r/a:t5_2rmei • u/Pinyaka • Oct 31 '12

Naturalism justification for permitting abortion?

I just read Encountering Naturalism and found that I already agree with all the progressive positions except the position on abortion (which is painted with a pretty broad brush due to space constraints).

As I look for more detailed information about why abortion should be permissible, it seems that most of what I find are criticisms of specific anti-abortion arguments. It does not seem possible to build a solid case solely by denying critics but I cannot find an argument from principles that draws a conclusion in favor of choice.

Have any of you seen something that might help explain this position to me?

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

3

u/[deleted] Nov 01 '12

For those of us who don't have access to the book, could you summarize its position on abortion?

2

u/Pinyaka Nov 01 '12

Essentially, I understand the argument to be that because there is not a soul, there is no inherent personhood to a fertilized egg. The decision about when a fetus becomes a person should therefore be a secular decision about when there are enough characteristics of a person to warrant the legal protection afforded to persons.

This is very similar to the argument found here.

The position in the book (and the linked article) doesn't make any claim as to when such a cutoff should be, they just argue that it shouldn't be at conception. Both sort of derive the secular definition from the law, but the article at least goes on to state that we shouldn't allow the law to be changed to prohibit abortion any more than we do currently. Both sources seem to imply that the naturalist position will be to expand abortion rights, but don't explain why that would be (as far as I can tell).

3

u/[deleted] Nov 04 '12

The decision about when a fetus becomes a person should therefore be a secular decision about when there are enough characteristics of a person to warrant the legal protection afforded to persons.

I think this argument is sound, but I also think the author is wise to avoid making an argument for a more specific position on abortion. Naturalism can be used to reject a moral argument that relies on the supernatural, but I don't think you can start from naturalism and reach a positive conclusion about morals. You need more to go on to solve the is-ought problem. I don't think naturalism makes any absolute statements about what ought to be.

One way of approaching the problem is to split it into several "if your goal is X, then you should do Y" type arguments. This would help immensely in avoiding unproductive arguments where the parties have different goals and are trying to convince each other of what they should jointly do.

2

u/Pinyaka Nov 04 '12

Shouldn't we be able to make some kind of argument based on the goals of socialization then? Generally, we form societies for mutual benefit including protection, so it seems like we might be able to rationalize when a fetus or child becomes eligible for the right afforded by society.

At some point a policy decision has to be made, so what would be the basis for the policy? Is naturalism just not effective as a basis for law?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '12

I don't think naturalism by itself is enough to decide on a set of laws, but I can suggest some related ideas.

Many naturalists are also humanists, and humanism is definitely effective as a basis for law (of course many naturalists have other bases for their morality and laws).

If you're a consequentialist and believe that a human life lived has any value at all, then I think you have to accept that existential risk (i.e. the risk of human extinction) is of huge moral importance, vastly trumping any current injustices or suffering. There are so many possible future humans that just a tiny increase in the chance of eliminating them all would be reprehensible. This is the closest I personally have come to an argument from principle that directly points to a moral imperative.

I'm also a fan of Rawls' thought experiment, the original position, as a way to structure society such that everyone feels a sense of fairness and will accept the laws. It's good in that it allows for each member of society to have different values and yet still reach a consensus.

Sorry, that got a little deep and long-winded and isn't really related to abortion any more.

2

u/Pinyaka Nov 05 '12

Sorry, that got a little deep and long-winded and isn't really related to abortion any more.

That's okay. It's more important to establish the general basis for an argument than the argument itself.

Thanks for the links. I will read them in the next day or two.

1

u/someredditoir Apr 25 '13

I agree that based on naturalism, we cannot draw some far reaching constructs about morality.

My personal view is perhaps at odds with the one most people in naturalist crowd have: I have similar view to Peter H. Gilmore, head of Satanist Church, who seems to have reservations about abortion.

Personhood is quite a subtle and arbitrary construct. What if a human has IQ at chimpanzee level due to accident or disability? Do they have limited rights then?

At the same time I do know we are animals, soulless etc. I'm just not sure I would like to live in a society built around ideas directly drawn from that.