Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice

[Hermit]

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."

They're not arbitrary. The boundary being fuzzy isn't equivalent to "arbitrary".

Our decisions on where the boundary is is arbitrary. Our reasoning behind those decisions is backfilling. Further, the criterion, personhood, sanctity of human life or whatever, itself is something we simply assert. Whatever it is, it shifts in place and time. What's more, as far as the sanctity of human life is concerned, reality makes a mockery of principle, more so in the past than in the first world today, to be sure, but that trend will go into reverse when we run out of fuel and water and when climate change makes this planet inhospitable. That applies to pre as well as post-natal human organisms.

[pErvinalia]

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."

They're not arbitrary. The boundary being fuzzy isn't equivalent to "arbitrary".

Our decisions on where the boundary is is arbitrary. Our reasoning behind those decisions is backfilling.

I disagree. Isn't the usual placement for the cutoff date based roughly on the age that a foetus could survive outside of the womb? That's neither arbitrary nor backfilling. I agree with you further on where you mention "personhood" (or even worse, "sanctity of human life"), but I don't know if that is the reason for the cutoff. It's certainly reasoning that I've heard from random people/commentators over the years. That may have been relevant way back when the age that a foetus could survive ex-womb was a lot closer to full-term, such that it could be argued that despite a foetus being non-viable outside of the womb it might have already reached conscious awareness and could be considered a "person".* Even then, I'm not convinced from seeing my own children when first born and for the next few weeks after that. There may have been some sense of conscious awareness in there, but it can't have been much. If it is the case that week old baby doesn't have any sense of 'self', then that makes using the point of birth as the conception of "personhood" arbitrary. In that case, it's so hard not to be arbitrary with such an abrupt boundary (at least to our sense).

*- These days, it's got to be exceedingly unlikely that, say, viable 30 week old foetuses (foeti? ) have attained meaningful consciousness.

[Hermit]

Isn't the usual placement for the cutoff date based roughly on the age that a foetus could survive outside of the womb?

Yes it is.

That's neither arbitrary nor backfilling

Why isn't it?

[pErvinalia]

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

[Brian Peacock]

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.

The phrase to focus on here is "selective abortion of otherwise 'wanted' offspring" I think. 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.

[Hermit]

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

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

[Brian Peacock]

Do ethical reasons or an ethical system count as personal whim or random choice? Are morals and ethics arbitrary in that sense?

Yeah, if life has no meaning then all meaning or significance we place on things is arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless, and yes, we may decide, for whatever social/cultural/economic/personal reasons that some things are OK and some things not, that, for example, the privileges and protections of personhood are only to be ascribed to those who've fought in the armed services, have voted at three general elections and are ginger. Similarly, we might collectively decide that killing someone because they're deformed or unloved is OK at any age, in the same way that past cultures have justified killing - for example, that ripping the still beating heart from the chest of a child bred for that purpose was OK.

By this light, all cultural, ethical, social, historical, etc, norms are arbitrary, and the embodiment of those norms in law is arbitrary too. Of course it's arbitrary - in the end we all die and all meaning dies with us. Libertarianism is arbitrary too in that sense, as is all political thought, and all social and personal interaction. But where does acknowledging that leave us, and where does it leave the ideas of rational choice, moral justification, and ethical judgement?

Ethics too are social constructs. They vary in time and place. I think you are now desperately flailing to find some objective criterion to peg the point at which we can distinguish between abortions that can be justified, and those that cannot. If you were not, you'd have stated it in your post instead of rambling. What do you mean with "if life has no meaning" anyway? Wanna tell me what it is? I mean what it really is - independent from whatever we may think it is?

I agree that morals and ethics are social constructs, subject to the vagaries of historical contingency and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune - but that does not rob them of their meaning, significance or importance in the context of their times, either now, in the psst, or in times to come.

I think abortion can be entirely justified, by degrees, depending on various factors in light of what we can factually account for at present. My criteria are varied and context dependent, some of which are: abortion on any grounds up to 16 weeks remains wholly within the realms of the personal choice of women as the foetus is incapable of independent existence and has no integrated central nervous system; 18-24 weeks is when most developmental abnormalities become apparent and while I have some issues with selective abortion on those grounds the foetus is still incapable of independent existence and so the choice remains with the woman - even as neurological development approaches completion; abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy, when the unborn are capable of independent existence, with varying degrees of medical intervention, is justified to ensure and protect the life of the mother, whereas abortion on the grounds of the mother deciding they don't want to be a mother to that child is problematic to the point were the rights of the unborn and the mother have to be balanced in favour of the unborn as individual entities capable of independent existence. Grey areas exist between these broad boundaries and all cases have to be considered on a case-by-case basis with a focus towards outcomes which cause the least harm.

You'll notice here that I withhold ascribing this notion of 'personhood' to clumps of cells up to 16 weeks, that I ascribe some aspects of personhood as those cells develop towards 24 weeks, and that essentially I ascribe the unborn in the last trimester of pregnancy the social construct of independent personhood (personhoodness, personhoodship, personhoodfulshipness !), with caveats.

So yeah, that's something I decide, therefore arbitrary, but only in the sense that it involves no timeless, context-independent absolutes and not in the sense of being unreasoned, random, or driven by ideology, pure sentiment, or capricious whim.

As to the 'meaning of life', well, that's for each of us to decide - but then again we have some basic agreement about the kind of things it entails---aside from what we personally bring to the table, as it were---in the form of a universal declaration of human rights. However, I feel that is probably a discussion for another day and another thread.

So we basically agree on the essence of what I am arguing. Cool.

I don't think we're that far apart - a matter of emphasis rather than substance perhaps.

[pErvinalia]

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

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

Because survivability is considered a good, and death is considered a bad.

[pErvinalia]

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.

The phrase to focus on here is "selective abortion of otherwise 'wanted' offspring" I think. 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.

It does, but that's essentially a societal problem. But even then, I really don't care one bit if a person aborts a foetus before the age it could be reasonably expected to survive, regardless of whether it is "healthy", disabled, male, female, 42-like, etc...

[pErvinalia]

@Hermit...

adjective
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision.

If there is a restriction (i.e you can't abort any foetus older than 26 weeks, say), then it isn't "subject to individual will or judgement without restriction".

[Hermit]

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

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

Because survivability is considered a good, and death is considered a bad.

"Considered" Like I keep posting: We make these thing up, then backfill with reasons. They don't necessarily make sense. Right now, for instance, it could be argued that every abortion enhances the survival chances of the human race.

[pErvinalia]

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

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

Because survivability is considered a good, and death is considered a bad.

"Considered" Like I keep posting: We make these thing up, then backfill with reasons.

No we don't. Read the definition of the word. It's not arbitrary.

[JimC]

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...

[Hermit]

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

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

Because survivability is considered a good, and death is considered a bad.

"Considered" Like I keep posting: We make these thing up, then backfill with reasons.

No we don't. Read the definition of the word. It's not arbitrary.

I've done better than that. I quoted the definition here, and it fits in the context I've used it right from the start.

[pErvinalia]

Ok 42.