As for pain, just as I think it'd be wrong to kill a newborn baby on a whim if no pain were involved, I think that it'd be wrong to kill an unborn baby on a whim if no pain were involved. I say "on a whim" because both you and Moliere have made comments about no legal restrictions, so whims would be legitimate. You can't simply dismiss these counterexamples as conservative rhetoric. — Sapientia

I think I can dismiss them as conservative rhetoric, because the evidence I've already linked to shows that women do not do it on a whim. But in the end it is up to them, whether it is on a whim or not, and that's what is of prime importance to me: the woman's autonomy and human dignity. Also important to me is that women get the medical attention they need as early as possible, and restrictions on late abortions only hinder that.

Fair enough. I can appreciate that. In fact I don't know if I'd say that late abortions are, necessarily, always morally unproblematic, for the reason that they are never morally unproblematic for the mother, for whom it is always a difficult decision. When the fetus has all the characteristics you describe, it can become effectively a proto-person in the mind of the mother (and others), which does make it a moral problem to have an abortion so late. But not all ethical decisions can be determined by law. There is, I'm glad to say, room for ethical manoeuvre outwith the law, and this is one area where I think the law should get out of the way.

One is not a person by having a functioning brain. They are (under that argument) a person because this individual, who has a functioning brain, ought to be protected. Personhood is the expression someone ought to belong the world, that their interests and presence matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I understand this, and I agree with it as far as it goes.

It is this ethical value which someone time falls by the wayside when abortion is discussed. In effect, people keep what's really driving their position hidden. The squabble over semantics of "personhood" rather than actually stating their (ethical) position on personhood. We get a second order claims about what must make a person, rather than proper statements about who has personhood.

But I don't understand this.

It's at times like these that I really miss TMT.

EDIT: I was curious so I searched PF and found this:

To make my implicit argument for the morally unproblematic nature of every kind of abortion explicit, embryos and fetuses are not persons, and they are a part of another person's body. As nonpersons, they can have no rights, and the human person that carries them has a right to dispose of her body as she sees fit, particularly since her actions do not impact other persons. — To Mega Therion

(Y)

But it is arbitrary, because the grounds for choosing the moment of birth as the moment when the baby deserves to be granted rights aren't based on reason, but rather on symbolism and tradition. — Sapientia

But that doesn't make it arbitrary. If you're right, it makes it habitual or conventional at best, irrational at worst. But you're wrong anyway. I am not assigning personhood to a baby on the basis of tradition; I am accurately describing what it means to be a person and how persons come to be, and the significance of childbirth. Moral, social and cultural significance is the primary issue in matters of morality. Note that moral, social and cultural significance is about much more than "symbolism and tradition". It is also about, for example, what it is to feel pain: feeling pain is a subjective experience belonging to an individual, and not mere nociception.

It existed before birth, and where else but the human world? It is human after all, and it necessarily exists in the world. It is not a fully independent member of society either before birth or after birth, but it deserves certain rights nonetheless.

I don't agree. The extent to which a fetus is in the human world--by which I mean the world that a person (the pregnant woman) is socially embedded in but which is external to their body--is the extent to which it has taken on a significance to the mother (and perhaps the father) as a proto-person.

I don't think you see quite what I mean by the social or cultural. Either that or you grossly underestimate it. I'm not talking about any old tradition or custom. I'm talking about what it means to be human and moral. But I admit that I'm only half-heartedly explaining things; to fill in the gaps would take several monster posts. This might give you some idea:

Persons are agentive beings who develop through profound embeddedness in socio-cultural contexts and within inalienable relations to and interactions with others.
—Anna Stetsenko, in The Psychology of Personhood

But it goes back to my reply above to BC. Biological reductionism often seems to be the default position, which I think is why the abortion issue is seeing the reactionary, regressive pressures that you and Baden represent. (Yes, more name-calling, I know)

Well, maybe. I was suggesting something like the opposite: that the concept of personhood underlies, or at least profoundly influences, our ethical positions.

I would locate personhood in a complete and functioning brain as part of a functioning body. — Bitter Crank

I certainly would not. To me, personhood has nothing to do with brains except incidentally. I suspect this is the root of the disagreements here. Biological reductionism is culturally mainstream now, and I think this has a lot to do with ethical debates. If a person is defined as a certain configuration of organs and physiological processes, then the concept of a rational moral agent or moral subject, with his or her own reasons for acting in certain ways--and therby the concept of a citizen or rights-bearing member of a community--is rendered irrelevant. I think this is what it comes down to. I'm tempted to say that your own trajectory, from pro-woman to pro-fetus, mirrors an ideological trajectory in Western culture, away from a view of human beings as rational moral agents.

Thanks.

No, I'm sure you know that's not what I mean by fanaticism. This is really the most important bit from my last post:

EDIT: What it comes down to is that your attitude is pissing me off. You keep wanting to draw a line under things, to say things are settled. You are plainly annoyed that people with views you don't like persist in holding them. That's why I'm attacking you, not because you're passionate.

This is getting tedious.

Moliere didn't know it as far as I can see. — Baden

What you described is really basic stuff. It would help you understand our case--if you actually want to--if you assume we know stuff like that and try to interpret our positions in a better light. If you don't know how to apply the principle of charity you shouldn't be here.

You weren't mentioned.

You mentioned the position that the fetus is part of the woman's body, which I claimed and which you responded to. I'm part of that debate.

The idea that my position represents that of a rabid fanatic because I'm presenting the science is ludicrous.

But that's not what I said. This is simple intellectual dishonesty. I could quote the examples of fanaticism from your posts, but you know exactly what they are so I won't bother. You're not in this for the debate, but because you are raging.

And telling me to go away is pathetic. You are not immune to being passionate in your arguments either as is evident from this post.

But I said you should go away if you don't treat your interlocutors with some respect, not if you get passionate.

EDIT: What it comes down to is that your attitude is pissing me off. You keep wanting to draw a line under things, to say things are settled. You are plainly annoyed that people with views you don't like persist in holding them. That's why I'm attacking you, not because you're passionate.

[DNA, immunology, etc.]

So can we now drop this utter nonsense that the fetus is just part of the woman's body. — Baden

More silliness. Do you seriously believe @Moliere and I don't know all that already? There's little point in our debating a rabid fanatic. Calm down and treat your interlocutors with some respect or else go away. We're not taking the piss; we really do believe what we're saying.

It is at that stage. It's more odd to treat the vagina or umbilical cord as if they have the power to grant humanness. I'm not sure which one you think it is, since you've inconsistently switched between birth (which happens by passing through the vagina) and separation (which happens by cutting the umbilical cord). — Sapientia

This looks like a perverse reduction of childbirth to a mechanistic process, ignoring its human significance. Clearly, birth and separation are part of the same event (or process if you prefer). It's an event in which a new person is initiated into the human world, into society. This is what matters to morality, not any mechanical stipulations or biological facts.

And I think it's quite silly to say that in regarding birth as the basic cut-off point we are being arbitrary. You may not agree that birth is where it's at, but it's hardly arbitrary. Birth is the centrally important, ultimate event of a pregnancy, the moment when a person comes to be, or begins to be, and the moment the mother's months of bodily change, discomfort, and anticipation have all been leading up to. For many it is the most significant, most life-changing moment of their lives.

There is a new person in the world: this is what birth means, what makes it significant in all human cultures. Biological facts and medical procedures are subsumed by or subservient to the social and cultural, particularly when we're talking morality.

I made a passing observation, that's all, and I have no interest in faithfulness to dogma or an agreement with conventional positions for its own sake. But as it happens I could make an argument as to why my position is fundamental to a Leftist, especially Marxist, view on abortion. But that would be boring.

(Y)

As a joke in my office we often try to prove how we're more conservative than the other by picking out comments the other one makes that might be interpreted as liberal.

I see such banter occurs in all circles. — Hanover

It's a conservative-only office?

Fair enough. The reason I was so vociferous about it was that such notions are alive and well today. Brendan O'Neill and Tim Stanley were to debate abortion at Oxford in 2014 until it was called off following a student campaign. The students' complaint was that the debaters were men. It didn't matter what their arguments were; all that mattered to the students was the sex of the debaters. It's because I think this kind of thing is stupid and divisive that I made a point of criticizing your digressive comments.

It isn't any old judgmentalism one can see in your comments. It's the judgmentalism of the conservative who worries about the permissive society and the irresponsible behaviour of loose women. Your talk of "setting a worrying precedent" and your "I don't want to put on weight" example are straight out of the conservative script on this issue. But it was just a passing observation and I'm not expecting to win any points by calling you names or recording my superficial impressions.

It was more the judgmental attitude in the post, which is very reminiscent of old-fashioned establishment conservatives. You don't seem to have much of an interest in or clue about the situation of women who get late abortions. If you're interested, try the PDF I linked to: http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/pdf/PCF_late_abortion08.pdf

All terrible reasons to have an abortion. They don't have to keep the baby after giving birth. There's this thing that you might have heard of called adoption. — Sapientia

As the thread's about political affiliation, I thought I'd note that these are very weird words coming from an avowed leftist (or liberal). But I'm all for diversity of thought, so carry on.

@Hanover and @Moliere, your discussion is rather curious. I originally interpreted @Moliere as saying that only the person who is pregnant should get to decide what to do about it, which in one sense means that only women should be empowered to decide in favour of late abortions. But this is different from saying that only women should be able to debate it or decide on policy. I think both men and women should be able to decide on policy, with the most welcome outcome being that my own position carries the day and they decide to make it the sole business of an individual woman what to do about a pregnancy, with no limitation.

I find the notion that only women can debate abortion or vote on abortion policy to be absurd, patronizing, divisive, counter-productive, and anti-democratic.

It's interesting that there isn't much discussion here of the reasons women have for getting late abortions. In fact there isn't much discussion of the women at all except as temporary vessels (with obligations that trump their own interests).

So here's another angle. Can we all agree, for whatever reasons, that earlier abortions are better than late ones, and that public policy ought to be directed towards reducing the need for late abortions?

Well, there's evidence that restrictions on late abortions are counter-productive:

Most women who seek abortion late do not realise they need to do so earlier. If abortion was made harder to access in later pregnancy than it is currently, the main outcomes would be that women would have abortions later still; would become ‘abortion tourists’ and seek abortion in another country; or would have to continue unwanted pregnancies.
—Late Abortion: A Review of the Evidence [PDF]

I don't think any of those are good outcomes.

it should be illegal to have an abortion after 28 weeks (except those exceptions) — Sapientia

Can I ask why it should be illegal, and what the exceptions are or should be?

If the answer to the first question has anything to do with the fetus being a human being or person with its independent interests and rights, I don't see how there could be any exceptions. That is, I don't see how such abortions could ever be justified, unless murder is justified in some cases.

I don't treat people morally because they have brains and nervous systems, but because they are people who each have a place as individuals in society. — jamalrob

We treat people morally - unless we're sociopaths - mostly because we're built that way. If we need a philosophy book for much of our moral behaviour, we're in no better a position than those who feel they need a holy book for it. — Baden

Here you seem to misunderstand me, and I'm not surprised, because if you don't know what a moral agent is or understand its significance, and you don't know what personhood is, then it's inevitable that you'll fail to see that treating people morally because they are people "who each have a place as individuals in society" and treating people morally "because we're built that way" are the same thing. My "because" does not imply a process of reasoning.

under normal circumstances it will develop into a fully grown person — Baden

I missed this. Obviously it applies to early-stage embryos too, so it doesn't support the special treatment of late-stage fetuses.

It's only when the latter minor harm becomes a major harm (generally for medical reasons) that the case is even debateable. — Baden

Are we going to debate whether it's debateable now? I'm debating it, and lots of other people take my position--though unfortunately less people now than a few decades ago, I think.

That's as it should be. But of course If you can argue empathy out of yourself on the basis that this or that human being is not (yet) a person, this line will mean nothing to you just as to someone who does empathize with late term fetuses is not going to be swayed by any of your arguments.

Obviously I can say something very similar with respect to the freedom and autonomy of the woman. Aside from that, you're right that we won't convince each other, but I don't care about that, as I'm not trying to convince you. That's not what debates are for.

I never claimed the fetus is just a mini-person. I've said time and time again, the "person" debate will get us nowhere. — Baden

Where do you want us to get to? I certainly don't want to find a middle ground. I think personhood is precisely what matters.

There is no agreed definition of "person" to work with. But it doesn't have to be just a mini person to have some rights. Even animals have rights. The fetus is human; under normal circumstances it will develop into a fully grown person; it can feel pain; it has a brain; it has a nervous system; at 8 1/2 months it is fully viable. It's not just a piece of meat. It's one the most sophisticated organisms on the planet at any stage of its development.

The claim that fetuses feel pain is somewhat controversial, because pain is much more than mere nociception:

The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed. An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal. Nevertheless, proposals to inform women seeking abortions of the potential for pain in fetuses are not supported by evidence. Legal or clinical mandates for interventions to prevent such pain are scientifically unsound and may expose women to inappropriate interventions, risks, and distress. Avoiding a discussion of fetal pain with women requesting abortions is not misguided paternalism but a sound policy based on good evidence that fetuses cannot experience pain.
—Stuart Derbyshire, Can fetuses feel pain?

The notion of viability seems equally troublesome. And I don't think the existence of a brain and nervous system counts in any way against the right of the woman to terminate. The issue is moral and political, and cannot be decided by biology. In my opinion, the evidence you mention functions in the public debate primarily by encouraging a conception of the fetus as being essentially a newborn baby, thus as a sentimental appeal. If this is uncharitable with respect to your own use of the scientific evidence, even so you are using it in the service of a moral and political view, because it does not speak for itself. I don't treat people morally because they have brains and nervous systems, but because they are people who each have a place as individuals in society.

As for rights, I think the notion of animal rights is nonsense, and I can't see any sense in which fetuses or even newborn babies have rights, though in the latter there is a duty of care (as there is with animals).

To say that we can do what we will with it needs more justification than simply the fact that we want to maintain some woolly idea of autonomy based on the very questionable premise that it's part of the woman's body.

I am saying that abortions should be allowed up to birth, that the interests of the woman must take priority over any interests we attribute to the fetus on the basis of biological development. I am not saying that it's ok for people to do what they want with them.

The principle of bodily autonomy is no more woolly than pain and viability. Extending the principle that nobody should be forced to undergo a medical procedure, no woman should be forced to continue with a pregnancy and undergo childbirth.

As I say, I don't see any substantial difference between part of and contained within in this context. It all comes back to personhood: they probably do differ importantly if we're talking about one person contained inside another.

The locus of morality is the individual person and in the relations between individuals. I think bodily autonomy is basic to a person and to being a free member of society. I think the very idea that anyone else has a say over what a person does with their own body is a denial of this basic element of personhood and renders the subject of such coercion less free than others, renders them less fully a subject in their own right.

Obversely, the idea that a fetus is just a mini-person is a consequence of a vulgar scientism that completely misses how human society works.

I'm not sure. The attitude I have to terminating your own pregancy is a bit like my attitude to doing your own brain surgery---but I don't want women to be penalized for self-termination. I think bodily autonomy would again have to be the priority, but I probably wouldn't be making my argument if I didn't also think it would result in a better system in which the removal of stigma and official interference reduced the number of self-terminations.

It's not relevant to my concerns. Abortion is or should be an ordinary medical procedure carried out by medical professionals. What are you getting at? Are you going to hit me with a gruesome thought experiment here because I really wish you wouldn't.

That seems about right as far as it goes.

EDIT: Though I see no relevant difference between include and contain in this context.

Yeah, there's a tricky distinction here, which I think @Hanover brings out quite well in his last post.

Once again, all you're doing is throwing your opinions at me. You haven't offered any criticism of my position that is not simply saying you disagree. And as far as I can understand your thought experiment, my position would not allow any such thing.

You can call it what you like but it matters if that's the basis of your argument. — Baden

I am not going to spell things out for you. As I said, what you claim follows from my position only does so given a number of other premises, and I refuse to believe you don't have the imagination to see that, even to see what my own assumptions are. What is a body? What do we mean when we talk of a woman's body, and is this like talking about a fetus's body, or somewhat different? When I talk of the woman's body I am talking about the body of a person. Etc.

From your rather pedantic and obtuse perspective, I can see that.

Don't be silly.

It's a matter of debate, not of inarguable empirical facts as you keep implying. I do consider the woman's body to include the fetus, and I do not consider that fetus to be a person. Hence I believe the woman's bodily autonomy comes first.

Generalized label: God knows. How about "Marxian Libertarian Cornucopian"?

Form of government: Democracy, preferably direct. Tyranny can turn out to be the worst, but I think aristocracy, oligarchy, technocracy, managerial politics, the nanny state and paternalism are bad too.

Form of economy: Post-scarcity high-tech socialist or communist economy. We don't know how to get there right now, so: for accelerated yet highly regulated capitalist economic growth. Against neoliberalism and over-financialization.

Abortion: For total decriminalization (it's still technically criminal in the UK, except when the woman meets certain conditions) and for a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, which includes the fetus.

Gay marriage: It seems a bit of a shame that the gay rights movement embraced this eminently bourgeois issue, but I'm not going to stand in anyone's way. I went to a lesbian wedding recently and enjoyed the champagne and vegan burgers, so I can't be against gay marriage without being hypocritical. It also felt like a sign that much of what the gay rights movement fought for has been achieved, so that's good.

Death penalty: I'm uncomfortable with the death penalty but I can't bring myself to stand against it in all cases on principle.

Euthanasia: Despite my atheism and my support of a woman's right to choose in all cases, I also think there's an important concept, of the sanctity of life, that was upheld for a long time by Christianity but which is being lost sight of. I regret this. The pro-dying movement represents a cultural turning away from hope and progress, and I also think relaxation of the laws would result in the deaths of many people who would otherwise be able to get through their problems (I'm not an anti-natalist, so I don't see transient anguish as supporting the argument against life). At the same time, I don't want people to be kept alive to suffer where there can be no hope of recovery.

Campaign finance: I haven't really thought about it. Off the top of my head, I wouldn't like to see publicly funded parties, but I also think the big money in politics makes it very unfair.

Surveillance: State surveillance is currently necessary to combat reactionary religious maniacs, but I'm a libertarian so I want it to be targeted rather than implemented as if everyone were a suspect. I don't believe it's practically necessary or good for culture and politics for us to be watched all the time, and on principle I don't trust the state with as much generalized snooping power as it has in many European countries (let alone the US).

Health care: Socialized. Having said that, a mix of public and private can work well, as in France, which some consider to be the best system in the world.

Immigration: Open and monitored. An "illegal immigrant" is someone who has been criminalized for their movement in search of a better life. I think this is immoral. But like TGW I also favour a "powerful impetus toward cultural assimilation / hostility toward multiculturalism".

Education: Let's get back to the ideal of the liberal education, and away from the dreary idea that education is about getting a job, or preparing people for the workplace. It's about the culture as much as the economy, and it's about elevating people: making people better and making them want to be better.

Environmental policy: Industry and energy can clean up after themselves if properly regulated. Don't base energy policy on short-term profit or political gain. Reduce our contribution to global warming by investing in alternative forms of energy production, but celebrate the human footprint and recognize that people come first. Don't stand in the way of the fossil-fueled industrialization of poorer countries like India. The best way we can deal with climate change is through maximum worldwide industrialization, technological innovation, and bold projects. In general, totally against the reactionary green movement, instead for treating climate change as a practical problem that can be solved without reversing growth and progress.

Gun policy: I don't know about this. I'm sympathetic to both sides. As a libertarian, some-time radical leftist, and occasional gun-user, I should be sympathetic to gun ownership, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of a weapon-saturated, militarized culture like that of the US or pre-war Germany.

Drug policy: I'm basically for decriminalization, but I don't much like the excessive, fashionable celebration of cannabis, a drug that makes people dull and stupid when over-used.

Foreign policy: There are four kinds of foreign policy that I think are pernicious and wrong in our era: (1) Colonialism and other forms of imperialism, (2) post-colonial meddling in foreign revolutions and democratic processes, (3) neoconservatism, i.e., imposing liberal democracy from the outside, and (4) the most recent pattern of Western foreign policy, namely reckless, short-sighted and damaging foreign escapades engaged in with a view to domestic politics and international stature.

In the ideal of all ideals, I'd prefer the question of abortion's legality to be settled by women only. But, I'm not sure how you'd implement that. — Moliere

That's another statement that I find particularly disagreeable on sexist grounds. Our ideals are clearly opposed in certain respects. The thought that all of my views on this important topic, of which I'm passionate, and with which I have made an effort to be reasonable and conscientious, which effect the whole of society - not just women - would be discounted solely on the basis of my gender... that is a thought that I find highly objectionable. — Sapientia

Moliere could be saying that only those who get pregnant ought to be empowered to decide whether or not to have an abortion, which seems pretty reasonable to me. To say that women should have the same bodily autonomy as men is precisely anti-sexist.

I think I'm with Moliere on guns too, though I'm undecided.