Is Ron Paul the only GOP candidate that will legalize gay marriage?

[fredv3b]

Pip,

You are trying to argue about abortion. I do not want to argue about abortion, despite much thought about it over the years I remain uncertain about it. I am challenging you about your assertion that those who oppose abortion are arbitrarily limiting a woman's freedom. You have already made a good case why you disagree with them and why they are very much mistaken. However that is beside the point, I want to know why, you believe, that they are being arbitrary? Not why they are wrong but why they are being arbitrary?

Although I would rather not argue about abortion I will do you the curtesy of answering your questions.

Let's turn this around, tell me why a fetus should have rights? What makes it special, what makes it a person?

Good question. To be honest I don't have a good definition of being a person. However I think that having been physically born is an absurd criterion for rights. If a new born has rights then so must a full-term foetus. However just because it has rights does not necessarily mean that the mothers rights shouldn't over-ride them, it may just mean that others must respect those rights e.g. someone who assaults a pregnant woman and causes a still-birth might be guilty of murder.

I have argued for pain and consciousness as values that defer moral relevancy on living things, both things a fetus lacks.

How do you test for consciousness? Foetuses certainly do have limited responses to their environment, but on the other hand responses of the newborn are fairly limited. Pain requires a degree of consciousness to be able to experience it. Foetuses certainly will show an increase in heart-rate to stimuli that are painful to you and I, but on the other hand the same is true for patients under general anaesthesia. I would accept that prior to the formation of at least a rudimentary nervous system pain and consciousness are clearly impossible*, beyond that pretty early stage in development we are into a 'fuzzy area'. If we accept that newborn babies have consciousness and can feel pain then the same is true for full term foetuses. Therefore shouldn't they have rights? However...

The fetus has no rights, it is not a morally relevant person.

Assuming you mean all foetuses that is a very dogmatic statement which seems to sweep aside your consciousness and pain test and any fuzzy areas.

The right to the autonomous use of her body, not to be forced by society to be a vessel for others

One could equally argue that it was her rapist not society that forced her to be a vessel (rape is already illegal and strongly punished by society), if she was not raped then pregnancy is merely the consequence of her own actions.

Moreover, our society will certainly expect someone to take care of the babies. If we were to eliminate abortions in the developed world we would be tripling the number of children in the foster care programs.

As abortion increased so the number if babies available for adoption decreased and so the number of couples seeking fertility treatment increased. Many childless couples are reluctant to adopt a child rather than a baby due to the level of behavioural problems from their difficult pasts.

In any case, if society believes these foetuses have rights then ensuring such care is part of society's responsibility.

Not to mention the women who die from unsafe abortions when the practice is illegal, which accounts for 13% of maternal deaths worldwide (according to the WHO).

I would suggest the remedy is access to contraception rather than deciding that a foetus shouldn't have rights and that therefore abortion should be legal.

*I accept that those who wish to ban the 'morning-after pill' and very early stage abortions are being irrational.

[OrphanPip]

Pip,

You are trying to argue about abortion. I do not want to argue about abortion, despite much thought about it over the years I remain uncertain about it. I am challenging you about your assertion that those who oppose abortion are arbitrarily limiting a woman's freedom. You have already made a good case why you disagree with them and why they are very much mistaken. However that is beside the point, I want to know why, you believe, that they are being arbitrary? Not why they are wrong but why they are being arbitrary?

It depends on their views, not all disagreements with abortion are arbitrary. Many are though, the notion that there is something divine or special about an embryo after conception is mere superstition. These people made up a large portion of the resistance to stem cell research and abortion in the USA, and they make up the vast majority of people who oppose abortion before the first trimester. There is more reasonable opposition to late term abortion.

Good question. To be honest I don't have a good definition of being a person. However I think that having been physically born is an absurd criterion for rights. If a new born has rights then so must a full-term foetus. However just because it has rights does not necessarily mean that the mothers rights shouldn't over-ride them, it may just mean that others must respect those rights e.g. someone who assaults a pregnant woman and causes a still-birth might be guilty of murder.

How do you test for consciousness? Foetuses certainly do have limited responses to their environment, but on the other hand responses of the newborn are fairly limited. Pain requires a degree of consciousness to be able to experience it. Foetuses certainly will show an increase in heart-rate to stimuli that are painful to you and I, but on the other hand the same is true for patients under general anaesthesia. I would accept that prior to the formation of at least a rudimentary nervous system pain and consciousness are clearly impossible*, beyond that pretty early stage in development we are into a 'fuzzy area'. If we accept that newborn babies have consciousness and can feel pain then the same is true for full term foetuses. Therefore shouldn't they have rights?

Maybe, but are they any more conscious than a fish? Do we blink an eye at killing tuna by the thousands? They certainly aren't equivalent to even the most disabled of humans, they aren't even equivalent to most animals we kill regularly without remorse.

Assuming you mean all foetuses that is a very dogmatic statement which seems to sweep aside your consciousness and pain test and any fuzzy areas.

This is because I'm approaching it from two different ethical stances. Either the fetus is a person and we have to consider the rights of the mother versus the fetus. Or the fetus is not a person and it has no rights to consider. I tend to favour the second of those defenses of abortion and don't object to limits on late term abortion for practical reasons, because they are not likely to cause the societal and personal damage of complete bans on abortion. However, I am largely in agreement with the autonomy argument and I'm not sure I don't agree that even if the fetus has some base level of rights that those rights should ever trump the mother's. In Canada, it was the mother's right to autonomy that legalized abortion, not the argument that the fetus is not a person. In a legalistic society we have to take into account rights based arguments even when we don't necessarily accept the existence of those rights.

One could equally argue that it was her rapist not society that forced her to be a vessel (rape is already illegal and strongly punished by society), if she was not raped then pregnancy is merely the consequence of her own actions.

But who has the right to control for any use of one's body. We do not deny medical treatment to smokers with lung cancer. What about medically necessary abortions, if the choice is between the life of the mother or the fetus, should the mother's life not trump the fetus? Would we expect mothers to die for a fetus?

As abortion increased so the number if babies available for adoption decreased and so the number of couples seeking fertility treatment increased. Many childless couples are reluctant to adopt a child rather than a baby due to the level of behavioural problems from their difficult pasts.

In any case, if society believes these foetuses have rights then ensuring such care is part of society's responsibility.

Yes, but who does society shift this responsibility onto, mostly it is onto mothers. Adoption seems like a fine solution, but as the system is set up now there is barely any effective treatment. Also, it is much easier on mothers to abort a 1st trimester fetus than it is to give a child up for adoption and have to wonder about it their entire lives. It is better for mothers to have the option of both.

I would suggest the remedy is access to contraception rather than deciding that a foetus shouldn't have rights and that therefore abortion should be legal.

*I accept that those who wish to ban the 'morning-after pill' and very early stage abortions are being irrational.

It's hard to imagine how we could make access to contraception in the West any greater than it already is. Promoting adherence can only go so far, and mistakes will happen no matter what. Then of course we have the issue of victims of rape, and those who need abortions for medical reasons.

[fredv3b]

On another note, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for someone who is anti-abortion because of their views on abortion which limit the rights of women. There is something to the fact that someone willing to arbitrarily limit the rights of one group is quite likely to turn around and arbitrarily limit the rights of another. However, depending on your views abortion may not fall under that category.

It depends on their views, not all disagreements with abortion are arbitrary. ...... There is more reasonable opposition to late term abortion.

If by that you accept that there are (would-be) politicians that have reasonable opposition to abortion and that there is no reason in principle to suspect they will arbitrarily limit the rights of another group (although, in practice, their reasoning should be carefully examined as should their views on other unpopular groups), then I have no argument with you.

This is because I'm approaching it from two different ethical stances. Either the fetus is a person and we have to consider the rights of the mother versus the fetus. Or the fetus is not a person and it has no rights to consider.

Fair enough, it would have been helpful to have more clearly separated your arguments.

I tend to favour the second of those defenses of abortion and don't object to limits on late term abortion for practical reasons, because they are not likely to cause the societal and personal damage of complete bans on abortion.

I can understand why you may not strongly object to limits on late term abortions. However one believes that a foetus should not have any rights then any limit on abortion is plain irrational and unjustified.

But who has the right to control for any use of one's body. We do not deny medical treatment to smokers with lung cancer.

I do not follow what you are alluding to.

What about medically necessary abortions, if the choice is between the life of the mother or the fetus, should the mother's life not trump the fetus? Would we expect mothers to die for a fetus?

In those rare circumstances where the mother could die but the foetus could survive (usually if the mother dies so does the foetus), then it is a case of the right to life of one vs the right to life of another. The same right of each individual is incompatible. I do not see any rational reason for society to favour the foetus's right to life. (Whereas I do see there is a rational argument that a foetus's right to life should take precedence of a mother's right to liberty.)

It's hard to imagine how we could make access to contraception in the West any greater than it already is.

I was replying to your note about maternal deaths worldwide as a result of abortion.