There are a few themes I'd like to cover:
I'm not sure either of these are capable of settling the issue:
"One is simple empiricism. Many women who miscarry feel something like bereavement, which suggests they regard a foetus as something like a living being - not as much so as an actual child, perhaps, but certainly more than just a bundle of cells."
Two points here:
- I have no desire at all to, in any way, play down the trauma of a miscarriage. I entirely believe it is about as tragic a thing as can happen to a person. However, I would think that people find it incredibly upsetting to lose their ability to have a child as well. Without entering into the ugly process of comparing grief it seems plausible that those who suffer a miscarriage mourn the loss of an expected child rather than the death of the fetus itself.
- If we are to decide the value of a foetus based on some people's subjective upset at losing one then we have to accept that the argument cuts both ways. Those fetuses that are not valued (those that the mother wishes to abort) have no value.
"The other is that a foetus can be regarded as a call option upon a human being. If human beings are valuable, an option on them must also have value - though again, less than that of a full human."
I'm not quite sure on this one. After all, every sperm has some potential to become a human. Valuing such potentials seems so complex that I'm not sure it can translate to abortion policy. Does the "value" of a fetus translate to the 'on'/'off' quality of inalienable human rights? If not, how do we translate such values to policy?
I have a friend who thinks abortion should be taxed. Is that the logical conclusion of Chris's position? It's an interesting moderate stance.
The extremism with which both sides express themselves, their mutual loathing for each other, is offputting. However, I'm always loathe to condemn those who feel certain about the issue. After all, one group believe that their opponents are endorsing rape, the other that their opponents are legitimising murder. If you hold either belief it seems understandable to get pretty angry about it.
However, what does surprise me is that the pro-choice camp, in particular, don't seem to be trying very hard to appeal to the median voter. The one thing I want to know is this: what use do people have for a post-20 weeks abortion?
I mean, it seems quite plausible that people will make the decision at a pace such that they're pretty much evenly likely to get in trouble and miss the deadline whenever it is set. They'll respond rationally to the deadline.
This seems like such a basic question but I've yet to find an answer. When I click for 'More Information' on the Coalition for Choice website all it gives me is a list of things they want. Nothing about why.
On the other side, I guess the pictures of fetuses that the pro-life movement use are effective but I find them distasteful. They're too similar to the pictures of animals that the animal rights movement uses. Trying to play on simple visual cues that have no deeper meaning. It strikes me as crass.
I'm the median voter on this issue but, of all the countless articles I've read, not more than a handful seem to be appealing to people like me who are uncertain - the vast majority seem to be out to get their own side angrier instead.
The crux of the issue
I really don't think this debate can effectively be settled without answering two simple, but also impossible, questions: What quality makes a human worth the unique protection of basic rights? When does a fetus develop that quality?
I can't believe that a woman has a right to choose to kill a baby. However, I think they absolutely have the right to choose whether or not to keep a fetus. That's the divide. Plain and so far from simple.
I don't believe anyone really has an answer to the first or second questions. The first must, I'm sure, have something to do with the mind; with our status as thinking beings. The second cannot be answered with so fuzzy an answer to the first. All I'm really confident of is that it happens at some point between conception and birth.
Until recently I was of the opinion that with so little certainty the best solution was simply to defend the status quo. Not because I think viability is even particularly important but just for stability's sake. On simple conservative grounds that poorly thought out change tends to make things worse.
Where I am right now
You know the argument that most convinced me?
This one. While I don't know when a fetus becomes a baby, I'd rather err on the side of caution and not have the most liberal limit in Europe. As such, I'd support tightening the limit, I think.
Here's a balance though; what if we tightened the limit and also removed the two doctor rule? That way we'd remove the unpleasantly arbitrary quality of the current system. That would seem like a decent way for both sides to take something from the present process.