Political Compass #21: Abortion should be illegal.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them.

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.

*Proposition #21: * Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.

By what reasoning should we grant rights to womb-dwelling tadpole-like organisms which we deny the adult pig we eat for breakfast, whose intelligence and sentience surpasses that of a human even months after birth?

None that I can understand, I’m afraid (although I’ll err on the side of caution and arbitrarily grant those rights some time before “pig-sentience” is achieved, just to be safe). Sure, that tadpole might later become pig-sentient, or later still human-sentient, but the same can be said of a separate sperm and egg: Conception is no less arbitrary a state than separateness, nor implantation, nor tadpole-ness, nor chicken-sentience, nor pig-sentience etc..

Neither is “conception” even a well defined threshold; almost certainly, an egg surrounded by sperm will be fertilised - its potential for future sentience is no less strong. The lucky sperm latches onto the zona pellucida, the membrane becomes impenetrable, the 23 chromosomes of each gamete duplicate, reduction-divide and proceed through four stages of meiosis and mitosis etc. etc., all before we even get to the blastocyst stage where foetal cells and placental cells separate and the darling cyst tries to implant itself in the womb. Nobody gets to shout “Stop…NOW! There’s your baby”. Indeed, is refusing to have sex with one who offers it not “denying a potential human life”? Given the probabilities, two young fertile people sitting down for dinner on a first date are a veritable baby waiting to happen - their “wilful act” of refusal to immediately go at it hammer-and-tongs on the restaurant floor sentences that baby to nonexistence. How dare they play God!

I draw an arbitrary line at, say, about 18 weeks after this hazy process called conception. Yes, I am effectively choosing a date after which you are a human who can be murdered but before which you are a cyst, unwelcome and non-sentient as a garden weed and “human” in DNA only, which can be vacuumed up and disposed of as surgical waste. (Or, in the case of a criminal assault which killed a non-sentient but welcome flower, before which the attacker could only be charged with grievous bodily harm as though they had eg. cut off a hand.) Such arbitrary dates are the basis of any legal system.

Now, to set that date after birth, while it may still be merely equivalent to removing a cyst (or at worst killing a pig), unduly risks some kind of suffering in my opinion - let’s say a few weeks before birth just to be safe. But to set that date at conception, or equate contraception with murder, is utter simple-mindedness which the industrialised democratic world left behind decades ago. Consider that over a bacon sandwich.

2

-2, 0.5, Disagree

First of all, it’s not a life, it’s a clump of cells siphoning off the woman. No harm can be done to it because it does not have a consiousness. You might as well say cutting of a cancerous growth was immoral because it is “killing a life”

Secondly, it may be considered a “potential life”, if you want. I’ll give you that. So, let the “potential life” go ahead and live on it’s own, outside the woman. Why should the woman be forced to contribute to that “potential life” to keep it “potential”? If it holds no potential apart from the woman, then it’s potential depends on the woman’s decision, does it not? The only argument apart from the moral aspect is the infringing of the foetus’ rights, and since they have no existence apart from the woman, why should they have rights to be exercised against the woman?

Thirdly, the regulatory aspect. Criminal law should never be used to punish people when the objection is merely moral. This is a prime example of where democracy fails - the majority think that this is immoral, and therefore desire to restrict the rights of the minority, even though it doesn’t harm the majority. Indeed, allowing abortion even has the socially good effect of not bringing unwanted babies into the world (for the state to handle), and preventing dangerous illegal abortions, which may fund other undesirable activity.

3

I to strongly disagree though I believe you may want to examine the rational behind your arguement. You make such a big deal out of a pig having the intelligence and sentience that far surpasses a human baby. Is it therefore ok to kill a baby before it becomes as smart as a pig? Or is the next political question going to be about animal rights?

Marc

4

If no suffering of a sentient being can reasonably be said to occur, I would bite that bullet and say ‘yes’. However, I made it clear that I would pragmatically err on the side of caution and avoid even the possibility of this by limiting ‘OK’ to an arbitrary date some months after conception.

Actually, #22 is about questioning authority, but feel free to begin such a thread - I will gladly contribute.

5

Libertarian/Right
Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.18

Strongly disagree. This is the choice of the woman (and to a lesser extent PERHAPS the male partner involved, depending on the feelings of the individual woman) having the baby, and I make no moral assertions…nor do I think any can BE made from one person to another. Its up to the individual to weigh the various factors, moral or otherwise and decide for themselves their best course of action with reguards to abortion or not. The state (or anyone else not directly involved in the decision process) should not interfere in anyway except to give support to what would be a very tough decision.

As a PERSONAL choice, I wouldn’t encourage my wife to have an abortion unless the child was endangering her life. PERSONALLY, and given my own situation, I would always choose to bring a child into the world, and in fact that is the choice I have made. But I believe this question breaks down under personal choices and evaluation on an individual basis, and that people should be free of constraint and criticism to make such choices that deeply effect their lives.

-XT

6

+7/-3

Disagree.

If one believes in the concept of a soul, then I can understand a concern about abortion. As a non-believer, though, that argument gets no traction with me. But I do have to admit that I am continually puzzled by those people who do believe in a human soul (and salvation thereof) who are OK with abortion. Makes no logical sense to me at all.

7

Perhaps John, they contend that the soul ‘develops’, like the mind, such that a foetus still has no ‘soul’. Indeed, if a separate sperm/egg has no soul but a fertilised egg does, one must ask at which stage of reduction-division, mitosis or meiosis this thing magically appears (or even where the heck it was for the preceding 13.7 billion years!).

8

I actually started a thread on that subject awhile back. I never got a satisfactory answer. A lot of hand waving as you suggest. I just couldn’t imagine standing at the Pearly Gates saying to God: “But I didn’t know when the soul develops, so I just assumed…”

9

Oh, I can imagine my response (if I actually believed in the Pearly Gates and god). I’d use the old sea lawyer defense: “Well, you should have given me an instruction manual of when the soul develops if you were going to be this complex about it.”

Personally, if I were going to believe in anything like a soul, I’d say it ‘developed’ in the first year of life AFTER the birth of the child. That would be from empirical observation of my own children, watching them go from pretty much mindless eating machines to becoming aware and an individual in their own right.

-XT

10

Don’t try telling me that I’m free to begin a thread. Who died and made you…oh…I’ll save it for the authority thread. :smiley:

Marc

11

But my point is that there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure. And if we’re talking about something as important as an immortal soul, why would you ever take the chance of guessing wrong?

12

Strongly disagree.

This is probably the most straightforward question on the test. Most people are either pro-choice, or pro-life. I wouldn’t think there are a lot of undecided people out there on this one.

Oh, and John Mace, I stopped trying to apply logic to the actions of those who believe in religions a long time ago. It just doesn’t work.

13

And because there is absolutely no way of knowing, no way of measuring a ‘soul’ at all, let alone when one is inserted into the human in question, I’d have to fall back on making the best judgement I could given what I do know, and stand tall when facing the Lord on Judgement day and tell him that if he REALLY wanted us to know, he should have been a bit more clear both in telling us whether it was wrong, and pointing out exactly where the line was. Since he WASN’T clear even about if it was right or wrong, since there WASN’T any way to tell in any case, since he hadn’t bothered to not only spell it out but to even give us a hint, we had to do the best we could do.

A hint would be nice. And if that wasn’t good enough for him, I’d spit in his eye and go to my doom walking tall. :wink:

-XT

14

God: “Mr. XT, what part of ‘Thou shalt not kill’ did you not understand? Looks like we’ve got another rider for the elevator to the sub-basement!”

15

-0.50, -2.15 - Disagree

I don’t particularly like the exact phrasing of the statement. Someone against abortion in rape cases (the mother’s life is not threatened, she just had no choice in the act of procreation) has no choice but to disagree with the statement.

I’m pro-choice: When someone chooses to have sex they choose to accept the consequences of that act. If the sex act results in pregnancy, then buck up.

I’m against abortion except in cases of rape (including statutory) and life-threatening pregnancies.

It may be like a tadpole, except for the fact that it’s not (Though I do like how SentientMeat goes from calling it tadpole-like to just plain calling it a tadpole in the span of three sentences).

16

I suppose you can call yourself whatever you wish…but in common parlance I don’t think you would be “pro-choice” as understood in the abortion debate.

If you oppose 97% of abortions, then you’re not really taking a pro-choice position.

(only about 3% of all abortions fit in the “hard cases” category of rape and life-threatening pregnancies)

17

Sorry. There’s an implied :wink: in there.

Does that figure include statutory rape?

18

Hmm…don’t recall exactly. Oops…I found a cite.

The data is all self-reported (obviously), so take it for what its worth. The AGI survey from 1988 reports about 1% for rape/incest, not broken down any more than that. Some folks suspect that the self reporting nature of these results (and the negative social pressures associated with abortion) may make that figure higher than reality

(I’m not making a firm claim one way or another…just pointing out the associated problems with this kind of data).

19

SentientMeat:
If your case for abortion rests on the level of intelligence of the human foetus, would it not follow that you deem less intelligent humans worth less than those with greater intelligence. How about an idiot, should we consider his worth half that of an intelligent stock broker (if there is such a creature) with an IQ double or triple that of the idiot. A severely brain damaged, or autistic, human with an intelligence below that of a monkey or a pig – are they worth less than monkies and pigs?

It is very hard to get a fix on when we become sentient, if for no other reason then because nobody seems to have the first idea what sentience is, but the latest numbers I’ve heard was surprisingly early – something like 14 days.

  1. Not calling a foetus life is simply wrong. 2) Life and consciousness are not interchangeable. 3) Harm does not necessarily need consciousness, e.g. killing an unconscious man. Moreover most people do not believe it is moral defensible to wantonly and without reason destroy or kill living things without consciousness, like trees and plants.

This hinges on the false argument, that a young foetus is not life – further the same reasoning would allow abortion up till just before birth and perhaps a few years after that as well. However any living thing is a thing unto itself, it does not need any external reason to grant it a rationale or interest to live.

Again your reasoning hinges on the nolife status of unborn foetuses. Further I’d think the entirety of our laws rests on agreed upon moral definitions. Also that it removes unwanted babies and reduces otherwise illegal and dangerous “backally” abortions are not very strong arguments for anything. Sure making a thing legal has a tendency to reduce the crime involved in doing it. However with such a line of thought one might also legalize killing small children, since that would removes unwanted children and reduces illegal killings of small children – also we might very well make killings of small children more humane.

. . .

Even people professing to be absolutely certain in their pro abortion beliefs and unworthy foetuses beliefs, balk at some of the notions the unwanted foetuses could be used for, which to me speaks of a somewhat irrational or mutually exclusive beliefs. E.g.

A somewhat crazy person here in Denmark has erected an “abortion cemetery”. This produced a rather strong response from the pro-abortion groups. Why would that be if it wasn’t because the same people are not so entirely sure of their beliefs. If they were so absolutely sure there was no harm done whatsoever with abortions, I see no reason why an “abortion cemetery” should elect any stronger response than a “car cemetery” or a “computer cemetery”.

Likewise industry use of aborted foetuses and even research with them has been outlawed in many countries that do allow provoked abortion. But if the foetus is really nothing but a clumb of cells or a tadpole why on earth should we not use it for medical purposes (e.g. brain cells from aborted foetuses injected into the brain of people suffering from Alzheimer’s has shown some promising signs) or for cosmetics (I’m sure foetuses would make for a great night-cream)? You can’t hardly have it both ways. Either it’s a useless clumb of cells which we can use for anything we like, or it is a small human life with all the rights that follows.

I don’t like abortions. I’m pro-choice. I just don’t like any of the reasons that led me to that end.

20

But why? A fetus is a fetus, regardless of the circumstances of how it was conceived. It’s either a person or it’s not.

It seems you care more about enforcing your own personal sense of sexual “responsibility” and “accepting consequences” than you are with the life of the unborn.