Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice

[JimC]

We do essentially grant it personhood somewhere between 25-30 weeks.

And we do so by arbitrarily choosing some criterion. A foetus ceases to be a foetus when we say it becomes a person. Any alleged objectivity about it a chimera.

Not completely arbitrary, in that it involves choices made over a clear spectrum. A 35 week foetus has a very different neurological structure to a 20 week foetus. Our decisions about cut-off points are arbitrary in one sense, in that there is no compelling reason to favour limiting abortions after, let's say, 27 weeks vs 27.5 weeks, but there are biological facts to assist us in making some decision within the spectrum - not totally random...

[Hermit]

We do essentially grant it personhood somewhere between 25-30 weeks.

And we do so by arbitrarily choosing some criterion. A foetus ceases to be a foetus when we say it becomes a person. Any alleged objectivity about it a chimera.

Not completely arbitrary, in that it involves choices made over a clear spectrum. A 35 week foetus has a very different neurological structure to a 20 week foetus. Our decisions about cut-off points are arbitrary in one sense, in that there is no compelling reason to favour limiting abortions after, let's say, 27 weeks vs 27.5 weeks, but there are biological facts to assist us in making some decision within the spectrum - not totally random...

The very fact that we choose one particular stage of development or another as a criterion for deciding if we are speaking of a foetus or a person is completely arbitrary. Some people simply say the moment of conception marks that point. Others claim it is when a heartbeat can be detected. Others again see the crucial point at some stage of the development of the nervous system. There are even people who argue that personhood is not reached until the biological organism becomes self-aware, that is somewhere between 18 and 24 months after its birth.

None of the criteria we may choose to argue in favour of are backed by objective facts. It's like starting with a single grain of sand, adding a grain at a time and being asked which grain turns the process of adding grains into a mountain, just with less granularity, so to speak. We proclaim a standard, then find reasons to back it up - not the other way around. That's arbitrariness at its purest.

[Forty Two]

We do essentially grant it personhood somewhere between 25-30 weeks.

And we do so by arbitrarily choosing some criterion. A foetus ceases to be a foetus when we say it becomes a person. Any alleged objectivity about it a chimera.

Not completely arbitrary, in that it involves choices made over a clear spectrum. A 35 week foetus has a very different neurological structure to a 20 week foetus. Our decisions about cut-off points are arbitrary in one sense, in that there is no compelling reason to favour limiting abortions after, let's say, 27 weeks vs 27.5 weeks, but there are biological facts to assist us in making some decision within the spectrum - not totally random...

Indeed, we draw lines in the law on many issues which are not clear but also not arbitrary. A minimum age for drinking, smoking or driving, depending on jurisdiction. Is there a real difference between 18 years and years 6 months? 19? 20? 17? The idea is that there is a spectrum of development and that generally speaking at a certain point, a person is deemed responsible to decide for himself or herself what to do, or deemed capable of reasonably operating a piece of equipment like a car.

Taking the driver license example, there are plenty of older people who are less proficient at driving than younger people. So, any bright line rule will be inherently underinclusive and overinclusive at the same time. But, does that make the line "arbitrary?" No. Because the rule is one that is ostensibly based on generalities - statistics - not an individual case.

That's what's happening with a general cut-off on abortion. There is a general case made that at a certain point the fetus has developed sufficiently to where it is not merely a clump of cells or an appendix. Moreover, we live in a world where people are NOT free to choose to have important pieces of themselves removed, "for any reason or no reason because it's their own body." We live in a world where you can modify your ears and poke holes here and there, and you can do elective cosmetic surgery around the edges - but, you can't just demand to have your appendix removed if it isn't bothering anybody. There must be a medical reason for doing so, or a doctor will get in trouble for doing it. This is much the same as the fetus - early on, removing it can be a function of medication -- or a quick office-visit - where, literally, just a pea sized thing is removed, or a bean, or a strawberry, etc. But, at a certain point, it's no longer that, and it becomes something that is more important, which cannot just electively be removed.

[Forty Two]

We do essentially grant it personhood somewhere between 25-30 weeks.

And we do so by arbitrarily choosing some criterion. A foetus ceases to be a foetus when we say it becomes a person. Any alleged objectivity about it a chimera.

Not completely arbitrary, in that it involves choices made over a clear spectrum. A 35 week foetus has a very different neurological structure to a 20 week foetus. Our decisions about cut-off points are arbitrary in one sense, in that there is no compelling reason to favour limiting abortions after, let's say, 27 weeks vs 27.5 weeks, but there are biological facts to assist us in making some decision within the spectrum - not totally random...

The very fact that we choose one particular stage of development or another as a criterion for deciding if we are speaking of a foetus or a person is completely arbitrary. Some people simply say the moment of conception marks that point. Others claim it is when a heartbeat can be detected. Others again see the crucial point at some stage of the development of the nervous system. There are even people who argue that personhood is not reached until the biological organism becomes self-aware, that is somewhere between 18 and 24 months after its birth.

None of the criteria we may choose to argue in favour of are backed by objective facts. It's like starting with a single grain of sand, adding a grain at a time and being asked which grain turns the process of adding grains into a mountain, just with less granularity, so to speak. We proclaim a standard, then find reasons to back it up - not the other way around. That's arbitrariness at its purest.

I don't agree. I mean, it "can" be arbitrary, if someone is just randomly choosing a stage of development without reason. However, if someone has a reason or criterion for doing so, then it's not arbitrary. So, if we were to say, choose 3 days over 4 days as the cut-off, there doesn't appear to be any reason to choose one over the other. However, 6 months instead of 3 months has some basis in human development.

It's, again, like the driving example - choosing 16 years old or 16 years and 1 month might be "arbitrary" -- but choosing 16 years over 10 years seems to have some reason and basis in fact behind it.

To some extent, choosing a cut-off is always overinclusive and underinclusive, but when the reason/basis involves statistical generalities, then it's not arbitrary. It's a practical or pragmatic choice based on the available evidence. Can there be more than one "reasonable" choice - yes. However, having more than one option that can be backed up by reasoned argument does not render a decision "arbitrary" as between them. Arbitrary means based on "random" choice or "personal whim," rather than any reason or system.

[JimC]

I agree with 42

So there, Hermit!

[pErvinalia]

We do essentially grant it personhood somewhere between 25-30 weeks.

And we do so by arbitrarily choosing some criterion. A foetus ceases to be a foetus when we say it becomes a person. Any alleged objectivity about it a chimera.

It's not arbitrary as it is based on the stage that a foetus can be potentially viable outside of the uterus. The interesting thing about this is that as time progresses we will be able to save younger and younger foetus's. So at some point, this criteria, if maintained, will mean that there might be only a narrow window for a woman to get an abortion before the foetus is considered viable.

[pErvinalia]

I agree with 42

So there, Hermit!

yeah, same here..

[JimC]

Hermit is being monstered by the Group of Three!

[JimC]

We do essentially grant it personhood somewhere between 25-30 weeks.

And we do so by arbitrarily choosing some criterion. A foetus ceases to be a foetus when we say it becomes a person. Any alleged objectivity about it a chimera.

It's not arbitrary as it is based on the stage that a foetus can be potentially viable outside of the uterus. The interesting thing about this is that as time progresses we will be able to save younger and younger foetus's. So at some point, this criteria, if maintained, will mean that there might be only a narrow window for a woman to get an abortion before the foetus is considered viable.

Yes, that's how I was thinking - the earliest example of a premature birth that has survived successfully would be a reasonable cut off point (at a maximum - earlier would be better). I know there have been technical improvements in caring for very premature babies, but they are probably running into the law of diminishing returns...

[pErvinalia]

I don't know. Imagine in 200 years with technology that would seem to us now to be like magic. They may very well be able to grow babies in vats. Which will be great for woman, as they won't have to lug around a bowling ball in their guts for a good part of 9 months. But I guess it would be the time leading up to "vat technology" that would be concerning for women's rights. Imagine that a foetus could be viable outside of the womb after say 6 weeks. Does that mean women who don't want to give birth have to have an abortion within 6 weeks, after which time it's tough luck, you're stuck with it? Will be challenging ethical times at that point.

[Svartalf]

I agree with 42

So there, Hermit!

yeah, same here..

I might too, but it was tl: dr to me.

[Scot Dutchy]

I don't know. Imagine in 200 years with technology that would seem to us now to be like magic. They may very well be able to grow babies in vats. Which will be great for woman, as they won't have to lug around a bowling ball in their guts for a good part of 9 months. But I guess it would be the time leading up to "vat technology" that would be concerning for women's rights. Imagine that a foetus could be viable outside of the womb after say 6 weeks. Does that mean women who don't want to give birth have to have an abortion within 6 weeks, after which time it's tough luck, you're stuck with it? Will be challenging ethical times at that point.

Brave New World

[Forty Two]

Well, after firing off a load, men are "stuck with it." The rationale is that they're not the ones carrying it. So, if the woman is relieved of the obligation to carry it, but the fetus/baby/whatever nevertheless survives, then should men and women both then have the same rights and obligations at that point?

[Brian Peacock]

Obligations as what? Egg and sperm donors? Or are you talking about decisions to flush the hypothetically vat-nurtured youngling? As moot points go, it's a pretty moot point I think, and then a little more moot than that.

I think even Hermit accepts that as far as abortion goes things change as the pregnancy progresses - the context of decision making develops along with the feotus. Still, the law provides a framework not only by which we can (and cannot) act but also by which we can discuss the issues as they change over time - either through the course of a pregnancy or through the course of history. Given that framework, and the conditions and limits it puts on women, I think we, as societies, should make it easier to access abortion advice and services - the easier and quicker (sooner in the pregnancy) the better as far as I'm concerned. Things like 4 week cooling off periods or having an individual decision signed off by two doctors only after counselling essentially infantilise women by presuming that they don't know their own mind; that they're fickle creatures prone to unconsidered and impulsive action. Of course, you probably would think that if you're keen to vociferously opine, "If you didn't want to fall pregnant you should've just kept your legs together honey," but there you go.

Personally I have a more of problem with the selective abortion of otherwise 'wanted' offspring because some kind of risk or abnormality is has been flagged up. In some parts of the world abnormalities as mild as being female are enough for parents to seriously consider abortion, but more commonly it's things like congential or hereditary conditions and serious developmental abnormalities that are used to justify a termination. There are boundaries and cut-offs to be decided here, but that 'not normal' covers a lot of ground in this regard.

[Hermit]

I think even Hermit accepts that as far as abortion goes things change as the pregnancy progresses...

What do you mean with "even"? I acknowledged as much in two consecutive posts: "A foetus ceases to be a foetus when we say it becomes a person." "The very fact that we choose one particular stage of development or another as a criterion for deciding if we are speaking of a foetus or a person is completely arbitrary." That things change is not an issue. To me, the issue is when and why abortion is (un)acceptable, and I argue that any criteria we use is arbitrary. This is why the timeframe ranges from never to always. It just depends whom you ask.

The fact that our decisions are arbitrary should not be surprising. We have no objective criterion by which we can say "at this particular stage of development the foetus becomes a person." Even if we did, what of it? The right to life of a human being is also something we just made up.