New Policy Paper on the "Personhood" Movement

Despite the defeats of "personhood" measures in 2008 and 2010, Colorado voters will once again vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to grant all the rights of born persons to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses in November 2014.

The Coalition for Secular Government is pleased to announce an updated and expanded paper on the "personhood" movement by Ari Armstrong and myself, titled "The 'Personhood' Movement Versus Individual Rights: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception." The paper is currently available for download as a PDF or for reading as an HTML page.

Formats: HTML / PDF
Please share it with friends and on social media!

Here's our media release on it:

New Paper Criticizes "Personhood" Movement and Colorado's Amendment 67

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Coalition for Secular Government: http://www.SecularGovernment.us

A new paper criticizes the "personhood" movement and Colorado's Amendment 67, a measure that would treat abortion as murder under the law; outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, incest, risks to a woman's health, and severe fetal deformity; outlaw some types of birth control; outlaw common forms of in vitro fertility treatments; and ban embryonic stem-cell research.

The 54-page paper, coauthored by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong, offers extensive historical and scientific background on the "personhood" movement, abortion, and related matters. The paper also offers philosophic arguments supporting a woman's right to seek an abortion.

"Amendment 67 is extremely misleading in its language," Hsieh said. "The proponents of the measure apparently want voters to believe that it is about protecting pregnant women from vicious criminal attacks, but the reality is that the measure would treat women as murderers for getting an abortion or even for using certain types of birth control or in vitro fertility treatments."

Amendment 67 seeks to extend full legal protections to "unborn human beings," which its sponsors define as all embryos from the moment of conception.

As the new paper discusses, Colorado law already establishes criminal penalties for harming a pregnant woman's embryo or fetus against her consent.

If you have any questions about the paper, please email me.

Read more...

Last Chance to Pledge to Fund a New Paper on Abortion Rights!

I'm delighted to report that the pledge drive to fund Ari Armstrong's and my new policy paper in defense of abortion rights is rolling along on schedule. So far, we've received 28 pledges for $1,560. That's over the threshold -- HOORAY! So thank you, thank you to everyone who has pledged so far!

However, I'd love to collect a bit more in funds before tomorrow's deadline, if possible. Why? First, some people don't pay their pledges, so I'd like a bit of wiggle room for that. Second, I'd love to use any extra funds to promote the paper after it's completed. Third, a bit more money raised would be good for CSG's court challenge to Colorado's campaign finance laws.

You have until tomorrow at midnight to pledge. Please do pledge, if you want to support this project! Any amount is welcome, and your pledge is not due until the paper is published on September 17th.



You can find out more about Colorado's 2014 "personhood" ballot measure here. If you have any questions about the project or pledging, please email me.

Here are some of the comments that people have made while pledging... which I'm sharing because I appreciate them so much:

While we need staunch defense of abortion rights everywhere, this project is of personal interest to me because my daughters live in Colorado, and I want them to have the fullest protection of their rights possible there.

Thank you for using sane reasoning to argue for positions that I care about. I support your cause, and wish that as a student I could contribute more. Hopefully soon as a professional I can help more.

It's very important that you write this. Personhood laws destroy reproductive rights, and destroys Republicans' commitment to and reputation for supporting freedom and individual rights.

I am looking forward to the updated paper. I found the original very interesting and informative.

Keep up the good work! Look forward to the update and to the defeat of Amendment 67.

Me too!! Again, please pledge before tomorrow at midnight if you want to support the writing and promotion of a new paper in defense of abortion rights!

Read more...

Pledge to Fund a New Paper on Abortion Rights!

After a hiatus in 2012, I'm sorry to report that "Personhood for Zygotes" is on the ballot again in Colorado in 2014. However, I'm pleased to announce that Ari Armstrong and I will update 2010 policy paper in defense of abortion rights in light of the very much changed political landscape. Once again, we need your support to make that happen!


Colorado's New "Personhood for Zygotes" Amendment

Despite the defeats of "personhood" measures in 2008 and 2010, the crusaders against abortion rights have returned with yet another attempt to grant the full legal rights of personhood to fertilized eggs.

The ballot question reads:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings? (Full Text)

If successful, this measure would outlaw therapeutic and elective abortions, common fertility treatments, and popular forms of birth control. It would subject women and their doctors to intrusive police controls and unjust criminal prosecutions. It would force Coloradoans to abide by the deeply religious and sectarian view that the fertilized egg is imbued with rights from God.

Due to its misleading wording -- particularly its talk of "protecting pregnant women" -- 2014's Amendment 67 will likely fare significantly better in the polls than the "personhood" amendments proposed in 2008 and 2010. It's unlikely to pass, but that doesn't mean that abortion rights are secure. The dangerous ideology of "personhood" has spread like wildfire in the past four years among religious conservatives. In the 2012 presidential election, every Republican candidate except Mitt Romney endorsed "personhood for zygotes."

The ideology of "personhood for zygotes" must be steadfastly opposed -- based on a firm understanding of rights in pregnancy -- not merely because "it goes too far."


Support a 2014 Paper in Defense of Abortion Rights

To combat the dangerous ideology of "personhood" and defend abortion rights on principle, Ari Armstrong and I will publish a new version of their policy paper on the "personhood" movement. The updates to the paper will focus on the new language in 2014's Amendment 67, the widespread embrace of "personhood" by the Republican Party in the 2012 election, the synergy between "incremental" and "personhood" approaches to abortion bans, the defeat of a "personhood" amendment in Mississippi, and more.

However, that work depends on your support! The update to the paper will only go forward if at least $1500 is pledged by August 20th. That will help pay for the many hours of work this update will require. If sufficient funds are pledged, the 2014 paper will be published by September 17th.

So, if you want to help defend abortion rights in this 2014 election, please pledge! Any amount is welcome, and your pledge is not due until the paper is published.



Note: Due to efforts of the Center for Competitive Politics on CSG's behalf, Diana hopes that she will not have to report on funds collected for this project, as she's been obliged to do in prior elections. Time -- or rather the judge -- will tell. In any case, pledges for this paper are helping us have a viable case with which to challenge Colorado's onerous campaign finance laws.

If you have any questions about the project or pledging, please email me.

Read more...

Conservative Allies in Politics: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on conservative allies in politics. The question was:

Aren't politicians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul allies in the struggle for liberty? Although I'm an atheist and a novice Objectivist, I've always wondered why so many advocates of individual rights oppose candidates and movements that seem to agree with us on a great many issues. Despite their other warts, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the most likely men to promote our causes. The notion that they evangelize is dubious. And even if true, are there better alternatives today? I've also seen this attitude towards Libertarian candidates and their party. Ronald Reagan was the only President who advanced the ball towards free markets in the last fifty years, and yet people condemn him because of his position on abortion and because of his religious/political partnerships. I've never understood this. Shouldn't we embrace the advocates of free markets out there today, even if not perfect?

My Answer, In Brief: The Republicans – including "better" Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul – are a dangerous mixture of some economic liberty, nationalism, and theocracy. Instead of discrediting liberty by supporting them, focus on the issues.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 25:38
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Activism, Conservatism, Elections, Free Society, GLBT, Immigration, Politics, Progressivism, Voting

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Objectivism Versus Libertarianism and The Libertarian Party
• With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by William Martin
• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• Rand Paul on immigration and Ted Cruz on immigration
• Sen. Rand Paul introduces 'fetal personhood' bill to outlaw abortion
• Denver Post: How the Republicans Lost My Vote by Paul Hsieh

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on conservative allies in politics, flunking a student, guilt about refusing requests, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 July 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Defending Abortion Rights: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on defending abortion rights. The question was:

How can abortion rights be more effectively defended? Although the biblical case against abortion is weak, the religious right has gained much traction against abortion rights in the last decade or two. The "personhood" movement is growing every year, and incremental restrictions on abortion have mushroomed. Even more alarming, the demographics seem to be against abortion rights: young people are increasingly opposed to abortion. What can be done to more effectively defend abortion rights? Can any lessons be drawn from the success of the campaign for gay marriage?

My Answer, In Brief: The advocates of abortion bans are largely motivated by the divine command, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," which is then often cast in the language of the "right to life." To combat that, those people need to be confronted with the reality of what abortion bans mean to women and couples.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 29:00
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Communication, Conservatism, Ethics, Politics, Pregnancy, Rights

Links:

• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, being virtuous but not happy, defending abortion rights, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 April 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Asking for Rape?

I found that photo on Facebook a while back, with the following caption:

This photo was posted on STFU, Conservatives Tumblr page last night [here]. The reason why I'm sharing it is not because of the photo itself (which is epic in it's own right), but for the comments it generated.

One person wrote, "but then again, its kind like putting a meat suit on and telling a shark not to eat you".

STFU responded (with bolded text):

We (men) are not fucking sharks!

We are not rabid animals living off of pure instinct

We are capable of rational thinking and understanding.

Just because someone is cooking food doesn't mean you're entitled to eat it.

Just because a banker is counting money doesn't mean you're being given free money.

Just because a person is naked doesn't mean you're entitled to fuck them.

You are not entitled to someone else's body just because it's exposed.

What is so fucking difficult about this concept?

Bravo.

Indeed. Also, Laura Jedeed has some really excellent comments on rape and this image too.

Happily, the rights of women in western countries are more widely recognized and better protected today than at any other time in human history. That's a huge achievement, and part of why I'm grateful to live in modern America.

However, more progress awaits us. One example was in the news last year:

A recent court case just exposed a barbarity in California law, namely that it's not rape to trick an unmarried woman into sleeping with you by pretending to be her boyfriend.

Julio Morales was convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison for entering an 18-year-old woman's bedroom and instigating sex with her while she was asleep after a night of drinking at a house party in 2009. According to prosecutors, it wasn't until "light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her" that she realized Morales wasn't her boyfriend. Holy shit.

But a panel of judges overturned the conviction this week because of a law from 1872 that doesn't give women the same protections as married women because, as we all know, single women are always down for nonconsensual sex, even when they're asleep and/or purposefully tricked into the act.

The court admitted that "If the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband" it would be rape. But since there was no ring on her finger, it's not!

Eugene Volokh had some comments here. I agree that rape by fraud shouldn't be a punishable offense, except in cases of impersonation of a lover or spouse. (I'm not sure of the case of mere friends.) As Eugene says of such impersonation:

It is, thankfully, apparently a rare sort of lie; it is very far outside the normal level of dishonesty that people expect might happen in their relationships; it is one for which there is no plausible justification or mitigation; and criminalizing it is unlikely to sweep in the garden variety lies that, unfortunately, often appear in people's sexual and romantic lives.

California law obviously needs to be updated.

Here's another example. The 2012 election was replete with politicians making ridiculous and offensive comments about rape in order to rationalize their across-the-board opposition to abortion. Most notable was Todd Akin's justification for denying abortions to women pregnant due to rape:

... from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

Conservatives need to recognize that forced pregnancy -- not just pregnancy due to rape but any unwanted pregnancy -- is a morally abhorrent violation of rights, not a gift from God.

Alas, the third example hits closer to home for me. In a February 2012 podcast, Leonard Peikoff said that a man is entitled to force himself on a woman if she has a few drinks with him and then goes up to his hotel room. Thankfully, he corrected that a few weeks later, but only in part. By a rather strange analysis, Peikoff concluded that a woman cannot withdraw consent after penetration. In reality, that means that the man can do whatever he pleases to the woman after penetration, even as she kicks and screams and yells and cries in protest. That's seriously, seriously wrong -- and dangerous too.

On a more positive note, you'll find my own views on the nature and limits of consent in sex in this podcast. (It's a pretty lengthy discussion... about over 40 minutes.)

Ultimately, my point here is that the rights of women matter -- and they're not yet fully protected. The image at the top of this post reminds us of that. The fact that she's half-naked doesn't make her any less of a person with the absolute right to forbid another person access to her body.

That's a lesson that some people still need to learn, unfortunately.

Read more...

The Morality of Elective Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the morality of elective abortion. The question was:

Is elective abortion morally wrong? Some people support abortion in the cases of rape or incest, as well as in cases of serious medical problems with the fetus or the pregnancy. However, they regard the termination of a normal, healthy pregnancy as morally wrong, particularly as irresponsible. Are such abortions wrong? Does the judgment change if the couple used birth control or not?

My Answer, In Brief: Abortion is a moral choice whenever a pregnancy – let alone raising a child – would be a sacrifice of herself, her goals, and her happiness. For many unwanted pregnancies, an early-term abortion is a far better option than adoption or becoming a parent.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 25:07
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Adoption, Children, Duty, Ethics, Obligation, Parenting, Responsibility, Sacrifice, Self-Sacrifice, Sex

Links:

• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• Philosophy in Action: Adoption Versus Abortion

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the morality of elective abortion, liability for injuries on the job, guilt over self-sacrifice, and more – is available here: Episode of 5 January 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Doctors Refusing to Perform Abortions: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on doctors refusing to perform abortions. The question was:

Does a doctor violate a woman's rights by refusing to perform an abortion? Many people on the left claim that a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion – or a pharmacist who refuses to dispense Plan B – is thereby violating the rights of the woman. Those doctors and pharmacists, however, claim that they're exercising their own freedom of religion. Who is right?

My Answer, In Brief: A doctor does not violate a woman’s right to abortion by refusing to perform an abortion, and a doctor’s freedom of religion does not entitle him to renege on the terms of his employment.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 6:44
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Ethics, Medicine, Politics, Religion, Rights

Links:

• Man's Rights and The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on Objectivism versus libertarianism, bad ideas as a cause of mental illness, doctors refusing to perform abortions, and more – is available here: Episode of 9 June 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Abortion Rights and the Violinist Argument: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on abortion rights and the violinist argument. The question was:

Can abortion rights be justified based on Judith Thomson's "violinist" argument? Even if we accept that an embryo is a person with a right to life, can't abortion rights be justified on the basis of Judith Thomson's famous "violinist" thought experiment – meaning, on the grounds that one person does not have the right to use another person for life support?

My Answer, In Brief: Judith Thomson’s defense of abortion is an excellent way to challenge and dispense with the view that abortion immoral and should be illegal because the embryo or fetus has a right to life. It’s not a definitive account of rights in pregnancy, nor is it intended to be such. It's major flaw is that it relies too heavily on intuitions, albeit good ones.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 23:02
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Academia, Ethics, Intuitions, Judith Thomson, Law, Personhood, Philosophy, Politics, Trolley Problem

Links:

• A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson
• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, particularly Rights in Pregnancy
• Libertarians for Life: Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy
• Abort73: Answering a More Sophisticated Defense of Abortion – Part 12
• A Defense of Abortion by David Boonin

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on abortion rights and the violinist argument, Obama's cultural impact, laws against marital infidelity, managing demands for family time, and more – is available here: Episode of 2 June 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Judith Thomson's Violinist Argument for Abortion Rights

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll discuss Judith Thomson's classic "violinist" argument in favor of abortion rights. It's an engaging and accessible article which has been widely read and reprinted. If you've never read it -- or you've not read it in a while -- you might want to read or re-read it before Sunday's broadcast. You can do so here: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion.

Here's the introduction to whet your appetite.

Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.

I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly anytime explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment. Or perhaps instead they are simply being economical in argument. Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer examination we shall feel inclined to reject it.

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape.

Nor do they make an exception for a case in which the mother has to spend the nine months of her pregnancy in bed. They would agree that would be a great pity, and hard on the mother; but all the same, all persons have a right to life, the fetus is a person, and so on. I suspect, in fact, that they would not make an exception for a case in which, miraculously enough, the pregnancy went on for nine years, or even the rest of the mother's life.

Some won't even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to shorten the mother's life, they regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother's life. Such cases are nowadays very rare, and many opponents of abortion do not accept this extreme view. All the same, it is a good place to begin: a number of points of interest come out in respect to it.

Again, you can read the whole article here: A Defense of Abortion by Judith Thomson. Then... please join us on Sunday morning for the live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio -- or listen to the podcast later.

Read more...

Infanticide After Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on infanticide after abortion. The question was:

Is killing a baby born after an abortion a form of murder? Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for murder, due to accusations that he killed infants who were delivered in abortions at his clinic. If the facts are as reported, should he be convicted of murder? What should be done when a baby is born alive during an abortion? What are the likely cultural and political implications of this trial?

My Answer, In Brief: According to the testimony at the trial, Kermit Gosnell did not merely perform abortions: he killed born babies, i.e. persons with a right to life. A person who does that is guilty of murder, and he should be prosecuted and punished.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 15:52
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Children, Crime, Ethics, Infanticide, Law, Politics, Pregnancy, Rights

Links:

• The Atlantic: Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story and 14 Theories for Why Kermit Gosnell's Case Didn't Get More Media Attention by Conor Friedersdorf
• CBS News Coverage of the Kermit Gosnell Trial
• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, particularly Rights in Pregnancy
• Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell Condemned by Pro-Abortion Rights Groups
• Gallup: Americans' Abortion Views Steady Amid Gosnell Trial
• Philosophy in Action: Criminal Death of a Fetus

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on taxes versus slavery, infanticide after abortion, emergency medical care, and more – is available here: Episode of 12 May 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Parental Consent for Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on parental consent for abortion. The question was:

Should minor girls be required by law to obtain parental consent for an abortion? Normally, parents are legally empowered to make medical decisions for their minor children, and minors cannot obtain medical procedures without parental consent. How should that apply in the case of pregnancy? Should pregnancy and abortion be treated differently from other medical conditions? Should parents be allowed by law to force a daughter under 18 to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort against her will?

My Answer, In Brief: Parents should never be able to force a minor child to bear the burden and risk of carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth. Hence, parental consent should not be required for abortion. However, a minor child cannot impose the burden of caring for another child on her parents, and so she might need to emancipate herself if she does not wish to terminate the pregnancy but her parents do.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 13:46
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Ethics, Health, Law, Parenting, Pregnancy, Religion, Rights, Sex, Young Adults

Links:

• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception, particularly Section 4: Individual Rights and Abortion

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on moral judgments of obese people, parental consent for abortion, atheist as a negative term, living longer, and more – is available here: Episode of 14 April 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

North Dakota Bans Abortion for Genetic Defects

Babies with genetic diseases or developmental disorders deserve love, kindness, and respect... but embryos and fetuses are not babies. They exist inside the pregnant woman, wholly dependent on her alone for biological life-support. They do not have a right to life. Rather, the pregnant woman has a right to do whatever she pleases with her own body.

Fetal abnormalities are a darn good reason to terminate a pregnancy, as most people are not financially or emotionally prepared to care for a severely handicapped child, potentially in perpetuity. (Hence, the 90% abortion rate in such cases.)

North Dakota has banned such abortions. For people unable to travel out-of-state, the results will be disastrous.

Read more...

Valuing Life Versus Inflicting Suffering

Here's a fascinating and horrifying story: "A surrogate's unimaginable dilemma." I wish that I could share a relevant tidbit, but alas, it's the kind of story that you just have to read from beginning to end... and it's very well-told.

(The story raises all kinds of thorny questions about abortion rights in the context of surrogacy, and I hope that someone submits a question on the topic to Philosophy in Action's queue.)

As a matter of morality, I think that to inflict a life of pain, suffering, and incapacity on a helpless infant is very wrong. The pregnancy could have been terminated when the abnormalities were discovered, and doing so would not have harmed any person or violated the rights of any person. That's because the fetus is not an independent person with rights or interests until born, as Ari Armstrong and I argued in our policy paper, The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception.

I value human life, deeply. I'm nothing but delighted by and supportive of people who value their future children while still in the womb. When a culture denies the value of human life -- as Nazi Germany did -- the results are horrifying.

Yet I cannot relate to people seek to "value life" by prolonging any form of existence by any means possible. Such people seem to value life in some kind of abstract or formalistic way, without regard for the kind of life lived, including the suffering inflicted by the attempts to sustain that life. That's not the way that a rational and responsible adult values life, in my view. It's emotional self-indulgence... or religious dogmatism... or duty ethics. Mostly, I think, it's nothing good.

Read more...

North Dakota Passes Personhood Legislation

Here's some very bad news from North Dakota, particularly for couples suffering from infertility:

North Dakota's Senate approved two anti-abortion bills on Monday that would ban the destruction of human embryos and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that at that point a fetus can feel pain.

Senators voted 30-17 to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The measure is a challenge to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until viability, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

The embryo measure narrowly passed 24-23, with the full Senate present. The measure's aim is to prohibit the intentional destruction of embryos and to regulate in-vitro fertilization, in which a woman's egg is fertilized outside her body. The bill defines a human being as "an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development."

For more on what's wrong with such "personhood" laws, read The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and myself.

Also, worse might be coming from North Dakota:

The North Dakota House this month also passed a bill that would ban doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat were detected. The House also has passed a bill would prevent women from having abortions based on gender selection or a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome.

Every restriction on abortion means forcing the burdens of pregnancy -- and likely motherhood -- on unprepared, incapable, and unwilling women. That's a violation of their right to life, and it's a serious moral evil.

Read more...

Tacit Consent to Pregnancy? No!

This short commentary raises an excellent question about the "if you have sex, you're consenting to pregnancy" argument against abortion rights.

According to many pro-lifers, when women consent to sex, they thereby consent to (and commit themselves to) bearing any resulting children. And so, in deciding to having sex, these women have in effect voluntarily waived their right to get an abortion.

Now, I find this pro-life claim utterly baffling: consent to sex is clearly different from consenting to anything further, many women deliberately use birth control to avoid pregnancy, many women plan on getting an abortion if they should end up pregnant, etc. According to this pro-life claim, it seems, we are supposed to interpret the act of consensual sex itself as involving some sort of mysterious tacit consent and occult commitments that are not only morally significant, but so overwhelmingly morally important as to completely override the actual preferences of the woman. I don't think actions carry occult commitments, and this all seems like superstition to me.

But here's my question. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that actions do carry occult commitments. Even granting this, we still need a way of telling what those commitments are. Without a method of interpretation, we're utterly in the dark. For example, a typical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear the child, waiving one's right to an abortion. But a more radical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear and raise the child, waiving one's right to an abortion as well as one's right to put the child up for adoption. My question is: how are we supposed to tell which interpretation is correct, and which occult commitments are (and are not) carried by the act of consensual sex?

Ultimately, all arguments against abortion rights -- including the argument from tacit consent -- depend on the claim that the fetus has a right to life.  Ari Armstrong and I refuted that argument in our 2010 policy paper, The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception.  If you've not yet read it, be sure to check out the section on "Individual Rights and Abortion."

That being said... over the past few months, I've been thinking off and on about how to defend abortion rights in a way that's more persuasive than the standard pro-choice arguments, including the better arguments of Objectivists.  I want to find a way to make my own view resonate better with reasonable people of the "but it's a baby!" mindset.  So if you have any thoughts on more effective rhetoric on this issue, I'd be interested to hear that in the comments.  I'd be particularly interested to hear from people who switched from "pro-life" to pro-choice views: What convinced you?

Read more...

Veto Power over Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on veto power over abortion. The question was:

Should a man be able to prevent his pregnant girlfriend from aborting his baby? Sometimes, a man will get his girlfriend pregnant accidentally, and they disagree about what should be done. If the man wants the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, whether to give up the baby for adoption or him take sole custody, while the woman wants to get an abortion, should he be able to prevent her? It's his baby, shouldn't he have some say?

My Answer, In Brief: The right to abortion is not based on any property right in the fetus. Rather, the right to abortion is based on a woman's right to her own body, including the fact that the embryo or fetus is not a person. The man might object, but he has no moral or legal right to interfere.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 9:11
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Children, Ethics, Fatherhood, Pregnancy, Rights Relevant Links:

• The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, particularly the section Rights in Pregnancy
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh in The Objective Standard
• Philosophy in Action: Child Support from Unwilling Fathers

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I also answered questions on solutions to widespread racism, recommended works of Aristotle, staying in a marriage, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 January 2013.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Veto Power over Abortion: Sunday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer a question on veto power over abortion. The question is:

Should a man be able to prevent his pregnant girlfriend from aborting his baby? Sometimes, a man will get his girlfriend pregnant accidentally, and they disagree about what should be done. If the man wants the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, whether to give up the baby for adoption or him take sole custody, while the woman wants to get an abortion, should he be able to prevent her? It's his baby, shouldn't he have some say?

Interested? I hope so!

This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 20 January 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET. The full show will cover solutions to widespread racism, recommended works of Aristotle, veto power over abortion, staying in a marriage, and more. Be sure to check out the full slate of questions.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 20 January 2013.

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later!

Read more...

The Deadly Effects of Abortion Bans

Hospital Death in Ireland Renews Fight Over Abortion:

The woman, Savita Halappanavar, 31, a dentist who lived near Galway, was 17 weeks pregnant when she sought treatment at University Hospital Galway on Oct. 21, complaining of severe back pain.

Dr. Halappanavar was informed by senior hospital physicians that she was having a miscarriage and that her fetus had no chance of survival. However, despite repeated pleas for an abortion, she was told that it would be illegal while the fetus's heart was still beating, her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said.

It was not until Oct. 24 that the heartbeat ceased and the remains of the fetus were surgically removed. But Dr. Halappanavar contracted a bacterial blood disease, septicemia. She was admitted to intensive care but never recovered, dying on Oct. 28.

Mr. Halappanavar, in an interview with The Irish Times from his home in India, said his wife was told after one request, "This is a Catholic country."

On Facebook, I've seen some advocates of abortion bans claim that her death cannot be definitively proved to have been caused by the failure of the doctors to abort her dying fetus. That's true, but utterly beside the point.

Very little in medicine is cut and dried. The human body is immensely complex, and doctors mostly deal in probabilities, not certainties. That's part of why it's so important for each person -- guided by the advice of her doctors -- to make her own decisions about her medical care.

People differ in their values, and hence, in the risks they're willing to accept or not. For a person to be free to live her own life requires that she be free to decide what risks to take with her own body and health -- without interference from the government.

For the government to dictate or outlaw certain kinds of medical treatments means subjecting people to risks contrary to their own best judgment of their own interests. That's a violation of their rights, plain and simple. That's true for all medical care, including abortion.

That's why laws banning abortion violate rights, even when they allow for exceptions to save the life of the mother. All pregnancy is risky: the maternal death rate in the United States is 16 out of 100,000. Many women are unwilling to undergo that risk, not to mention all the other complications and risks of pregnancy -- and rightly so. Because the embryo/fetus is not a person with the right to life, a woman has the right to decide, based purely on her judgment of her own best interests, that she's not willing to bear the risks of pregnancy, and hence, to terminate her pregnancy.

In contrast, under laws that permit abortion only to save the life of the mother, doctors would be constantly subject to second-guessing by police, prosecutors, and courts -- and perhaps, subject to very serious criminal charges for murder or manslaughter. That's why women die under abortion bans, regardless of provisions that permit doctors to act to save the the woman's life. The doctor cannot afford to be blind to the risk to his own life and liberty of performing an abortion, even to save a woman's life.

The advocates of abortion bans seek to evade the consequences of their own policies when confronted by these kinds of cases by claiming that the woman might have died anyway, even if she'd been able to terminate the pregnancy. That might be true, but that should have been her decision to make. Instead, she was preventing from acting based on her own best judgment in service of her life. That's a major violation of her fundamental rights.

Ultimately, as Savita Halappanavar's husband said, "It was all in their hands, and they just let her go. How can you let a young woman go to save a baby who will die anyway?"

I've said it before and I'll say it again: opposition to abortion rights is not "pro-life."

Read more...

Anti-Abortion Rationalizations

Opponents of abortion have been busy evading the real-life horrors of their goals. Recently, we had Tod Akin denying that rape victims will become pregnant -- and now we have Illinois representative Joe Walsh claiming that pregnancy can never threaten the life of a woman:

Abortion bans don't need exceptions for the life of the mother because of "modern technology and science," Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) said Thursday.

"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" of an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother, Walsh said after a debate with Tammy Duckworth, his Democratic opponent, according to the Chicago Tribune. "... There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing."

That's complete bull, and anyone who isn't informed enough or honest enough to deal with the well-known dangers of abortion bans has no business in politics.

Read more...