.

Also, not being a person does not mean the entity is irrelevant and without legal protection. Laws protect non-persons all the time. Animals, for example, are not persons, and it's very often illegal and punishable to harm or kill them. Even inanimate objects are protected from destruction.

I agree that the determination of when abortion is allowed is not "objective" or based on "objective criterion." However, things can be subjective and not arbitrary. In the case of a moral judgment, one can have a subjective opinion which is arbitrary (based on whim or random choice - just sort how one feels) or one can have a subjective opinion which is non-arbitrary (based on reasoned judgment given stated premises and proceeding to conclusions logically drawn from those premises). That's the same analysis that goes into deciding if, say, killing a 20 year old man under given circumstances is morally wrong - premises, and conclusions - reason. Even if others disagree with the rationale or challenge the basic premises, that doesn't make the judgment arbitrary. There can be two different moral judgments which are mutually incompatible, but neither of which is arbitrary.

[Forty Two]

Personally I have a more of problem with the selective abortion of otherwise 'wanted' offspring because some kind of risk or abnormality is has been flagged up. In some parts of the world abnormalities as mild as being female are enough for parents to seriously consider abortion, but more commonly it's things like congential or hereditary conditions and serious developmental abnormalities that are used to justify a termination. There are boundaries and cut-offs to be decided here, but that 'not normal' covers a lot of ground in this regard.

What difference does the reason make? You either support abortion on the grounds that a foetus before a certain point isn't deemed a person, or you don't. You are sounding like a pro-lifer, imbuing a foetus that you would otherwise consider a non-entity with a nebulous time travelling life force from the future.

I think the reason can make a difference. Sex selection via aborting, for example female foetuses produces significant social problems (as in China today). I would not accept it to be a valid reasons for abortion, because of such consequences.

Then this would vitiate the argument that a woman may abort "because she can do whatever she wants with her own body." She can only do what she wants with her own body, in your view, if she does it for the right social reason. Check the box for "____ no reason, personal whim" and she gets the abortion. Check the box for "____ I'm a radical intersectional feminist and I don't want to have a boy" and abortion is prohibited. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2690395/u ... e-streets/

That being said, I do agree with you ,in that the law may make policy judgments in this regard - and discrimination laws may well be applied. There is no inherent reason why the analysis must only be "is it a person? Then no abortion. If not, then abort at will." Persons are not automatically protected, and non-persons are not automatically subject to outlawry. The person/nonperson debate is really the problem, as both sides set up camp and nobody can cross the river between them. Unless one can acknowledge that a thing can be a foetus AND protected by law under given circumstances, or a person AND not protected by law under given circumstances, there is no compromise possible.

[Forty Two]

My problem is not that I think it should be forbidden, but that it speaks to people's preconceptions of disability and general views towards disabled people, gender, and 'difference' etc.

I always wince a bit at the idea of using the law to police people's preconceptions and views.

While I want people to view disabled people kindly and without unreasonable categorical discrimination, and I think everyone should be kind and generous toward disabled people -- I am guarded against the idea that the state would be the arbiter of pre and other conceptions, and views toward anything. There lies a dangerous road.

[Forty Two]

And survivability is not an arbitrary criterion because...?

...it's based on the rationale that prior to that point during pregnancy, the fetus is at a stage of development where it is closer to a part of the woman's body, inseparable from it, whereas once it can survive outside it has become more like a separate entity.

[pErvinalia]

My problem is not that I think it should be forbidden, but that it speaks to people's preconceptions of disability and general views towards disabled people, gender, and 'difference' etc.

I always wince a bit at the idea of using the law to police people's preconceptions and views.

While I want people to view disabled people kindly and without unreasonable categorical discrimination, and I think everyone should be kind and generous toward disabled people -- I am guarded against the idea that the state would be the arbiter of pre and other conceptions, and views toward anything. There lies a dangerous road.

Damn, me and 42 are in agreement again..