The Shotgun Blog
« Celebrating the Iron Lady | Main | Alberta NDP launch petition to protect teachers from “parental rights” in opposition to pro-family group »
Friday, May 08, 2009
Operating on a non-person
"Toronto doctors perform heart surgery on fetus." A wonderful accomplishment. A medical marvel. But, remember: in this crazy, mixed-up country of ours, that fetus was not a legal person. Accordingly, at any time between the life-saving operation and the due date, the mother could have changed her mind about carrying the child and aborted it. Completely legal. Mother's choice. End of story.
Crazy, mixed-up country....
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 8, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
And the abortion is covered (at least in most places) by public health care. Meanwhile, if someone who has fertility problems, they have to pay out of pocket $10,000+ dollars per try for fertility treatment. I can't figure out why no one has taken that one to the Human Rights Board (while other people take handwashing there).
Posted by: GF | 2009-05-08 11:31:01 AM
A crazy mixedup country is the result of a crazy mixed-up people. Technology, medical technology in this case, can be used for healing and good or for destruction; we have the choice to make. When doctors reject healing and preserving life to destroying life with our support, it indicates a society in decline. May we see more examples of technology being used for the good, as in this case.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-08 12:01:53 PM
I understand your opposition to abortion, Terry, but I don't understand the arguement you're making here.
Doctors operate on animals -- non-persons -- all the time. Even if a fetus is a non-person according to the law, it still has value, especially for the expecting parents. This value does not make the fetus a person, though.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 12:06:05 PM
"Completely legal. Mother's choice."
As it should be. The choice does not belong to you, your church, the courts, the government etc. etc. It belongs to each individual woman and quite frankly is none of your business.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-08 12:09:43 PM
Matthew,
My point is this: Currently, the way we view the unborn child changes merely on the intentions of the mother. This is ridiculous. If the mother wants to help the fetus and have it operated on, and if that operation is successful, it's a great triumph for modern medicine--and everybody gets all weepy-eyed. If she wants to kill the fetus or deny it any needed medical intervention, then we look the other way.
But this should not be solely about the mother. The fetus is not a farm animal. It is not mere property. It is 100% genetically human. It is alive and has a beating heart--in this case, one that needed repair. Human rights are for humans. The fetus is human.
I say these facts demand that Canadian law be changed to recognize fetal rights.
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2009-05-08 12:56:25 PM
Terry,
That's right, the mother's intention matters. In every case of property ownership, the owner's intention comes decides how we view things held by the owner.
The alternative is arresting moms who don't want to carry to term. That is, the choice is between self-ownership of rational adults and government ownership of rational adults.
Put another way, should women be temporary slaves of governments promoting Christian, Bahá'í, and Buddist ethics (in violation of liberal value neutrality) or should they be free and in control of their person at all times?
What is more important prohibiting abortion or self-ownership of rational adults?
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-08 1:14:03 PM
Terry,
With all due respect, I accept the earnestness of your convictions.
We can all agree that possessing human genes, and having a beating heart are necessary conditions for being a person, the fact is, there is a serious debate between camps on what the sufficient conditions for personhood are.
I note that many in the pro-life camp have only one necessary and sufficient condition to describe personhood, and that's having a fertilized egg. Given that in the naturalist sense, that's just as arbitrary a point as any, there's also a few things to consider for projecting that viewpoint.
For one, ninety percent of fertilized eggs never manage to implant in the uterine wall and end up being expelled from the body, resulting in the death of zygote.
Now, if the metaphysical assertion that a soul is born at the point of conception is true--then it logically follows that there are 9 unborn souls in the afterlife for every 1 born soul--even without abortion!
The argument that I get back is that we have no right to judge "God's ways" is not really satisfactory to an atheist like myself.
Now, I'm not saying this is what you're saying Terry, but it's what a lot pro-life people argue to me, so I'm projecting a bit on that basis.
You're calling for the government to uphold this metaphysical assertion, that a fetus is a person by making what is essentially an emotional appeal and an argument you evidently think is prima facie.
I'm confused as to why intelligent pro-life people always speak as if the personhood of a fetus is prima facie. It clearly isn't. For it to be, would rely on the universal acceptance of very specific metaphysical assertions about the sanctity of life, the nature of life, and the definition and scope of personhood.
My problem with people in the pro-life camp, is they take all these premises and assumptions for granted and simply rely on emotional arguments to try and convince people.
"It has a beating heart", "It looks like a tiny human", "It has a functioning nervous system", "It twitches and moves!".
It does not logically follow, from any of the arguments, that something possessing these traits is a "person". Rather, these are principally all emotional appeals.
It goes without saying that if emotional appeals were sufficiently overwhelming and compelling, there would not be such disagreement among people like myself would not reject them so directly.
This is why I've never understood why socialists and many socons don't get along better. They both rely heavily on arguments like: "have you no heart?"
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 1:33:11 PM
What constitutes a life worthy of legal protection -- personhood -- is an unavoidable legal question, and an important one.
Animal rights advocates argue that many animals have a meaningful biographical life worthy of legal protection. Pro-lifers argue that the fetus is undeniably human life and therefore worthy of protection.
The abortion debate forces us to examine some fascinating questions about who should "count" in moral discussions, as Narveson put it.
Thanks for your post, Terry. I'm sure the comments will be interesting.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 2:02:09 PM
The question of personhood is one the foremost important legal questions we face. Period. You'll get no disagreement from me there.
I will only say this, however: extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence; if the zygote is a person -- which is an extraordinary claim -- considering it's smaller than a grain of sand, then it requires extraordinary evidence to affirm this statement.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 2:12:16 PM
"In every case of property ownership, the owner's intention comes decides how we view things held by the owner."
With this statement Robert Seymour makes a defence of modern slavery.
Parents don't own their children, born or unborn. Ever. Though I suppose Robert might argue that the unborn child is not a person, which brings us right back to the question of what the woman could possibly have "ownership" over?
Posted by: Andrea Mrozek | 2009-05-08 2:17:47 PM
"Parents don't own their children, born or unborn. Ever." -- Andrea Mrozek
This is true and consistent with libertarian ideas about the relationship between children and parents, even unborn children. However, this truth would not necessarily exclude abortion as a legal option.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 2:22:53 PM
I have a question - a sincere one - that may help focus the discussion. Take the following two premises:
1. Morally speaking, fetuses are persons (perhaps after a certain stage of development, perhaps not.)
2. Women own their bodies, and as such have the "right to exclude" other persons from making use of their property without their consent.
(In support of 2, I offer the typical libertarian conception of property, which does come with an absolute right to exclude.)
Are these two premises consistent? Couldn't they both be true? If so, couldn't one make an argument supporting abortion rights purely on the basis of the second premise?
Is the personhood question really all that important, if/once we endorse a libertarian view of self-ownership and property rights?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-05-08 2:34:00 PM
You don't have to believe that the right to exclude is "absolute," Terrence, to hold the view that the right to exclude should trump any questions about personhood in the case of abortion. (I know there is literally no principle you consider absolute -- and I know you're eager to bring up examples of what you think are failures inherent to property rights and libertarianism to advance a liberaltarian view of the state.)
Both "1" and "2" could be true and abortion could still be permissible on the grounds of "2." That is correct. It's the basic libertarian position on abortion, I would argue -- although there are dissenting views (see Libertarians for Life).
There are interesting issues with respect to exclusion in the case of abortion, however. Primarily:
You have the right to escort a trespasser off your property using as little force as necessary, even if that trespasser was once a guest. Abortion is different in that the procedure rips the trespasser apart and leaves him/her in a lifeless, bloody heap.
When technology improves for caring for premature babies, it may be morally (and perhaps legally) required to remove the fetus intact and alive so that someone else can voluntarily incur the cost of providing medical care until the child reaches an age where he/she can live without the support of machines and be adopted by loving parents.
There are a lot of interesting questions here. I only hope that this post is not used as another platform to launch ugly attacks on people with pro-life and conservative values.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 3:13:18 PM
Andrea,
Even if the mother doesn't have property rights in the fetus -- and you're right to point out that I misspoke -- she has them in her body. So, even if I grant you that the fetus has status as a person, the mother by virtue of her self-ownership has the right to detach it from herself. Status as a person doesn't come with a right to be a dependent on another -- especially not a physical dependent. It's like welfare, though we have an obligation to the poor, it is doesn't mean the state can force us to keep it.
The Christian argument on abortion is basically the same as the argument for socialism.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-08 3:18:50 PM
...then it requires extraordinary evidence to affirm this statement.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 2:12:16 PM
What would qualify as extraordinary evidence?
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-05-08 3:19:47 PM
Terrence:
It strikes me that you're proposing an argument similar to Judith Jarvis Thompson's libertarian argument for abortion.
Thompson grants that a fetus is a person, but then goes on to try to show how your premise 2 is "weightier" or "trumps" the personhood of the fetus.
I think it's possible to insist on sovereignty (or self-ownership), and to argue that this is enough for the right to abortion. I'm not sure if this is going to be persuasive, but it is at the very least a pretty good argument.
Libertarians for Life took issue with Thompson's arguments. You can check out their website here.
Here's their argument, in a nutshell, taken from their main page:
"LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them."
I'm not sure about premises 3 and 4. I'm not sure if, for example, my property right in myself does not permit me to evict anything at all from inside of it. Seems to me like the self-ownership claim would really entail that.
But I do like the "eviction" metaphor. None of us would think that our property rights in our home, for example, entail our right to evict our 2-year-old children out onto the streets.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-08 3:26:17 PM
it may be morally (and perhaps legally) required to remove the fetus intact and alive.
Why though? This is what I try to keep bringing pro-life people back to. It's a metaphysical assertion that all human life is sacred that must, for me, have some sort of convincing rational argument.
If a fetus does not have the ability to survive on it's own, has no self-concept, not concept of the world, and therefore no personal aspiration, self-worth, etc, etc, etc. what qualifies it as a person? Saying that life itself is the arbitrary measure of personhood automatically suggests that brain-dead people should be kept a alive indefinitely if we have the technology to do so. And as with Terry Schiavo, we saw pro-lifers actually do hold this position.
With the exception of a very few secularists I've met who have pantheistic outlooks on these metaphysical question, the argument almost always reduces itself to "God".
The people protesting outside for Terry's life were all religious people, claiming that "God" disapproved. If I don't believe in god--as an atheist--then any moral argument they present to me that uses "God's laws" as a premise are automatically invalid to me.
Therefore if the government were to codify that all life must be preserved on the metaphysical assertion that "all human life is sacred, including fertalized zygotes and fetuses", as an atheist and secular humanist, I have a serious problem with this. This is, in effect, religion being shoved down my throat. Or more specifically, down women's throats.
There's no way around that.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 3:26:55 PM
(Oops, Matthew was busy responding while I was still typing up my comment.)
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-08 3:28:20 PM
But I do like the "eviction" metaphor. None of us would think that our property rights in our home, for example, entail our right to evict our 2-year-old children out onto the streets.
I like it, too. Self-ownership of your body is non-negotiable to me.
I notice that Matthew has anticipated the apparent contradiction when he says: "I know you're eager to bring up examples of what you think are failures inherent to property rights and libertarianism to advance a liberaltarian view of the state".
But unfortunately, Matthew, it is an arbitrary contradiction. To hold the absolute right to exclude for land ownership and stuff ownership, but not for your own body would seem to represent a serious contradiction, considering that the body itself would--seem to me--to be the one thing a libertarian should value the right to exclude for over everything else.
You can't take offense to Terrence attacking absolute property rights on one hand, and then ask to be excused from doing the same on one issue. That's called a special pleading.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 3:33:52 PM
What would qualify as extraordinary evidence?
It would have to be something that would provide absolutely no doubt to a rational observer, that the zygote somehow possessed an objective quality of personhood. I cannot imagine what the evidence would be, which is part of the problem, I think.
You can provide evidence that you need a fully-developed, functional brain, in order to be a fully-functioning human being.
Therefore, we can, through reasoning, based on everything we know about the nature of human brain--assume that a zygote has absolute no consciousness, and no self-value, whatsoever.
If something isn't capable of valuing itself, then why would I value it?
But that's a divergent premise from where religious people are coming from. They're concerned with with god supposedly values. And since there's many different versions of what god is (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Sikhism, and copious amounts of indigenous faiths), it seems a bit rich--at least from an atheist perspective--to give particular weight to one religions version of ethics.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 3:40:14 PM
Jaws,
Yes, Thompson was who I had in mind, although she says a lot more than what I distilled in my two premises.
Matthew,
You're right: the right to exclude doesn't need to be absolute for it to cover abortion.
The Libertarian for Life position is interesting, but I think the following at least raises a question or two with the group's approach:
It's true that normally I can't evict a homeless person from my property by shredding him into a bloody heap. But that could be for the following reasons (one or both):
(a) There is normally another way to remove the homeless person that is less destructive. Suppose the homeless person was some kind of weird mutant that had attached itself to the walls of my home with tentacles that could only be removed with a chainsaw, at great risk to the person's life.
If that was the only way to remove the person, should I be forbidden from using the chainsaw?
(b) Ownership of the body is more significant - morally speaking - than ownership of external objects. Thus, there are actions we are permitted to take to defend our property rights with respect to our bodies we would not be permitted to take with respect to our rights over external objects.
This isn't going to appeal to some libertarians, but it appeals to me, but I have to admit that the appeal is somewhat intuitive. But here's a silly example:
Suppose you have a device which can extract an milliliter of blood at a time from my body, surreptitiously, and without breaking the skin. It's painless, and even less annoying than a mosquito bite.
Nevertheless, arguably, it would be wrong for you to use this device, even to take a single drop of blood.
Now, to take a comparison, suppose you take a blade of grass from my field. Still something I'm unlikely to notice, and still probably wrong. But as wrong as taking blood from me without my consent? I'm not sure I buy that.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-05-08 3:41:59 PM
"If something isn't capable of valuing itself, then why would I value it?"
You don't value your home?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 3:44:27 PM
You don't value your home?
Okay, I worded the question poorly. Of course I value things that are not self-aware. I value the Western Standard, for example. But that's a subjective value statement. We all have these.
So what I mean is, that morality should not contain subjective value statements. They should be objective in the sense they are some how justifiable and not arbitrary.
What is the compelling reason for valuing a zygote? It has the apparent complexity of mould at that stage. The only real argument you can go after, is the genetic traits of it. But then you have to deal with the fact that every flake of your skin contains a copy of your genetic code. And I don't think anyone is going to say that every scab we pick off our skin is a sacred life.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 3:47:48 PM
"None of us would think that our property rights in our home, for example, entail our right to evict our 2-year-old children out onto the streets."
None except libertarians who believe in property, even if not as an absolute concept. When people put their children up for adoption, Peter, they are evicting those children from their lives. It's a harsh thought, but it's true.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 3:53:16 PM
Mike:
I'm nervous about the categories you insist on when it comes to personhood. And here's why: It's difficult to see how infants get to count as "persons" on your view. We have good reason to believe that we don't acquire a "self-concept" or become "self-aware" until we're around two to three years old (that M&Ms study seems to show this).
If I'm right about that, then one implication of your view is that no one counts as a person until they are around two to three years old. I consider that a reductio. (Put differently, if a view implies that a one-year-old does not count as a person, then that view is false for that reason).
A lot of people switch from talking about possessing something like rationality or a self-concept, to talking about possessing the *capacity* for rationality and a self-concept. These views always strike me as a little messy, even if they avoid various objections like the one I mentioned above, as well as objections like temporary comas, sleeping, and so on.
At any rate, on "capacity"-style arguments, we'll have to argue about what does and doesn't have a particular capacity. Seems to me fetuses, especially in later stages of pregnancy, have these capacities. So they get to count as persons.
Finally, we might abandon talk of "personhood" altogether, and talk in terms of "valuable futures" or "a future like ours" (this is Don Marquis' phrase in his wonderful and powerful argument against abortion).
Marquis argues that what's wrong with killing grown adults, people like you and I, is that it deprives us of a valuable future. And talk of valuable futures (Marquis talks in terms of futures "like ours") allows us to ignore other complications like who or what gets to count as a person). But that's precisely what happens when we permit abortions -- we allow the deprivation of valuable futures. And that's at least presumptively wrong.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-08 3:55:56 PM
Matthew wrote: "None except libertarians who believe in property, even if not as an absolute concept. When people put their children up for adoption, Peter, they are evicting those children from their lives. It's a harsh thought, but it's true."
I'm being misunderstood.
I wrote "evicting them out onto the street." I did not write "evicting them out into a foster home or some other place where they can dwell." I meant *simply* evicting them. Evicting them plus finding them a foster home is different from mere eviction. I don't have to ensure that you have a safe place to go when I kick you off of my property.
A little bit of interpretative charity is requested.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-08 3:58:59 PM
"Why though? This is what I try to keep bringing pro-life people back to. It's a metaphysical assertion that all human life is sacred that must, for me, have some sort of convincing rational argument." -- Mike Brock
I thought I was providing a rational argument, Mike. I made no mention of "human life is sacred" and no appeal to religion. Where is the metaphysical assertion in my comment?
I believe that one must have an absolute right over one's body, Mike.
"To hold the absolute right to exclude for land ownership and stuff ownership, but not for your own body would seem to represent a serious contradiction..."
Of course, which is why I hold no such contradictory view.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 4:03:59 PM
I'm nervous about the categories you insist on when it comes to personhood. And here's why: It's difficult to see how infants get to count as "persons" on your view. We have good reason to believe that we don't acquire a "self-concept" or become "self-aware" until we're around two to three years old (that M&Ms study seems to show this).
Jaws,
I'm nervous about it, too. And I anticipated somebody would come at me about this.
Nothing you say is incorrect. A baby does not become self-aware when it's born. All of the studies into the subject certainly contradict that.
Interestingly enough, some African cultures don't consider an infant to be a person until it has survived for 7 days. If it dies or is killed before that, it is not interpreted as a lost life or murder.
In our culture, even, infanticide--when committed by the mother--is considered a lesser crime than homicide. Even 100+ years ago this was the case. So it's fair to say, that even our criminal laws reflect the idea that a newborn infant is not of equal value to a mature human.
The point of birth is truly arbitrary by the measure of value I put out there. And I believe it is a perfectly good one to make.
It would be patently impossible to write laws that codified personhood on the bases of self-awareness, and so, like you say--they would be ripe for abuse.
But I think self-awareness is still a good measure by which to guide a moral principle, because it indicates a life's ability to be a moral agent in and of itself.
I am not pretending to have an absolutely established ethic on this question. If I did, I would have offered it up in detail by now. But I don't think any of the questions I've asked are invalid. And I think it is important for both sides of the debate to address them,
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 4:05:45 PM
I thought I was providing a rational argument, Mike. I made no mention of "human life is sacred" and no appeal to religion. Where is the metaphysical assertion in my comment?
Matthew, I don't think you were necessarily making one. Which I why I qualified the criticism before I made it.
It's good that you don't hold contradictory views on that. I think some may, though. And I was getting the impression based on what you said that you were at least providing some defense of that.
I realize Matthew, that you're not always defending your own position--and you're just trying to keep the criticisms fair an honest. The same for Jaws.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 4:12:47 PM
Mike, Terrence presented the case that it could be true that the fetus is a person and also true that a woman has the right to an abortion.
I responded in support of that case...or at least the reasonableness of that case.
But if it is also true that one can not own a person (or a fetus, since the fetus is a person for the sake of this discussion), then it may also be true that one cannot destroy what one does not own. You can exclude/evict the fetus, but not destroy the fetus in the process of exclusion/eviction, in other words.
Since there is no way, using existing medical technology, to evict the fetus without killing it – it can not survive without the mother -- the current abortion practice of killing the fetus in the process of eviction is acceptable, goes the argument. Once technology comes around that could allow someone else to take custody of the un-owned fetus, it may be morally and perhaps legally necessary to change the way the unwanted fetus is removed. This would not ban abortion; it would change abortion.
This was the argument I carried forward in response to Terrence.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 4:18:50 PM
Matthew,
Fair enough. I wasn't really operating from within Terrence's assumptions.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 4:21:18 PM
It's different only in so far as eviction alone would make you a pretty horrible person, Peter.
But request for interpretative charity granted. in fact, I wish it was applied more evenly.
Despite never making the case against the absolute automony of women over their bodies, this was somehow uncharitably attached to my position, even though I made the opposite case.
I would ask how one can hold the view that we have absolute self-ownership, but not absolute property ownership, but I hate the tone of these discussions.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 4:28:57 PM
"What is the compelling reason for valuing a zygote? It has the apparent complexity of mould at that stage. The only real argument you can go after, is the genetic traits of it. But then you have to deal with the fact that every flake of your skin contains a copy of your genetic code. And I don't think anyone is going to say that every scab we pick off our skin is a sacred life."
Mike, even if we don't ascribe personhood to a zygote, one reason we might value a human zygote over a skin cell is that the zygote has the potential to be a person.
"None of us would think that our property rights in our home, for example, entail our right to evict our 2-year-old children out onto the streets."
Peter, I'll point out that some people (while carefully skirting the moral issues) do hold the view that a libertarian account of property rights implies no legal prohibition on doing that:
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-05-08 4:37:55 PM
"I realize Matthew, that you're not always defending your own position." Mike Brock
Actually, I am always defending my own position, unless I specifically say otherwise.
I believe the principle of exclusion applies to abortion.
The interesting question of techonological change does not change my view of abortion as being permissable.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 4:38:34 PM
"It's different only in so far as eviction alone would make you a pretty horrible person, Peter."
I agree that it would make you a horrible person, Matthew. But wouldn't we say more? Wouldn't we say that, once we bring a child into the world, we have an obligation to ensure that the child is sufficiently well looked after (either by ourselves or by others through adoption)?
I think it's reasonable to say that, if we decide we no longer have the means or the ability to raise our own children, we have an obligation to find a suitable caregiver for the children that we have brought into the world.
Wouldn't some ground this in something like an implicit contract? (i.e. If we bring a child to term, then we agree to certain obligations with respect to it, including feeding, housing, educating, etc.)?
(My tone is gentle and curious).
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-08 4:39:36 PM
Is the reason you hate the tone of these discussions, that by exploring these ethical and moral positions in their extreme cases, it leads to the internal and external realization that there is less homogeneity in the freedom movement?
Or is it something else?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 4:43:02 PM
Kalim,
But with cloning technology, the skin cell does have life potential.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 4:50:32 PM
I think our obligation, Peter, is to make sure others have an opportunity to provide care for the unwanted child. It's not obvious to me that eviction would prevent that, unless the child was evicted in such a manner that nobody could reasonably come across him or her. If that's the case, then eviction would not be permissable as you would be endangering the child, which is different then withdrawing care (positive vs negative), as in the case of leaving the child in front of a church.
Our duty to children is the same duty we have to everyone else.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 4:53:03 PM
"The interesting question of techonological change does not change my view of abortion as being permissable."
Matthew,
There are cases we could imagine (say a week before natural birth) where existing technology (like a Caesarean section) would allow the mother to "evict" her child without doing harm to it and allowing it to live. In such a case would an abortion which kills the child be permissable?
I know that the situation I have laid out is very unlikely to happen, I'm only proposing to clarify your views. I'm not familiar enough with medical procedures to know in what circumstances it would be possible to "evict" the child without killing it (or familiar enough with abortion procedures to know whether abortions are ever performed in such circumstances, though I presume they are), but if your answer to the above question is 'no', it seems that you would have to say that abortion is impermissible in all cases where existing medical technology could be used to achieve the result of removing the child without killing it.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-05-08 5:02:00 PM
Kalim,
(Just a side note)
Not only is that situation unlikely, but it's never been known to happen in Canada according to Wikipedia's article on abortion access in Canada. Despite there being no limits on late-term abortions in Canada, there are no known doctors who are even willing to do it.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 5:04:40 PM
I welcome diversity in the freedom movement, Mike. I think my posts speak for themselves. I don’t think anyone on this site covers the range of issues I do, involving as many culturally different groups as I do -- civil libertarians, left libertarians, right libertarians. I cover them all without apology.
It is you who insists that libertarians must fit within a narrowly defined culture, even if they accept all the basic libertarian principles. That’s fair enough, but now can you possibly suggest I’m opposed to diversity in the freedom movement? (I'm trying to take the big tent approach seriously.)
You'll defend a woman's absolute right to abortion on the grounds of self-ownership. Excellent.
You’ll defend, I presume, a gay nightclubs right to cater to a gay-only clientele. Excellent.
But when the suggestion is that somebody might exercise their property rights by excluding gays, you shout and swear and denounce people for being bigots and insist that adherents to property rights are like the faithful at a church. This is entirely unfair. There will be a diversity of cultural expressions in a free society.
Also, the principle of chartiy is generally missing from these discussions. I'll take Peter's point to watch that myself.
I love the diversity of the freedom movement. (I’ve worked with the most socially conservative libertarians in the country and with the most socially liberal libertarians in the country.) I do have my cultural preferences, though, but they are exactly that -- preferences.
To be candid, I don’t like that you refer to people as “pieces of shit” and shout “fuck you” when you disagree with someone. I find it unpleasant to engage in a discussion in this type of environment. I’m not asking you to change. Be yourself. I’ll just excuse myself from these threads and let others participate who like this rough and tumble approach. (I regret sticking around for this one.)
By the way, Mike, I explore these extreme examples all the time. (I was the executive director of a property rights think tank and had the chance to discuss these issues with every major property rights theorists from Epstein to Hoppe to Anderson. It's a great deal of fun, but only when people are respectful.
Also, the Western Standard has an editorial mission that I try not to lose sight of -- and that is to be as newsy as possible. Let's explore these libertarian questions in the context of news when and where we can. A pure philosophical distraction from time to time is great, but this site should be a place where anyone can come for news. Again, you can write what you want on the Western Standard. I don't have to like the tone to appreciate that there is a market for what you do.
Does that answer your question?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 5:33:02 PM
"There are cases we could imagine (say a week before natural birth) where existing technology (like a Caesarean section) would allow the mother to "evict" her child without doing harm to it and allowing it to live. In such a case would an abortion which kills the child be permissible?"
This is an excellent question, Kalim.
It puts my technology argument to the test. I wrote:
"Once technology comes around that could allow someone else to take custody of the un-owned fetus, it may be morally and perhaps legally necessary to change the way the unwanted fetus is removed."
Since the medical intervention here would be intrusive -- Caesarean section -- I don't think it could be demanded without interfering with the woman's autonomy. If this procedure were exactly the same as the abortion procedure in terms of intrusiveness, it would raise a serious challenge to abortion. (I’m not eager to see a serious challenge to abortion, by the way, but this isn’t about what I want.)
Let me present a scenario without committing to it:
A woman is raped. We wants an abortion. There are two procedures. One destroys the fetus; one leaves the fetus intact. Technology exists to care for the aborted, intact fetus. Should the woman be allowed to choose the procedure which kills the fetus, perhaps to destroy the memory of the rape? Now change this to a woman who has not been raped, but who wants rid of a pregnancy.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 6:07:52 PM
Ok ok, I need to say one thing:
When Matthew said:
"(I know there is literally no principle you consider absolute -- and I know you're eager to bring up examples of what you think are failures inherent to property rights and libertarianism to advance a liberaltarian view of the state.)"
I didn't take this as a criticism. I'm a pluralist, so it's true that I have a hard time acknowledging any principle or value that should always be overriding, whatever else is true.
I don't claim to have a set of all encompassing principles that always yield the intuitively correct answer whatever the inputs they are provided. Morality - or, at least, modern morality - doesn't work like that. It's a muddle, riddled with conflicts and puzzles, and some of the best thought experiments are able to show that.
That's no reason to throw up one's hands. But it is a reason to be humble and to acknowledge the possibility of reasonable disagreement.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-05-08 7:04:46 PM
It wasn't meant as a criticism, Terrence.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-08 7:25:33 PM
Canada is a country that is virtually killing off its future! We have a low birthrate of 1.5 children per birth mom(compared to 2.12 children and rising in the United States). Since 2.1 children is the calculated amount to maintain a population at current level, we are reduced to solely relying on increased immigration. Then, we make the situation worse by knocking off almost 100,000 children a year in abortions. How long will immigration levels remain high enough to maintain our current population numbers? How much are we messing with Canada's future when we kill off such large numbers of unborn children?
Low birthrates and large numbers of abortions are starting to drive Canada's demographics off a cliff. We better fix this situation before its too late or Canada will sink! The Americans will even more heavily outnumber us! We will be less able to function as an independent entity. Thanks pro-abortion crowd and feminists, you are destroying my country!
Posted by: Jacque | 2009-05-08 7:52:56 PM
Jacque,
Let's assume that we "save" those 100,000 children. Who's going to take care of all these unwanted children? The state? Will we force the parents?
Will we throw people in jail if they go get an abortion in the US, Europe or even have it done under the table?
I mean, in all seriousness, I want to know how far the pro-life people are willing to go.
You know what I see in this utopian future where abortion is illegal? Higher crime, less social cohesion, worsening economic conditions for a large portion of the population, and long term... socialists to save the day!
That's what I see. But according to some, I celebrate a "culture of death", so what do I know?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-08 8:16:32 PM
I would add the fact that only women are asked to sacrifice their autonomy in this fashion. If my two year old needs a kidney to survive no one is suggesting the state force your child to be a donor.
Posted by: Mont D. Law | 2009-05-08 8:24:49 PM
That we are a confused and mixed-up people is confirmed by the majority of the comments. That the value of life, human life, is reduced to a philosophical discussion driven by hedonistic and materialist values reflects the sad state we are in.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-08 8:34:52 PM
Alain:
I agree with you so often, that it surprises me whenever I disagree. This is one of those cases.
I don't know what makes you say that any of the arguments above represent "hedonistic" and "materialist" values. I can't find one instance of anyone arguing for anything resembling hedonism (not one person above argued from "pleasure" or from a desire to "do what I want"). Similarly, I don't see anyone making any "materialist" claims either. The arguments presented so far deal with what criteria we'll use for personhood, what follows from self-ownership, and one comment (mine) dealt with whether or not we should focus on "futures of value" rather than the personhood debate.
Unless you think self-ownership -- which can be rephrased as autonomy, respecting the dignity of a person, sovereignty over oneself -- counts as an instance of "materialism." But I don't see it.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-08 11:49:32 PM
PMJ, an unborn child, or foetus, is a separate life from that of the mother; not merely a tumour to be medically removed from her body. We do not own our children even though we have a responsibility to care for them and to raise them to the best of our ability. So the topic is life, human life, that we either recognise and value or do not.
I maintain that the reasons for abortion are based on hedonistic and/or materialist values in 99% of the cases; with the 1% being the rare case of endangering the mother's life. Does this mean I consider these women as criminals or evil? Absolutely not, but I do see them having very confused values, and a good part of the time victims of male pressure - usually the father but seldom the husband. I also maintain that it is inherently wrong for the state to fund abortions just as the state does not fund selective surgery.
This is not about self-ownership or property rights.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-09 11:36:53 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.