Current estimates have world population at 12 billion by 2050. The species is doing just fine so we don’t even need to debate that issue. I guess maybe its not white enough for you though?

How can you say that it has no impact on anyone else ? Even if you define life as starting at the point of birth, what about the rights of the father/grandparents to children/grandchildren, siblings to have siblings ? What about the species need to renew itself ? Abortion goes far beyond the impact on the woman, which is why couching it in terms of womens rights is absurd and dishonest.

Unity #48

Apologies, got the wrong end of the stick. I don’t think of culture as evolving neceassarily, although it is obviously cumulative, in the sense that contemporary culture always carries some echoes of past culture.

That’s what’s so off-putting about contemporary feminism: so much of it is fuming outrage and how-dare-you?? When that combines with argumentation as feeble as this, it’s not surprising that it alienates a whole lot of people who should be natural allies of equality and women’s rights.

Based on your comments you are seriously misunderstanding why I recommended Dennett and what his book is actually about.

Assuming, from your comments, that you’re completely unfamiliar with Dennett’s work you appear to be misunderstanding the content of the book in question based on its title. ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ is not a critique of evolutionary theory but an attempt to explain precisely why natural selection is regarded by its opponents as being a ‘dangerous’ idea and gives several detailed rebuttals of many of the more common, and specious, critiques of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.

What Dennett explores are the philosophical implications of Darwinian evolution, why these scare the bejeebus out of many people, including some eminent scientists and why their efforts to defuse the intellectual hand grenade that Darwin lobbed into mainstream culture are a crock of shit.

What you appear not have got in my original argument is that the position I’m putting forward is not that culture takes human outside the process of evolution but rather that its an evolutionary process in itself, one that is subject to and driven by core Darwinian processes - accumulated incremental variation and natural selection - albeit at a hyper accelerated rate when compared to the slow but steady process of biological evolution.

What Dennett and others (Tooby, Pinker, Dawkins and Hauser et al) have been doing for the last 20 years or so is working towards unifying biological evolution and psychological/cultural evolution with a common Darwinian framework which, it seems to me from your comments, should be right up your street - if nothing else, yI reckon you’d enjoy the chapters in which Dennett sticks it to Gould, Chomsky and Penrose in no uncertain manner.

*winces*

I think wires were crossed (though I don’t know how Laura feels about this debate now) but I think its worth engaging new voices too. Anyway, let’s leave this for now.

> A liberal theory of abortion cannot just rest on the moral status of the foetus, it must also rest on the presumption that women have the right and the ability to be moral actors.

I agree. That wasn’t meant to be a total summary of my ethics, just of that sentence; I do discuss and (obviously) defend female autonomy elsewhere. There is no theory of rights without it.

> centuries of oppression do have a bearing on the moral status of women in society

I agree. Which explains why I consider the public ethics of a pro-choice argument extremely important to clarify. Which is why I bothered writing this in the first place. The only difference between us is that, after a certain point, I’d assign/balance the conflicting rights slightly different. (As an aside: this isn’t just about abortion. I can imagine a circumstance (maybe hypothetical) when I’d consider it acceptable to force someone to give blood. There’s an analogy there. But that’s another story.)

The crit that it’s all a bit academic in tone: fair enough. I’m a hack ethicist, but I can do non academic, too. My response to someone making Matt’s argument might be something like: “Do I have to consult you when I have my wisdom tooth pulled? No, thought not.”

Ok, I think I’m getting it now, although my argument would be that while that may be the case, centuries of oppression do have a bearing on the moral status of women in society, and unfortunately much of the pro-life argument, while couched in terms of ‘right to life’ of the foetus, is in fact centred on women’s perceived fecklessness/promiscuity/irresponsibility.

A liberal theory of abortion cannot just rest on the moral status of the foetus, it must also rest on the presumption that women have the right and the ability to be moral actors. That’s what’s missing in much of this debate, and it’s why some of us do bridle slightly at the way these discussions often become so male dominated and so bogged down in academic discourse.

Matt - “By that logic, why can’t I light a cigarette in a pub/drive a car drunk/inject heroin/rob a bank etc etc etc ”

Because all of those things have a potential impact on others; it is their business if I do something that could cause them harm. I smoke, that’s up to me, but if I light up in a pub next to Sunny and make him suffer secondary smoking he’s not going to be happy - I have no right to impose my choice on him.

Having an abortion has no impact on anyone else. Your life is no different because I’ve had an abortion. If I stand next to you in a pub my personal decision will not affect you in any way. If I didn’t tell you I’d had one you would never know - the only person I have to answer to for my decision is me. That’s why it’s none of your business, because it has no bearing whatsoever on your life.

Uh, where’s your logic? I mean obviously there’s an ethical debate over life, but all of the above situations have PROVEN consequences to peoples liberty other than your own

It’s not anecdotal evidence, it’s ethical/legal policy. In a situation where there is a judgement call and no relative/spouse available, the foetus is saved over the mother. I respect your personal choice, although puzzled as to why you assume that would be everyones’ choice, there are many scanarios where it would not be a simple choice, and I’m not sure it would necessarily always be mine.
And I put rights in quaotation marks as far as I’m concerned there is no “right” to murder unborn children, it clearly wouldn’t fit the “as long as it does no harm” principle of the positive rights test.

Sunny #39
“look, OMG, they’re having an abortion because they only care about themselves - to which I’d say: “So fucking what, mind your own business.”

By that logic, why can’t I light a cigarette in a pub/drive a car drunk/inject heroin/rob a bank etc etc etc - “mind your own business” is never a coherent argument in a democracy, or anywhere else probably.

Unity # 34

So all I need to do is read a book written by the world famous Dan Dennet, doubtless written from a relativist/constructivist perspective and I’ll be reprogrammed with correct views and become yet another emotion over reason PC drone ?
There’s nothing wrong with “reductionism” - it’s a pejorative terms usually used by those who lack the intellect to understand science, or who lack the moral capacity to accept its’ less comfortable implications. E=MC2 is “reductionism”, does that make it simplistic or invalid ? Is the opposite of “reductionism” - constructivism aka self referential subjective humanist psycho social codswallop - immune from any criticism ?
I doubt if you’ve even read (and you obviously don’t understand the implications of) the theory of evolution, and yet you are prepared to recommend some obsucre criticism of it as a desparate sounding appeal to authority. Belive it or not I’ve read Vygotsky, Piaget et al, and I’m still not convinced there is any “reality” which cannot be explained physically - if that’s ok with you, or do you want me to kick a stone down the street and say “I refute it thus” ?
The evidence of evolutionary theory is all around you, and there is plenty that it din’t stop in 1965 after all, but where is the falsification (leaving the god squad aside) ?

Re. your 1). Here’s what I wrote, with added brackets. I’m not quite sure why I’m bothering, but anyway…

Male control over birth rights, over women’s bodies, has been [that's the past continuous tense - i.e. something that's still going on] a tool of patriarchal oppression for centuries.” True [I'm acknowledging that this has been and still is going on - so, I'm acknowledging patriarchy exists, specifically not the opposite, which is what I've been accused of], but any reasonable ethics only allows remedial action against the oppressor [I'm saying remedial action against an oppressor should be allowed - indeed, must be allowed ethically]. Most of them are long dead [that's a statement of fact - most men that have lived in Britain are now dead], none of them are foetal – so what’s the relevance to an abortion in 2006 [I'm saying here that centuries of oppression has no bearing on the moral status of an existing 2008 foetus - on which a liberal theory of abortion rests, according to me]? [I also don't go on to discuss what kinds of remedial action should be allowed - because I'm not writing about that, I'm writing about abortion; nor have I discussed that it's the patriarchal system rather than individual men that are to blame in some cases; nor have I discussed Nicaragua; and so on]

Is that cleared up? Is this the most pointless argument I’ve ever had? Look, I’ve said many times, if I’m wrong, I’ll hold my hands up. What isn’t acceptable though is a deal of revisionism about what I did (or didn’t) write.

And I stand by 2) and 4). And anyway I consider none of it an excuse for a poorly argued attack. But frankly, I’m more interested in clarifying to you (whose opinion I value) than addressing the original attack (which I couldn’t give a shit about).

Like you say, Sunny, I’m broadly in agreement with everyone that’s commented on this thread - except Matt.

I’m also somewhat similar in thinking to Cath over your point that we need to examine in detail why women have abortions. I’m not sure why that’s necessary. That’s like asking why women choose to have children - there maybe a whole myriad number of reasons that mean nothing in legislative terms. Futhermore, the danger is that a few examples are used by thr right to say: look, OMG, they’re having an abortion because they only care about themselves - to which I’d say: “So fucking what, mind your own business.”

Donald:
1) It may not be what you meant, but it is how others read it as. I think that needs to be acknowledged and maybe cleared up.
2) Not sure if she said that… though if I approached the post from the view that the person was denying that patriarchy is still prevalent, then I’d be quite annoyed too I guess and may end up implying that if the person isn’t aware of how it feels maybe they shouldn’t participate i n the discussion. Again, this may stem from point 1.
3) Sure.
4) Mmmm…. I think she was more annoyed at your apparent dismissal of patriarchy than that.
5) She may be busy. Comparing her to Iain Dale/Guido at this stage, when they do this persistently, is premature.

There is no need to antagonise this debate when both of you are broadly on the same side. This does in fact remind me of the ‘cats in a sack’ analogy because after about 15 posts from yourself and Unity and 1500 comments I’m still unsure as to what the argument is. But so goes web debate.

Because we are broadly agreed on the basic points, I’m not sure what the point of generating an argument that doesn’t affect the current state of affairs…

> But to say it has no bearing on the issue, as your post kind of suggested (though we may have intepreted it wrong), is not right.

You have interpreted it wrong, if that’s how you interpreted it. To paraphrase me: to fight sexism, we fight sexism. Not by aborting a foetus, which is an ethical decision quite separate from fighting (obviously existing) sexism.

Or, another way: while the existence of liberal abortion rights absolutely is a key element in the fight against oppression, in asserting female liberty, the individual decision to abort is a quite separate ethical one. One that swings on the status of a foetus, as well as personal autonomy.

I’m not saying that’s the only way of looking at it. I’m saying that’s my way of looking at it.

Have we done this to death yet?

> What’s the bad argument that is being supplied here?

This all getting a bit meta now… but, briefly, the original bits of Laura’s post that

1. Accused me of saying male oppression is a thing of the past - re-read what I wrote, if anyone 35 comments down can honestly be bothered. I clearly didn’t.
2. Suggested that as a male I was unwelcome in sharing my thoughts on abortion (first and last paras.). Which is silly.
3. Berated me for glossing the state of abortion rights worldwide - when I clearly was writing about the UK.
4. Certainly implied that I was against “free and legal abortion and contraception” when in fact I state the exact opposite in my piece.

Then ran away when challenged. (Which, it goes without saying, is her right. As Guido/Iain etc. always says.)

Honestly, there’s no other way of calling that than bad arguing, and arguing in bad faith. It’s quite another thing altogether to say:

Like Sunny, I believe in a woman’s right to complete autonomy over her body and reproduction. For me that’s an absolute, and yes, that does mean advocating a right to abortion right up to the point of birth.

Which is a perfectly reasonable position that clearly doesn’t agree with mine. I have the highest respect for that - and all the other honestly argued perspectives that differ from mine. But that goes without saying here, surely?

On triangulation - think ‘Bruce Lee’ in ‘Enter the Dragon’…

Seriously, triangulation is in part, the art of political ‘fighting without fighting’ (hence the Bruce Lee reference) in as much as it functions by not engaging with the arguments of opponents - in fact it typically claims to advance a position that is above and outside ‘traditional’ politics - while at the same time drawing opponents into excluding themselves from the mainstream public discourse by creating the appearance that their arguments are unreasonable and sustainable only at the fringes of political culture.

Call it ‘giving them the rope they need to hang themselves’ - it amounts to the same thing.

On taboos in the abortion debate - see my latest piece on the unanswered question of why women have abortions.

Second bit first:

> Having a debate about public ethics can sometimes ignore that people can do things for entirely selfish reasons, and in most cases we must let them make that decision.

Quite. Which is why I wrote:

I’m talking about public ethics here - not kangaroo courts. The MYOB maxim still applies.

MYOB: i.e. mind your own business. Public ethics has nothing to do with trailing people round the streets enquiring of them as to why they dropped their Snickers wrapper. It does, though, suggest that we publicly agree that dropping litter is wrong. Etc.

I wouldn’t even use the word selfish. It’s unnecessarily pejorative. Some things just aren’t anyone else’s business, as you say.

Anyone suggest a decent book on ‘memetic theory’ for Matt?

Seriously, I think you need to read Dan Dennett’s book ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ in order to understand the limitations of your arguments, which are just another variation on ‘greedy reductionism’.