This is where the debate between Sharon Presley and Jakub Wisniewski on libertarianism and abortion continues. All registered members of PublicSquare.net are invited to participate.
Is "pro-life libertarian" an oxymoron?
(7 posts) (6 voices)-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
This is the first part of my response.
Wisniewski says: “Finally, I contest Presley’s claim that “the point of most moral principles, including libertarian ones, is to make life better on earth for the living.” This is something that could be said by a rather vague utilitarian but not by a libertarian, whose conception of the good is more concrete than a reference to an amorphous ‘better life for the living.’”
There is nothing utilitarian about my argument at all. What is the purpose of advocating individual rights? Not for the sake of rights alone, but for what rights protect, namely the well-being of individuals. What do you think rights are for if not to protect individuals and their well-being?In fact the purpose of individual rights is to make life better on earth for individuals, to increase well-being and decrease suffering of individuals. Ayn Rand, who has arguably had more influence on libertarians than any other single person, has said, for example, that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve one’s own well-being—it is for one’s life and one’s self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code. Even libertarians who are not totally in agreement with Rand would agree that the purpose of rights is to protect and increase well-being for individuals.
But how is well-being for individuals enhanced for women who do not wish to carry a pregnancy to term because, for example, their existing children will be even hungrier with one more mouth to feed? How is a women’s individual well-being increased when she seeks an illegal abortion and is either scarred for life, unable to conceive again due to secondary infertility, or dies (as happens frequently in Africa and other underdeveloped countries and as happened before legal abortions in the US)? Dont’ those women in other countries matter?
According to the World Health Organization: “An estimated 21.6 million unsafe abortions took place worldwide in 2008, almost all in developing countries. These unsafe abortions are carried out by untrained persons under poor hygiene conditions. Deaths due to unsafe abortion remain close to 13% of all maternal deaths.” How is the well-being of these women enhanced? How are the lives of their already existing children enhanced when their mother is dead? To brush these concerns away with the claim that they are “emotional” is to separate abstract values from their consequences. But what is the point of values if not to provide for appropriate consequences? Yes, how convenient to brush away these points as if they didn’t matter, labeling them “emotional,” as if the world of abstract principles was all that mattered.
Leonard Peikoff has said “You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue...Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life." I don’t always agree with Peikoff but he has this one right. Wisniewski’s position in fact does place an entity without consciousness, self-awareness or cognitions ahead of the well-being of conscious, self-aware women and her conscious, self-aware children. He is asking the living individual person to be sacrificed for an entity that is not yet even a person with consciousness or self-awareness.
It is my observation that all anti-abortion arguments do in fact advocate sacrificing the interests and the lives of women to this entity. All these arguments care only for the unborn entity and not a whit for the women (or the already existing children). I have never seen one even discussing the women’s well-being, let alone arguing that the women’s well-being matters. Wisniewski’s is no exception. Why don’t the WOMEN matter? I have never yet seen a discussion from the anti-abortion side that does not simply flick it away with some kind of abstract sophistry that does not actually deal with the issue of WOMEN’S well-being. Wisniewski’s is no exception. Tell me why it is OK for women to die because they want to protect themselves and their children? Tell me how that protects the right to individual well-being?
Wisniewski says: “I find quite implausible Presley’s suggestion that having a legal abortion is a possible solution in “cultures where [women cannot] realistically say no to their husbands.”
This makes no sense at all. Of course if legal abortions were available, then women could and would seek them. Women seek illegal abortions in great numbers (an estimated 21.6 million in 2008, according to WHO estimates); why would they not seek legal abortions? If you imagine that husbands would stop the women from seeking abortions, then tell me why they didn’t prevent the women from seeking those 21.6 million illegal ones. The above statement which Wisniewski quotes only means that some women cannot say no to sex with their husband; it says nothing about abortion.Wisniewski says: “However, when the relevant choice is that between unsafe intercourse followed by abortion (due to the unavailability of contraceptives) and sexual abstinence, then—bearing in mind that the obverse of the libertarian emphasis put on individual liberty is the importance attached to responsibility for one’s actions—the latter should be chosen if one is to comply with the libertarian ethic.” So no sex if there is a chance you might get pregnant? First of all, this is totally unrealistic for large portions of the world where abstinence is not a choice—so don’t the lives of women in underdeveloped countries matter? Tell them to be abstinent? What kind of morality is so unrealistic about the way the world works? Not mine.
Secondly, in practice, what Wisniewski advocates would mean NO ONE should have sex. He is apparently unaware that there is no absolutely safe method of contraception that guarantees that the woman will never get pregnant. Or if they do, well, then, if they play, they have to pay? This sounds pretty anti-life to me.
These are some actual stats from the Guttmacher Institute on the reliability of various birth control methods. It’s important to note here that not every woman can use the pill because of medical reasons.
Source: http://contraception.about.com/od/birthcontroldecisions/p/effectiveness.htm
Birth control pills (both combination and progestin-only) and other prescription options such as The Patch and The NuvaRing tend to have a high typical user success rates of around 92 percent.
• This means that out of 100 women who use one of these methods for a year, 8 will become pregnantNatural family planning methods (combined) tend to provide moderate typical user success rates, from 78 to 88 percent.
• Out of every 100 people who use one of the natural family planning methods (with the exception of withdrawal), 12 to 22 will become pregnant within the first year of use
Barrier methods, which include the male condom, female condom, diaphragm, spermicide, the cervical cap, and the sponge (for those who have not given birth) also yield fair typical user success rates between 71 to 85 percent.• Of every 100 people who use one of these barrier methods for a year, 15 to 29 will have an unintended pregnancy
So even women who conscientiously use contraceptives may get pregnant. Are they then forced to carry the pregnancy to term because technology isn’t 100% reliable? Or do they all stop having sex? Or is Wisniewski’s morality unconnected with the real world and the actual well-being of actual individuals?
Posted 6 months ago # -
I have never encountered a truly secular argument against a woman's right to abort an unwanted pregnancy, and Wisniewski's is no exception. Wisniewski argues that abortion infringes on some otherwise unidentified individual's right to complete the project of creating a new individual: according to Wisniewski, embryos "are already initiated, unique, living projects on their way to becoming independent, conscious individuals." Whose projects? Certainly NOT the woman's if she does not wish to be pregnant (to be her project, the embryo would need to be the deliberate work of her will) - or of any identifiable human. Wisniewski slips God into his argument through "project," since no one - other than God - will have deliberately and consciously (which is what "project" means) brought an unwanted embryo into existence. And if it is not anyone's project, then how can anyone's rights be breached by aborting it?
Or could Wisniewski have meant that nurturing the embryo into a future individual is the embryo's own project? The only secular conception of rights, is that rights are the pre-conditions on which rational individuals predicate their voluntary social interactions with others. In the context of the potential benefits of social cooperation and trade, the only rational pre-condition for dealing with another human is the other's non-interference in one's living, as is proper to a human, by one's own judgment. Since one must be capable of all these things for the concept of rights to have meaning, it is plain nonsense to claim that a brainless embryo (or a tree or a snail or a stone) can have rights. It amounts to claiming that one can live by one's own judgment without having a brain with which to judge...
Posted 6 months ago # -
Part I of my argument
There are so many holes is Mr. Wisniewski's argument, I could swear we were using it for target practice - and I'll be happy to take the next shot.
First of all, using the non-aggression principle to say that abortion is anti-libertarian is...simply nuts. It implies that the woman feels some sort of anger or AGGRESSION towards the fetus - which is not a being. It's a group of cells. Women might feel aggression about their circumstances of pregnancy, for example, financial worries, guilt and sadness in the case of rape or incest, an inability to care for a child who might have severe mental or physical impairment, etc. That doesn't mean that she's being aggressive towards a person or fetus. The non-aggression principle is inaccurately applied here.
He also inaccurately links Ms. Presley's "free will" and "sole dominion" argument to evictionism in an attempt to argue non-initiation of force. I've stated above why the non-aggression ideal is inapplicable and I think the non-initiation one is close enough in this case that my above stated stance applies as well. As for this illogical link, I think Mr. Wisneiwski wanted a colorful argument and, while he certainly painted a rainbow with this one, just like a rainbow, this argument has no substance and leads to nowhere. Ms. Presley's argument and evictionism are not related. He missed the point entirely.
As for the "Is the Fetus a Person" idea...while Mr. Wisneiwski may be getting his PhD in economics, he needs to brush up on his biology. A blastocyst does not always become a human being. Many of them simply stop developing and abort due to DNA and/or developmental errors. Any scientist or fertility specialist will tell you how utterly remarkable it is that the human race is here at all given how often and how easily automatic abortions take place, often before the embryo is even a month along. Most women just think they're having a heavy period when they’ve actually experienced a very early abortion. A fetus is a collection of developing cells, nothing more. It's POTENTIAL is not what it IS. No biologist will tell you that a tadpole is a frog, sir. Up to a certain point in its development, a fetus cannot think, cannot feel, cannot even see. While it may not be an unassembled group of cells, it is still NOT a person. The point I believe Ms. Presley was trying to make, that it seems he missed, is that skin cells are merely part of a whole. The cell, while it may be able to develop into a full person if cloned, is not the person. It is simply part of the linked collective of the person. To put it in non-biological terms, a collection of weather systems CAN develop into a hurricane, but they are not a hurricane. Many 2x4s can be used to build a home, but a stack of them laying on the ground is NOT a house. To say that an entity is what it could be is a spurious argument, and for a man who likes to accuse others of making emotional arguments, he certainly makes one here, as his position is certainly not logical or scientifically merited. It simply appeals to some hopeful, school boy regard that the potential for life is life itself.
As Ms. Presley states, "Anti-abortionists rest the bulk of their moral case against abortion on the assertion that the fetus is a “person”; therefore killing it would be murder. If the fetus is not a person, their case against abortion fails.”
Your argument has failed, sir.
Along the same line, another important point here is that, the body naturally aborts all fetuses (yes, sir, even a full-term birth is an abortion), whether the fetus be fully formed or aborted because it didn't develop properly, etc. Abortion is a NATURAL process. Just like death is a natural process. The human body and evolution both have acknowledged that the mother, who is already a grown and developed individual, is more important biologically than a fetus which may or may not grow into a healthy, thriving person. Yes, this argument is harsh and cruel, and we may not like to look at it, but so is nature. Our biology understands that a fetus is not a person yet and is able to sacrifice it, if need be, for the good of the mother. However, Nature can't always understand financial difficulties, conception by rape or incest or forced marriage, or a child that will be so horrifically deformed mentally or physically that it would never have a normal, happy life. Nature cannot always understand the psychology behind birth. Luckily, Nature gave us a brain so that when She could not make that determination, our ability to think and make an informed decision could do that very well. I've never found anything in the libertarian tenets that would suggest a woman of sound mind isn't allowed to make a decision regarding her own safety and welfare for herself and/or her family, anymore than it would deny her right to breathe or eat – two more natural activities. It seems Nature would agree.
The stance that a fetus is not a person would also throw his supposition that the libertarian value of “the consequent inviolability of one’s bodily integrity and property rights…has to be circumscribed by the commonsensical principle of proportionality” to the wind. Since the mother is a fully formed, cognitive person and the fetus is not a person, the mother’s rights win out, hands down.
I take issue with arguments of oversimplification or not arguing against a point based on its own merits. Mr. Wisneiwski contends that because humans have different subsets that they have no norms. Ms. Presley pointed out the norm of humanity is our cognitive function and how even altered persons, such as those who are mentally retarded or comatose, do still express some cognitive functions while fetuses don’t. Rather than argue that point, he rambles on about how old people are different than young ones and men are different the women. I don’t know if he simply has no retort for this supposition or if he’s just being contrary. To continue, he links the option of abortion to the option of child abandonment when discussing the moral imperative of the mother to care for a baby. Again – and I don’t know why this continually has to be reiterated – a baby, a fully formed infant who has been born and breathes, is a person. It can suffer from malnutrition and exposure to the elements. A fetus is a COLLECTION OF CELLS and does not have the ability to suffer if aborted. The moral question he tries to make applicable to his point is…not applicable. Again, oversimplification and illogical links do not an argument make.
Mr. Wisneiwsky also expects Ms. Presley to justify the righteousness of the definitions of a person, that she has to make them incontestable for them to work in her argument. The arguments she makes are acceptable for the scientists and doctors who determine the factors for life, intelligent life, cognitive function, psychological health, etc. If he wants to disprove or dispute these, fine. However, the onus is not on Ms. Presely to do so. Her argument against fetal personhood stands concretely.Posted 6 months ago # -
Part II
Mr. Wisneiwsky also claims that he takes the mother’s rights into account. I’ve already stated why the mother’s rights trump the fetus’s, but to review his point on its own merits verses Ms. Presley’s points, I’ll state the following:
1) We’ve already covered why fetuses are not people, therefore to compare a fetus to a sleeping person, as if a fetus is a sleeping being who simply hasn’t regained consciousness and therefore has no cognitive say in its fate, is absurd.
2) As Mr. Wisneiwsky is male, I will give him the benefit of the doubt as to why he can’t grasp the emotional side of the argument and why it is logical to include it. No one likes to be thought of as property. The ancestors of black Americans did not enjoy being human farming equipment. Those ancestors were told, by law, that they were chattel and had to do as they were told by whoever owned them. The State told these people that because they were a certain way: black, that they had to be slave labor. Likewise, women do not like the idea of being baby factories. If, once we get pregnant, we are denied the right to terminate a pregnancy, that is the State imposing its will upon a female, given the fact that her body is in a certain state of being: pregnant. That is the State saying that we MUST follow a pregnancy through to its natural course. That would prompt both a cognitive and an emotional response in any woman. This is the most simplistic way I know how to explain Ms. Presley’s point. I hope Mr. Wisneiwsky can understand it.
3) Furthermore, while he so graciously would allow women who have experienced rape or whose lives may be threatened by carrying to term to have an abortion, he TOTALLY MISSES Ms. Presley’s point about the Gestapo state. Her point was that, if a woman decides to terminate for one of those reasons, she would have to PROVE TO THE STATE why and how that was actually what was necessary. What if you never had a rape kit done after you were sexually assaulted? Do I really need to tell you the estimated number of women that the US Justice Dept believes never report their rape? How then do you prove that that was why you wanted an abortion? How is it that a supposedly intelligent human being also doesn’t understand how violating such a criterion would be for a woman to endure? Perhaps it is okay that she endure it in your eyes, Mr. Wisneiwsky because, as you so eloquently put it, “the amount of physical harm done to the fetus in an abortion is grossly disproportionate to the amount of physical harm that the fetus can possibly do to the mother.” Should we also start asking women with breast cancer to prove they’re female so they can get access to certain treatment funds only available to women? How would we do that? Do we ask to see a picture of their genitals? This is a slippery slope that I’d rather not watch our legal system fall down.
4) His argument that we should judge women who’ve already endured a horribly emotional ordeal like abortion, and all the decisions and trauma that go along with it, so that we can determine an appropriate punishment, is simply offensive. Aside from the fact that it is completely inhumane, I can’t imagine a better dissent for that supposition.
5) I think Ms. Presley does an excellent job in her forum discussion completely shredding Mr. Wisneiwsky’s dismissal of the genuine consequences of banning abortion. The only thing I will add is that asking people who have no access to birth control to be abstinent in order to avoid abortion is unrealistic and ridiculous. Many of the women around the world live in cultures where not having sex with your husband is not a right given to women, and furthermore, birth control is often illegal in those countries. The rest of the world, where such rights are granted, would mean that the poor, who are the ones either uneducated about birth control or are too poor to use it, aren’t going to not have sex. Sex is a natural, biological process and, thanks to our hormones, is also a biological imperative. They call it a SEX DRIVE, not a SEX OOPS. You don’t do it by accident or because it just popped in your head. You have sex because it’s part of what the human race does to propagate. Sure, we can choose not to, but are you now going to promote eugenics by saying all the poor people shouldn’t have sex because…they can’t get condoms? Sure, you’re not actively sterilizing or killing people, but you’re still saying that they shouldn’t have sex because they can’t afford birth control and might make an offspring that they’ll have to abort because they can’t afford to feed it. That’s an excellent way to wipe out a certain socially undesirable subset of the population. No sane person would ever suggest such a thing. It’s certainly not a libertarian ideal!I applaud Ms. Presley’s informative discussion on this matter. As for Mr. Wisneiwsky, I’d ask a little more effort , and frankly, a little more compassion. Your arguments aren’t only sexist for a libertarian, they border on thoughtless cruelty.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Thank you, Sharon, for presenting the ethical libertarian case for abortion rights. I'm not sure how I feel about considering birth the time when a baby gains a right to not be aborted, because a near-term fetus is very viable, but I can't see a first trimester fetus as a human being with rights. Jakub Wiskneiwsky's arguments about the fetus being a person and having the rights of a person because of it's potential to develop into one wasn't convincing to me. Also his statements about the woman initiating aggression don't ring true to me. It is the fetus implanting itself in her womb that starts the chain of events. I'm not blaming the fetus as it doesn't have intent - but then, not having intent is all part of it not being a person.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Dr. Presley, you are too kind to your opponent. To him, it’s just an intellectual game of abstract principles unconnected to the real world of suffering women. You, on the other hand, have both compassion and common sense. What good are abstract “rights” if they lead to so much human misery? Why shouldn’t rights be grounded in their consequences to real individuals living right now on Earth? I also agree with you that the anti-abortion side just doesn’t give a damn what happens to the women who don’t want to have more children. You’re the psychologist so you probably have a better idea than I about why that is so.
Which reminds me; I wonder why the moderator of this forum didn’t mention that you are a psychology professor who has taught psychology of women. Seems relevant to me. I’m guessing that you know a bit more about the consequences of loss of reproductive freedom to women and the suffering they are going through than a male philosophy graduate student. Just saying.Posted 6 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.