This concerns mostly my own country, but I felt I had to post about this.
While way too many people were too self-centered (”this doesn’t concern me, so I won’t move my ass”) to do anything at all (only about 40% of the population actually voted), still, the results were positive: the “don’t send women to prison anymore” side won. It shows that the Portuguese people are slowly, but surely, leaving the Middle Ages.
Today’s referendum, no matter what the fundies said, wasn’t about “saving lives” (anyone who really needs to have an abortion, will almost surely get one — even if it involves falling down a flight of stairs –, and who is concerned about their lives?). It was, instead, a choice between those who believe people should be free to decide things for themselves, and those who feel they have the “right” to control other people’s lives, to impose their own morality upon the rest.
Fortunately, and while the result isn’t “binding” (the turnout was too low), the former group won, and the prime minister has promised to use their parliament majority to change the law. It’s great to feel proud of my country, for a change. 
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I am glad this turned out the way it did, hopefully it’s a positive sign of things to come.
[quote=Pedro]It was, instead, a choice between those who believe people should be free to decide things for themselves, and those who feel they have the “right” to control other people’s lives, to impose their own morality upon the rest.[/quote]
First off, let me say that I do not agree with government intervention on this issue. However, I also do not agree the choice is as simple as you put it, Pedro.
With each and every choice comes the responsibility to accept the consequences. Unfortunately in this day and age most people want the choice, but not the responsibility. When a person [i]chooses[/i] to have sex, a consequence can be pregnancy. Just because there is another choice (abortion) that can ‘fix’ the problem does not negate the first responsibility.
I think that every life that is begun (yes, I take the view that once the egg has been fertilized life has begun) has the right to continue, and we have the responsibility to care for it. My view has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
I am pro-choice… it’s just the point at which the choice was made that I disagree with.
All that being said, I will reiterate that I do not feel the government should interfere. If someone chooses to terminate a pregnancy, I will be disappointed and saddened at the life that might have been… but I will not impose my view on them.
And before someone says I would feel differently if I knew someone in this situation let me just say that my best friend in high school got his college girlfriend pregnant and they both agreed she would have an abortion. Additionally, my wife also did (although it was before I met her), but she told me while we were dating, and it did not negate my feelings for her, nor did I feel compelled to lecture her. Since we have now been together for over 20 years I would say that I was able to live with what she did.
Jim, thanks for your thoughts on this.
First, I don’t think an abortion is every desirable. It may, however, be the lesser of two evils. The anti-abortion side, during their campaign, used arguments like “people will start to have abortions like they go to the dentist”, which are, obviously, baseless. I don’t think anyone will abort “for fun”.
I also don’t think that the number of abortions will actually increase. Until now, what happened was: women with money would go to Spain and abort there. Those with less money would do it illegally, here, often without any real conditions for doing so. Some would even, like I said, resort to taking pills for stomach pains, or fall from flights of stairs. These people were desperate, and would risk their lives because of a stupidly conservative, religious-based law. Oddly enough, the “life-defending” conservatives never cared about those women’s lives…
Also, sorry to disagree with you, but I think that saying “human life starts at conception” is arbitrary. If it’s a question of living cells, then thousands of our cells die every day; when you scratch an itch, you’re committing mass murder. If it’s a question of potential human life, then there’s a potential life, to quote Blackadder, in “the glint in the milkman’s eye”.
Or, like the Monty Python song, in every single sperm. All of those qualify as “potential human lives” (and, in the case of sperm, it’s actually biologically alive).
I also believe that the part of my post that you quoted is, in this particular case, the core of the problem. The “No” people see themselves as “saviors of life”, and believe that they know better than the rest, and that, therefore, it is right for them to impose (by law / force, if necessary) their morality upon others. It may not be your reason, but it is the true reason for most of the anti-abortion people: control.
To conclude — and this may seem contradictory –, if a friend of mine got pregnant and was thinking of having an abortion, I’d probably do everything to persuade her not to do it (though the final decision would be hers). Unless, of course, I saw that she really didn’t have the conditions to raise a child, to be a mother — whether those conditions were economical, mental, or any others. Again, abortion is often the lesser evil, but it’s never a “good” thing, IMO.
[quote post="217"]To conclude — and this may seem contradictory –, if a friend of mine got pregnant and was thinking of having an abortion, I’d probably do everything to persuade her not to do it (though the final decision would be hers). Unless, of course, I saw that she really didn’t have the conditions to raise a child, to be a mother — whether those conditions were economical, mental, or any others. Again, abortion is often the lesser evil, but it’s never a “good” thing, IMO.[/quote]
On this we both agree…
Jim,
You say that “every life” must be cared for. Okay I am of course perfectly willing to accept that you believe this. With that belief in mind, how do you survive? Our being alive necessitates the death of millions of organisms which seems to mean that we must choose between those millions of organisms and ourselves (as individuals). How is this choice made?
I should have made more clear how this ties into the abortion issue. Essentially I am asking about consistency of position. If rather than holding all life absolutely sacred, as is often the claim made by those who are pro-regulation on free choice, they select some life to be of greater value (say “human” life over all other) then there must be some criteria for determining what life is valued where. If the lone criteia is merely “humanness” then the issue of arbitrariness raises its ugly head. If there is some reasoned criteria, that is to say non-arbitrary well founded, then we ought to examine this to see exactly how it applies to both different stage humans as well as non-humans.
[quote comment="9206"]I should have made more clear how this ties into the abortion issue. Essentially I am asking about consistency of position. If rather than holding all life absolutely sacred, as is often the claim made by those who are pro-regulation on free choice, they select some life to be of greater value (say “human” life over all other) then there must be some criteria for determining what life is valued where. If the lone criteia is merely “humanness” then the issue of arbitrariness raises its ugly head. If there is some reasoned criteria, that is to say non-arbitrary well founded, then we ought to examine this to see exactly how it applies to both different stage humans as well as non-humans.[/quote]
Interesting…I have to admit to being inconsistent. I do distinguish between human and animal. I also distinguish between different kinds of animal, cat vs cow for example. (I like cats more and would probably never eat one)
What I don’t understand is why arbitrariness, when it comes to discussions about life between species, is a problem? I may not believe that humans have souls and animals do not but I follow science. It makes sense for us to treat humans differently to animals, to value them more highly and yet we’re still able to hold ‘life sacred’.
I suppose it comes down to the food chain, how can you truly respect and value a life as highly as yours when you’re conditioned to eat it!?
I’m pro life AND pro choice. I think it depends on the situation. I think it’s wrong to legislate in this area or to criminalize the woman or the doctor but I also believe that a child has a right to life.
The question is, at what stage does the collection of cells become a living, human entity? I don’t know. I just can’t make my mind up. I really can’t. Take an extreme case, say a woman was raped, should she be allowed to have an abortion? Well probably. But at what point? After 1 week? 6 weeks? Why not 30 weeks? At what stage does the women’s right to choose override the child’s right to live?
Sometimes I wish I was religious so I didn’t have to think about these things. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an answer handed to you on a plate?
But in all seriousness, no matter how much I struggle with the question, I can’t decide one way or another and it’s becoming rather annoying!
Both pro life and pro choice groups are arbitrary in their views anyway. Take the pro choice group. They offer opinions on the timeframes of abortion. One lady I spoke with said that she fervently believed in the women’s right to choose because it was her body and nothing should stand in the way of this. So you ask, what about once the woman is 8 months pregnant? “Oh well that’s different, the baby is ‘real’ then
Okay, so at what point does it become real?
Such a circular discussion. However what we must all agree on is that religious belief has no place in this discussion. I want to listen to women, to doctors, to scientists, to moral philosophers before making a decision (or at least trying to). I don’t want someone telling me that Jesus say’s it’s wrong.
Rambling over.
Cheers
Several problems Michael. First you refer to a child having a right to life, which is either a gross misstatement (since we are not in any fashion speaking of children at all) or simply begging the question since you are presumably speaking of a zygote or fetus.
You dismiss the citation of the fatal arbitrariness of the stipulations but give no real reason, rather simply citing the arbitrariness as if it were a reason itself for itself. Consider that the EXACT same reasoning can be applied to literally any arbitrary grouping, such that you can identically stipulate that blacks or jews are lesser therefore unworthy of any moral status, in perfectly the same way that you dismiss non-human animals. (BTW humans ARE animals…)
The practical point is that your argument leads to conclusions which you would not care for, since obviously you or those for whom you care could easily be in the lesser class by the same stipulation. As a logical matter, the fact that the same argument leads to contrary conclusions (Jews or blacks could make the same argument about non-jewish white folks for instnace) means that necessarily it is invalid.
I do agree that religion has no place, and can have no place in any reasoned discussion or any effort to discover facts (truth), after all the goal of religion is never truth or understanding but rather division, power, control, and hate.
There’s nothing to be proud of. The “pro-life” movement may indeed look medieval, but haven’t you ever noticed something Orwellian about “pro-choicers”?
“Anyone who really needs to have an abortion, will almost surely get one” is something of a thought-terminating cliché. “Anyone who really needs to steal, will almost surely steal.” Or more relevantly, “A driver who runs someone over and really feels he must flee the scene, will flee the scene.” It’s the *reason* why hit-and-run is punishable by law, not something that renders this law absurd. There won’t just be more hit-and-run accidents without this law, there’ll be more *people* who “really feel” they must slam on the gas pedal.
Lack of abortion legislation creates a culture of irresponsibility. Moreover, it makes those who *are* responsible look like laughable fools. It makes it easier to pressurise someone into abortion. Which happens MUCH more often than the opposite.
The pro-choice argument that “fetuses aren’t human” is where it starts to get seriously Orwellian. If life doesn’t begin at conception - well, when else? The concept of “personhood” is pure voodoo, sorry. No believer in “personhood” is able to prove, *without further multiplying entities*, that a human being who has fainted, or is in NREM sleep, is a “person” and cannot be killed. Pro-choice logic is just reasoning backwards, and that Nazi tinge in claiming some people (the “wanted children”) are more valuable than the others, just freaks the hell out of me. And religious pro-lifers make it worse by defending the right things for the wrong reasons.
Nice strawman and question begging Nik. You begin with your assumption that a zygote is a moral agent, which of course is the very point in question, and then attack anti-coercion folks for daring to not accept completely mindlessly the mindless (and heartless) religious notions of the anti-freedom (or as they grossly inaccurately name themselves “pro-life”) folks. If not mindlessly accepting the position of another is such a terrible criticism, then consistency of thought demands that the anti-freedom, anti-responsibility folks who are imposing their religious will on innocent others also be condemned for not simply accepting that their will is wrong and evil.
I’ve not heard the claim from any pro-choice advocate that a fetus or zygote is not human, rather I have heard the clearly true statement that a fetus or zygote is not a moral agent, therefore all of the applicable claims regarding a moral agent are not applicable (thus these silly claims that “abortion is murder” are clearly false).
As for your remarks about personhood, I contend that there is clearly some confusion as to what personhood, or moral agency, entails. There is nothing whatsoever about going to sleep or the like which negates or diminishes ones moral agency, nor any cause to believe that there might be.
I made no such assumption. “Moral agency” is even more irrelevant than “personhood”. But the confusion certainly is there, and it comes from the pro-choice folks’ trying to conveniently define either so as to exclude unborn children while avoiding embarrassingly absurd implications.
I don’t see how pro-lifers are “anti-responsibility” or how those concerned are “innocent”. They acted out of their own free will and were, or should have been, aware of the possible consequences. “Reproductive choice” is made the moment one consents to sex. There should be no “choice” or “freedom” past this point. (Don’t even mention rape to me; arguing all abortions should be legal because some conceptions are a result of rape is like arguing that all freedom of movement should be restricted because there *might* be an epidemic once in a while. Extreme cases demand extreme solutions; non-extreme cases do not.)
I find it peculiar that you would assert that the ONLY issue here is “even more irrelevant” than the looser description of the only issue here.
If what constitutes a moral agent is not the issue what on earth COULD be?
It is also very peculiar that you would attack the pro-liberty position using the strawman of “trying to aviod ..” especially since you have to resort to employing putting the cart before the horse to even present this tactic.
WHat you seem determined to overlook is that the burden of proof of the moral agency of a given entity lay upon those trying to introduce a new entity into the category. In other words, the burden of proof that zygotes are moral agents lay upon the shoulders of the anti-choice folks, not upon those who are willing to recognize that in fact there is no element of moral agency present in zygotes.
If we adopted your approach, then necessarily we must lay the burden of proof upon any who advocate breathing for the act of breathing kills entities, which anyone can follow your method here and simply declare that these entities are moral agents.
As for your other comments, let’s look at an analogy: Since you choose to breathe you owe me $1000000. Why? Because like you do here, I am simply stipulating it. You have no choice not to pay once you choose to breathe. Hopefully this use of argumentum ad absurdum is clear enough to demonstrate why the argument you employ fails to actually prove anything whatsoever. So I choose to have sex. So what? There are an infinite number of possible “consequences” which if we accept your argument must ALL be “accepted” regardless of any other actions I may ever take, or the partner may want to take, or amusingly enough whether or not those consequences are even known to us.
What you are arguing is that possibility necessitates necessity, which is in practice of course erroneous, and logically speaking is of course self-defeating since there are contrary possibilities.
Sexually transmitted diseases besides pregnancy can be possibilities from sex, will you identically stipulate that no one can ever receive any treatment or cure for any of these diseases?
[quote comment="9345"]If what constitutes a moral agent is not the issue what on earth COULD be?[/quote]
Being a human individual.
[quote comment="9345"]It is also very peculiar that you would attack the pro-liberty position using the strawman of “trying to aviod ..” especially since you have to resort to employing putting the cart before the horse to even present this tactic.[/quote]
Why, by bringing in “moral agency”, “pro-liberty” folks have effectively justified infanticide up to the age of at least two years; while this may not be absurd as in inconsistent, it is absurd as in grotesque.
[quote comment="9345"]WHat you seem determined to overlook is that the burden of proof of the moral agency of a given entity lay upon those trying to introduce a new entity into the category.[/quote]
Any other non-factors that we bear the burden of proof for? Good karma? Mana capacity? The presence of a guardian aku-aku? A human being is a human being, moral agent or not.
[quote comment="9345"]If we adopted your approach, then necessarily we must lay the burden of proof upon any who advocate breathing for the act of breathing kills entities, which anyone can follow your method here and simply declare that these entities are moral agents.[/quote]
The real point you seem to be trying to smuggle in here is the analogy between sex and breathing. They have more differences than similarities in this context.
[quote comment="9345"]As for your other comments, let’s look at an analogy: Since you choose to breathe you owe me $1000000. Why? Because like you do here, I am simply stipulating it. You have no choice not to pay once you choose to breathe. Hopefully this use of argumentum ad absurdum is clear enough to demonstrate why the argument you employ fails to actually prove anything whatsoever.[/quote]
If once every twenty breaths, I breathe out concentrated nerve gas, if I’m aware of it (it’s hard not to be) but still enjoy breathing on people, and if my wearing a gas mask has only a limited effect in protecting them, then we have an analogy.
[quote comment="9345"]So I choose to have sex. So what? There are an infinite number of possible “consequences” which if we accept your argument must ALL be “accepted” regardless of any other actions I may ever take, or the partner may want to take, or amusingly enough whether or not those consequences are even known to us.[/quote]
I thought having some idea what exactly it is you’re doing was a prerequisite of your precious moral agency. When having sex, you’re technically doing everything in order to conceive a baby - even if at the same time, you’re taking steps to prevent it.
[quote comment="9345"]What you are arguing is that possibility necessitates necessity, which is in practice of course erroneous, and logically speaking is of course self-defeating since there are contrary possibilities.[/quote]
There are no two contrary possibilies of equal moral concern in this case. If there’s no resulting pregnancy, it’s your and everyone’s lucky day.
[quote comment="9345"]Sexually transmitted diseases besides pregnancy can be possibilities from sex, will you identically stipulate that no one can ever receive any treatment or cure for any of these diseases?[/quote]
If chlamydia eventually matured into sentient beings capable of arguing their right to life, they’d have a case, not to be dismissed as groundless.
Care to actually address ANY of the issues raised? You have failed in fact to address ANY of them, but have tried in vain to avoid and grossly mischaractize them.
At best all you have done is assumed that your own beliefs are correct and beyond all refutation. I’d suggest allowing reality into the picture..
BTW did you notice that you refuted your own argument by stipulating that other sexually transmitted diseases must attain an infinitely higher standard that a fetus? No fetus or zygote has ever attained the status or ability to argue for its own worth (which is of course a silly and wholly arbitrary standard itself nonetheless).
Got merit?