Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice

[Brian Peacock]

Fair enough.

[JimC]

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.

Your definition of arbitrary may be a bit different to what most people here are using. To my mind, if someone wants to decide on some sort of a time limit for abortion, then they are not randomly going to choose from the numbers 1 week up to 38 weeks. Their choice (unless they totally oppose any form of abortion at all) will have some connection to the steadily developing complexity of the foetus. Different groups may indeed come to different time limits, so the choice is quite fuzzy, but it will have some connection to the biology of pregnancy. To me, arbitrary is not a term that fits this type of 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." Even if we did, what of it? The right to life of a human being is also something we just made up.

Your definition of arbitrary may be a bit different to what most people here are using. To my mind, if someone wants to decide on some sort of a time limit for abortion, then they are not randomly going to choose from the numbers 1 week up to 38 weeks. Their choice (unless they totally oppose any form of abortion at all) will have some connection to the steadily developing complexity of the foetus. Different groups may indeed come to different time limits, so the choice is quite fuzzy, but it will have some connection to the biology of pregnancy. To me, arbitrary is not a term that fits this type of choice.

You are right. If someone wants to decide on some sort of a time limit for abortion, then they are not randomly going to choose. (The range goes from never to any time, by the way.) The criterion used to decide when the unborn organism becomes a person, however, is arbitrary. Be it the moment of conception, when a heartbeat can be detected, a certain stage of the development of the nervous system, when the organism develops self-consciousness (which takes place somewhere between 18 and 24 months postpartum), there is no scientific basis to it. It's a value judgement, and that is arbitrary as any dictionary defines it: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

[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?

[Hermit]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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".

[JimC]

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.

[pErvinalia]

Was that Brian's objection, though? I doesn't read like that.

[JimC]

Was that Brian's objection, though? I doesn't read like that.

It was part of it, anyway - he brought up the issue in passing...

More broadly, although I support the right of women to choose abortion in general (given whatever time limits there is societal consensus for), I hope it to be used sparingly. It would not be in the interests of women's health if it were to become virtually a substitute for effective birth control...

[pErvinalia]

Here's what I accidentally posted in the wrong thread:
Just a bit more on the social consequences of favouring one sex over the other... That's an indication of a problem with a particular society. The answer to that is for government to address the reasons why that society finds males more valuable than females, not force women to give birth to a child that they may not want.

[JimC]

Here's what I accidentally posted in the wrong thread:
Just a bit more on the social consequences of favouring one sex over the other... That's an indication of a problem with a particular society. The answer to that is for government to address the reasons why that society finds males more valuable than females, not force women to give birth to a child that they may not want.

I agree that it is a reflection of some warped values (China in particular), but if such warping did not exist, parents would not be motivated to abort for such dodgy reasons.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's an issue of bad governance, not necessarily bad parenting. So the parents shouldn't really be 'punished' by being disallowed to abort what would otherwise be an abortive foetus if it wasn't for the failure in governance.

[Hermit]

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.