Safe, Legal, and Rare

If we outlaw convenience killing, then hitmen will be forced to ply their trade in unsafe back alleys, using clumsy methods that could hurt bystanders. It would be much safer for everyone if the hitmen could practice their trade in safe, clean environments, where the target could be killed quickly and painlessly under regulated conditions.

Of course, we would all prefer to live in a world where hitmen aren't necessary. But we can't stop people from trying to kill each other, can we? Killing for hire has a long history in this country, and statistics show that it is here to stay. We should accept and channel this natural human desire so that it can be expressed as safely as possible.

Yawn. Your time would be better spent cooperating with those who really want to reduce abortions, and focusing your ire instead on those who merely claim they want abortions to be "safe, legal and rare" but in fact want them to be safe, legal, and commonplace.

X: I can't, because there's no moral ground that both allows abortion to be legal and allows the government to coerce people into making it rare. Plus, I won't concede the point that abortion is acceptable, so I can't work with the people who merely want it to be rare. You know, work with Hitler to kill as few Jews as possible, &c.

X, you're avoiding the whole point with the cliche of amorality as the height of moral sophistication. Yawn, indeed! That's so seventies and eighties. This is a new century.

You say we should cooperate with those who really want to reduce abortions. The implied premise is that we can't stop the abortions anyway, so we should give in to the lesser evil and abandon our moral ideals. Michael's point is that your logic is unstoppable. There are lots of evils that can never be fully eradicated. But it's utter foolishness to abandon our ideals in the hope that we can somehow negotiate with evil. That has been tried over the past several decades many time in many contexts, and it never works. Once you put down your ideals, you don't have any leverage with which to bargain.

Michael is obviously thinking along these lines, as with his story recently about having sex with someone for $1 million versus $20. Hitler's collaborators make another good example. We need a name for this kind of argument, and a generalized demonstration of why it fails. There are too many of these arguments-from-despair to swat them down one at a time.

Michael, "work[ing] with Hitler to kill as few Jews as possible" is exactly what Oskar Schindler did. Was what he did morally reprehensible?

WH: I'm not familiar enough with the details to have an opinion.

The notion that government has no interest in discouraging any behavior it doesn't (or shouldn't) ban is beyond silly. Frankly, I'm not sure which I dread more: an authoritarian government that prohibits alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, adultery, strip joints, poor dietary habits or encouraging one's kids to learn as little as possible in school, or a looneytarian one whose members feel duty bound to pretend there is nothing socially undesirable about any of these things.

Politics is the art of the possible. Bad politics is the art of stamping one's feet, alienating potential allies, accomplishing nothing, and patting oneself on the back for remaining ideologically pure.

Back Alley abortions are no less murder than Front Office abortions. Making them illegal will make them much rarer than they are, and making them unsafe will make them rarer still. I just don't see a problem here...

Marty: perhaps you don't.
Perhaps some people don't see a problem with abortions.

Perhaps everybody's wrong. What's a government to do?

If you don't like abortions, don't have them. If you care about the lives of babies and children, I think you can make more difference by helping underpriveleged kids who have already been born.

X: I think you'd agree that there's a vast difference between banning something that only harms the doer and banning something that harms others as well.

j: By your logic, why outlaw any killings at all?

Sure, but that is not the point. Your statement was that "there's no moral ground that both allows abortion to be legal and allows the government to coerce people into making it rare." Depending on what you mean by "coerce," that statement was either a red herring (many gov't policies are minimally coercive, or less) or a radical, Planned Parenthood-esque argument that government shouldn't even express a moral view on X unless it has full authority to regulate X.

Abortion is not the simple, cut and dried issue that extreme pro- and anti-abortionists make it out to be. Even if it were, I would think that those interested in preventing abortions would at least be pragmatic enough to work with those pro-choicers who are serious about the "rare" part of "safe, legal and rare." What are you actually hoping to accomplish? To get the law to vindicate you by saying "yes, abortion is murder," or to prevent as many of these "murders" as possible from happening? I almost get the impression that you'd rather see 1,000,000 illegal abortions per year rather than 500,000 legal ones.

Governments prohibit killing because their citizens would not tolerate a government which fails to keep them safe.

I personally don't kill people because I'd feel bad about it in the morning.

X: About your comment, "Abortion is not the simple, cut and dried issue that extreme pro- and anti-abortionists make it out to be"

What's complicated about it? Abortion is taking a life. That's pretty simple. The complication comes from those that trudge through the sometimes intricate process of finding ways to take the emphasis off of what it is [taking a life], and push the focus to all the "good" reasons it needs to be legal.

Fiery and emotionally charged fluff [reasons] now become the replacement for honesty, and common sense. That's the only complication I see.

Jim, *you're* being fiery and emotional, not X. Murder, taking a life etc. is inflammatary language based on presuppositions you make but many don't share.

Here's a couple of reasons why it's more complicated:
a) many disagree that the full status of human life should be bestowed upon an embryo
b) you are ignoring the sacrifice made by a mother to support a developing foetus. If a man will die unless you donate lots of blood over the course of a year, or unless you give him a kidney, should you be legally compelled to make that donation??

If these reasons are unconvincing to you or live you unmoved, at least admit that the problem is more complicated than you like to characterise it.

j: As for (a), yes, that's an issue, but scientific evidence continues to demonstrate that there's no real biological difference in kind between a zygote and an adult.

As for (b), you're neglecting the fact that the mother bears responsibility for creating the baby in the first place. She's not just a neutral observer who comes across a person that requires money or blood to survive. In cases of rape or incest, where the mother had no choice about the pregnancy, many pro-lifers are willing to allow the option of abortion.

Jez: "Perhaps some people don't see a problem with abortions.

Perhaps everybody's wrong. What's a government to do?"

Oooh! Oooh! I know!
MAYBE WE COULD VOTE ON IT!

Michael: "science" won't answer the philosophical question of whether or not a developing fetus at any given stage deserves the full legal protection of a human being, lesser protection, or no protection at all. I'm not even sure why you want to go that route, seeing as very few biologists are anti-abortion activists, as all reasonable ones would have to be if your theory were right.

Ben, I agree that we should be able to vote on it. The result would almost certainly be one of those messy compromises that offends purists of all stripes. And the Hitler analogy proves exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to prove. If there were a button we could push to retroactively change history so that Hitler killed only 3 million Jews rather than 6, to NOT push that button would be immoral in the extreme. Contrary to the overheated rhetoric of which you, Jim and Michael seem to be so proud, results DO matter.

Michael. a) what do you mean by "kind"?
b) you're right, that is to say I didn't point that out in my last comment. But my purpose was to demonstrate that the question not a straight-forward murder, since it could be characterised instead as denying the support and sustainance the embryo requires; I think we must now agree that there are factors which complicate the issue.

After birth, should a mother be required to provide blood, organs, money etc. for her child?

X: Science can't answer the moral questions, obviously, but it can definitely help define the questions, with facts. Regardless of the moral opinions of biologists, they generally agree on the facts regarding human development.

As for the Hitler thing and your button, your analogy is false because the Holocaust is now over, and there are no future costs to pushing your button. In contrast, with abortion, if pro-lifers give in on a crucial point to, say, halve the number of abortions but guarantee that they continue ad infititum, then there's a potentially unlimited future cost. If we stick to our guns, however, there's a chance (a significant one, IMHO) that we'll be able to almost eliminate abortions of convenience.

j: a) Kind: see definition 3.

b) You named one complicating factor, which I uncomplicated very easily. The vast majority of abortions do not included any significant complicating factors and are done solely for convenience. If you're willing to concede that abortions of convenience should be illegal, I'll be happy to discuss the various complicating factors that occasionally arise.

And actually, yes, mothers are required to provide money for their baby, at least, though do not believe they are required to donate blood or organs. However, a pregnant woman does not donate blood or organs to her baby, either. Plus, once a baby has been born it's easy to transfer responsibility to someone else via adoption. Before he or she is born, it's rather difficult.

You completely missed my point on the button analogy. The point is that if you have an opportunity to mitigate a harm, real or perceived, then for the love of God, you should take it. It may not be perfect, or even acceptable, but at the end of the day, accomplishing something is better than accomplishing nothing.

If we stick to our guns, however, there's a chance (a significant one, IMHO) that we'll be able to almost eliminate abortions of convenience.

Therein lies your error. Sticking to the extreme anti-abortion position has NO chance of suceeding, and a very big chance of failing where a more modest approach might otherwise succeed.

X: Well that's something we'll have to disagree on then. Surveys show that the country is leaning more and more against abortion every year.

X, the objectionable part of your point is that you assume a choice between keeping our ideals or cooperating with the lesser evil to stave off the greater. If we only have to choose one of the two, then I'll keep my ideals, thanks.

But I think it's a false dichotomy. MW's post was simply affirming and considering the ideal. Can't he both think about the ideal, and publicly affirm it, while accepting the half-measures that are available in the short term?

According to your definition, there is scope for argument over whether an embryo is the "same in kind" as an independent living human. An analogous question: is a catipillar the same in kind as a butterfly? A related question: is a woman the same in kind as a man? I pose these questions to show the latitude in the definition you provided. The answers to these questions can be yes or no, depending on what specifics you add to the definition.

A pregnant woman most certainly donates blood to her foetus. Again, you are correct that one of the unique aspects of preganancy is the difficulty in transferring responsibility to a third party. That doesn't make it less complicated. You didn't "easily uncomplicate" the matter by introducing the mother's responsibility, rather you underlined another complication.

"abortion is murder" is an easy statement to make, and it appeals to people who already want to ban abortions; but it is more difficult to prove or justify. In terms of honest and impartial philosophy, I don't think it's a useful statemtent to make.

j: Actually, the blood of the mother and baby do not mix. They're often different types. Nutrients are transfered through the placenta by diffusion. Plus, I never said "abortion is murder", I said that abortions of convenience are murder, which is a weaker position to defend. It's not "provable", and I never claimed it was. It's a moral position. However, the scientific knowledge required to classify an unborn baby as a human is pretty concrete.

here's a little semi-relevant factoid:
52000 more abortions under bush than clinton

http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/11/oped-stassen1011-5709.html

Is this a victory of any sort?