tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post8232502610046999542..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Abortion and meta-ethical subjective relativismLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-6605286818548003852007-08-29T16:18:00.000-06:002007-08-29T16:18:00.000-06:00However, before the third trimester, it is NOT a S...<I>However, before the third trimester, it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC controversy.</I><BR/><BR/>You're probably right. I'm not myself qualified to judge.<BR/><BR/>Your comments in this regard are entirely appropriate, and not at all a hijack.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-87732327121005080132007-08-29T16:10:00.000-06:002007-08-29T16:10:00.000-06:00"The sentience of fetuses from 13-36 weeks is a ma...<I> "The sentience of fetuses from 13-36 weeks is a matter of scientific controversy."</I><BR/><BR/>There is undoubtedly a controversy.<BR/><BR/>However, before the third trimester, it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC controversy.<BR/><BR/>Show me evidence of higher cognitive function (not brainstem mediated twitches) prior to 20 weeks, and we can call it a scientific controversy.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, bit of a hijack, horse is thoroughly beaten, I'll stop after this... <BR/><BR/>I'm usually just lurking, but I am deeply concerned about how misinformation and deliberately manufactured controversy is used to reframe debate in this and other matters.GMHedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15622280456737660387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-47110020640189687062007-08-29T07:22:00.000-06:002007-08-29T07:22:00.000-06:00There's some question of whether ANY argument coul...<I>There's some question of whether ANY argument could be considered 'objective truth' applying 'subjective relativism'.</I><BR/><BR/>There's no question at all: No argument can establish the objective truth of a preference. Only the non-preferential physical facts of reality are matters of objective truth.<BR/><BR/><I>A Functioning Brain IS the standard we use at the other end of life to determine whether it's worth keeping someone alive.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course. I told you that I share your opinion about the neurological basis of personhood. I'm just saying that it's an <I>opinion</I>, a preference, not a physical fact.<BR/><BR/><I>Of course, 'objectively' it is extremely difficult to PROVE the existence of any subjective experience other than our own and even that is suspect...</I><BR/><BR/>That's simply not the case. It's no harder to prove the existence of subjective experience (so long as one does not define "subjective experience" as <I>a priori</I> mystical) as it is to prove the existence of gravity or atoms.<BR/><BR/>It's impossible to be <I>certain</I> that others have subjective experiences, but it's impossible to be certain about any scientific truth.<BR/><BR/>To summarize: It's a scientific truth that adult humans and human children older than about two are sapient, i.e. self-aware. It's a scientific truth that adults, children and infants are sentient, i.e. experience pain and pleasure. It's a scientific truth that embryos 12 weeks and younger are definitely not sentient. (The sentience of fetuses from 13-36 weeks is a matter of scientific controversy.)<BR/><BR/>It's also a matter of scientific truth that there are objective (non-minded) criteria that include adults, children, and infants as well as human fetuses, embryos and blastocysts, and include nothing else.<BR/><BR/>To disambiguate these two approaches, let's call the first criterion "sentience", and the second criterion "humanity".<BR/><BR/>It is a matter of opinion—and I want to stress that it's an opinion I personally share—and <I>not</I> scientific truth, that "sentience" is an essential criterion for <I>ethical</I> decisions about human beings.<BR/><BR/>However, to believe otherwise, to employ <I>only</I> the "humanity" criterion and completely ignore the "sentience" criterion for ethical decisions does not entail a logical contradiction, nor does it contradict any observed fact. As noted by you, me, and everyone else here, employing only the "humanity" criterion leads to some very bizarre conclusions about ethics, conclusions that we all find quite distasteful, but it is not in any sense "false".<BR/><BR/>(It is also the case that pro-life advocates appear to often buy into the "sentience" criterion, and go on to misrepresent the scientific truth (i.e. lie) to fallaciously include embryos and fetuses into the definition.)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-15740727572969586552007-08-29T06:20:00.000-06:002007-08-29T06:20:00.000-06:00"Not to be a devil's advocate, but your position a...<I>"Not to be a devil's advocate, but your position assumes that it's a matter of objective truth that personhood derives from neurology. While I happen to share that opinion, I don't think it's a matter of objective truth."</I><BR/><BR/>There's some question of whether ANY argument could be considered 'objective truth' applying 'subjective relativism'.<BR/><BR/>A Functioning Brain IS the standard we use at the other end of life to determine whether it's worth keeping someone alive.<BR/><BR/>I think as well that the lack of the mechanisms required to sustain a subjective, independent experience is a pretty big bright line. Of course, 'objectively' it is extremely difficult to PROVE the existence of any subjective experience other than our own and even that is suspect...<BR/><BR/>My argument is not a very 'abstract' (high level) argument - it mostly counters the visceral <I>"OMG - you're torturing and shredding BABIES!"</I> hysterics. Not even true in the second trimester. 1st Trimester? It's fingernail paring so far as inconveniencing another being is concerned. <BR/><BR/>Whereas, forcing a pregnancy to term very clearly 'inconveniences' if not fully threatens the life of another being<BR/><BR/>I don't see how the opposite position could be argued without invoking irrationality or sentimentality (<I>"it sorta LOOKS like a BABY!" "Yeah, so does a cabbage patch doll. Nobody's HOME."</I>)<BR/><BR/>Please understand too - I'm not talking about WANTED pregnancies here: a wanted fetus is imbued (completely externally!) with the hopes and dreams of the parents and is therefore an exceedingly precious thing.GMHedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15622280456737660387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-66386982102638819762007-08-28T15:20:00.000-06:002007-08-28T15:20:00.000-06:00Gregory: I don't agree with some posters that the ...<B>Gregory</B>: <I>I don't agree with some posters that the arguments on both sides of the debate are equally valid.</I><BR/><BR/>Not all the <I>arguments</I> are equally valid, but the ethical positions of both sides are fundamentally matters of opinion, not of objective truth.<BR/><BR/>You are of course absolutely correct that many pro-life advocates attempt to rationalize their ethical position using unsound science.<BR/><BR/><I>In other words, they aren't a 'person' in any non-religious sense of the word.</I><BR/><BR/>Not to be a devil's advocate, but your position assumes that it's a matter of objective truth that personhood derives from neurology. While I happen to share that opinion, I don't think it's a matter of objective truth.<BR/><BR/>There are nontrivial objective criteria which would put fetuses in the same class as born human beings and exclude all intuitively non-human entities. Such criteria would be no more arbitrary than the uncontroversial criteria that includes young children and excludes sapient adult animals such as chimps, orangs and dolphins.<BR/><BR/>The question of course, is which set of criteria to attach ethical importance to.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-4110788200065914732007-08-28T13:47:00.000-06:002007-08-28T13:47:00.000-06:00I like the basic premise of moving higher abstract...I like the basic premise of moving higher abstractions as a way of resolving the thorny issues.<BR/><BR/>I don't agree with some posters that the arguments on both sides of the debate are equally valid without allowing some extraordinary irrationality - ie: claiming some sort of mystical "ensoulment" at conception for instance (which is weak even theologically).<BR/><BR/>The bits that make a human brain "work", specifically a cortex, myelinization of nerves and the whole raft of neurotransmitter hormones (like Norepinephrine, Dopamine, Serotonin and the Neuromodulators) et al. are not fully in place until the THIRD trimester. Month 8 or so. <BR/><BR/>Igf we want to err on the VERY safe side (which I think makes senses here), most of the gross physical structures are present by the end of the 6th month or so. ALTHOUGH, there is NO reason to think that they function meaningfully at that time. Before that, Fetuses simply do not have the basic equipment required to experience ANYTHING. In other words, they aren't a 'person' in any non-religious sense of the word. Yes, they look superficially like a person, they are 'alive' in the sense that your pancreas is 'alive', but without the machinery of 'personhood' (a functioning Brain), they're just a complicated, non-viable collection of developing organs existing within the context of the mother (who IS, incontrovertibly, a person).<BR/><BR/>Quasi-Responsive movements and reflexes (which are demonstrably present quite a lot earlier - and which form the basis of some truly horrific propaganda, particularly the 'Silent Scream' images and all that hogwash) only require a rudimentary spinal chord and a thalamus.<BR/><BR/>Also, as a male who has to put up with NONE of this crap, I am unwilling to lend my voice (other than in a purely advisory capacity) to efforts to legislate against even late term abortions; even if I think they might be justified in the abstract.GMHedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15622280456737660387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-78802292954771848522007-08-28T13:17:00.000-06:002007-08-28T13:17:00.000-06:00Yes, I have run into the "pregnancy is punishment"...Yes, I have run into the "pregnancy is punishment" crowd when discussing abortion with pro-lifers. <BR/><BR/>The ultimate irony being that their attempts to keep sexual education out of schools and their attempts to spread MISinformation, such as saying that condoms are basically useless (thus inducing those who listen not to bother using them because why use them if they both make it feel less nice and also don't help anyway) results in more pregnancies. <BR/><BR/>That's why they are upset about birthcontrol pills and such - that takes away the "punishment" for having lots of fun sex. <BR/><BR/>Damn, where's that colony ship when I need it?DBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-26300255605984633802007-08-28T12:56:00.000-06:002007-08-28T12:56:00.000-06:00Kelly: I agree. I'm using "natural consequences" o...Kelly: I agree. I'm using "natural consequences" only in the descriptive sense, as opposed to artificial consequences such as imprisonment.<BR/><BR/><I>[T]he anti-choice side is really about punishment and using pregnancy as a way to subjugate women and maintain power.</I><BR/><BR/>No argument there.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-74339917046430129492007-08-28T12:52:00.000-06:002007-08-28T12:52:00.000-06:00I couldn't agree more, but I would like to add som...I couldn't agree more, but I would like to add something:<BR/><BR/><I>... and that women should suffer the natural consequences of their wrong acts by bearing the baby to term. </I> <BR/><BR/>For the anti-choice movement, pregnancy isn't so much a "natural consequence" as it is a social punishment enforced by the males who "know better" in a female's life. Tradition-based societies rely heavily on negative and demeaning stereotypes to keep women subordinate to men, who are generally seen as shepherds and caregivers, rather than partners and associates in the human experience. <BR/><BR/>Forcing a pregnant woman into either decision is morally reprehensible, but the anti-choice side is really about punishment and using pregnancy as a way to subjugate women and maintain power.Kellygorskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07757767910101757133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-44907382570658308062007-08-28T11:25:00.000-06:002007-08-28T11:25:00.000-06:00This is similar to an argument at Alas, a Blog.How...This is similar to an argument at <A HREF="http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/" REL="nofollow">Alas, a Blog</A>.<BR/><BR/>However, the fact that some people propose weak arguments for a proposition has no bearing on the truth of the proposition itself. After all, plenty of people made arguments intending to show how heavier-than-air flying machines could work, and the great majority of these arguments proved to be unfounded. What bearing did this fact have on evaluating the possibility of heavier-than-air flying machines in general?<BR/><BR/>That said, I find some merit in the rape exception to abortion bans. <BR/><BR/>While generally US tort law does not impose any duty to aid another person, it does impose a duty on parents/guardians to aid their children/wards. Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 314 and 314A (1965). Presumably this duty is imposed on the theory of consent: no one is required to become a parent/guardian, but if you do so choose, you assume certain obligations in the process. <BR/><BR/>What is the act by which one “chooses” to become a parent? Consensual sex seems to be one threshold. A father cannot absolve himself of legal liability to provide for his offspring simply by saying, after impregnating a women, that he does not consent to becoming a father. Legally the time for him to exercise his lack of consent was at the time of sex. I see no reason the law could not impose a similar requirement on the woman. <BR/><BR/>Of course, where sex occurs without consent, then this analysis no longer applies. At that point, standard assumptions about a duty to aid apply, and if the woman chooses no to extend aid to a fetus, that’s her choice. <BR/><BR/>Incest is a curious cultural taboo. Sure, incest increases the risk of birth defects, but as I understand it the risk isn’t greater than other legal behaviors, such as smoking or drinking while pregnant. Rather, I suspect the rationale for the incest exception is related to the rationale for the rape exception: Incest is assumed to be the result of rape, but we want to spare a woman the need to accuse a family member of rape. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately, I note that US tort law (and prudent sense) rarely imposes a duty for one anyone to dedicate their body to the service of another against that person’s will. We don’t require a parent to give a kidney, or even a pint of blood, to help an child, so why would we require a pregnant woman to dedicate her body for nine months for the aid of a child (even conceding the argument that a fetus is a child)? <BR/><BR/>Basically, anti-abortion laws resemble the draft. I don’t know that such intrusions on autonomy can never be justified, but it should require some extraordinary social emergency. If humans were dying out, maybe anti-abortion laws would be warranted in the interest of biological diversity. But that seems a pretty remote possibility today. <BR/><BR/>nobody.reallyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-78813322247378766732007-08-28T11:14:00.000-06:002007-08-28T11:14:00.000-06:00The whole problem with the abortion "debate" is th...<I>The whole problem with the abortion "debate" is that both sides are, depending on one's preferential beliefs, equally valid.</I><BR/><BR/>That's true, however, of many types of controversies, including, as noted, those such as freedom of speech, etc. which have to be resolved at a more general level of abstraction.<BR/><BR/><I>I am deeply uncomfortable with the possibility that our understanding of what the fetus experiences in utero is too minimal and that we have, in abortion, a colossal mistake.</I><BR/><BR/>I have to say, I don't share your discomfort. I feel pretty confident that experience is an abstract property of neurology, and that at least up through the first trimester, there's simply no neurology worth speaking of. If we are making any mistake here, it is ethical, not scientific.<BR/><BR/><I>[prohibition of abortion] is an unacceptable infringement upon their autonomy.</I><BR/><BR/>All laws entail an infringement of autonomy. It's worth noting that finding such infringement in this case acceptable or unacceptable is a <I>conclusion</I>, either by directly comparing the moral value of the life of the fetus to the mother's autonomy, or by indirectly, abstractly, comparing some principle with its antithesis.<BR/><BR/><I>This is exacerbated by an absence of universal, quality peri- and neo-natal health care; a cultural stigma for out-of-wedlock birth; the known links between unwanted children and being abused and the cycle this creates; the lack of comprehensive sex and sexuality education; and an effective, efficient adoption system where people (gay, straight, single, and unionized) who want to be parents can be parents and putting up a child for adoption is seen as an act of love instead of pathology.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think the issue of abortion is <I>exacerbated</I> by such considerations, I think fundamental anti-sex attitudes underly all of these positions. "Why should I spend my hard-earned money to take care of some immoral slut bitch's brats?"<BR/><BR/><I>Absent these, I have no choice but to privilege a woman's autonomy; to do otherwise is to turn, for some women, pregnancy into state-sanctioned chattel slavery.</I><BR/><BR/>That's another excellent general principle: it's pretty damn hard for me to tell the difference between compelled pregnancy and chattel slavery.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-12817657443652712112007-08-28T10:38:00.000-06:002007-08-28T10:38:00.000-06:00You're very right, Larry. The whole problem with ...You're very right, Larry. The whole problem with the abortion "debate" is that both sides are, depending on one's preferential beliefs, equally valid.<BR/><BR/>Abortion is, along with illegal immigration, the issue fraught with the most indecision and concern for me. I am deeply uncomfortable with the possibility that our understanding of what the fetus experiences in utero is too minimal and that we have, in abortion, a colossal mistake. But more than that, I fear that denying women a choice they have had for ages, especially when we can offer it to them far more safely than before, is an unacceptable infringement upon their autonomy.<BR/><BR/>This is exacerbated by an absence of universal, quality peri- and neo-natal health care; a cultural stigma for out-of-wedlock birth; the known links between unwanted children and being abused and the cycle this creates; the lack of comprehensive sex and sexuality education; and an effective, efficient adoption system where people (gay, straight, single, and unionized) who want to be parents can be parents and putting up a child for adoption is seen as an act of love instead of pathology. Absent these, I have no choice but to privilege a woman's autonomy; to do otherwise is to turn, for some women, pregnancy into state-sanctioned chattel slavery.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.com