5 ms·

> The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical Nobody claimed otherwise. Legality is not the point. > ... it can mean that the percei

> The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical Nobody claimed otherwise. Legality is not the point. > ... it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it outweighs the benefits. That's an ethical defense. We can disagree about the costs and benefits of abortion or genetic engineering, but purely based on principles I don't see how you can defend non-medically indicated abortion but not genetic engineering.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> > The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical > Nobody claimed otherwise. Yes, you did, when you said: “If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion)” That is an explicit statement that the legality of abortion necessarily implies the ethical acceptability of abortion. > > it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it outweighs the benefits. > That's an ethical defense. It's an ethical defense of the legality of a thing that does not depend on the ethical acceptability of the thing itself. > We can disagree about the costs and benefits of abortion or genetic engineering, but purely based on principles I don't see how you can defend non-medically indicated abortion but not genetic engineering. One can defend the legality of non-medically indicates abortion but not designer babies theogh genetic engineering because one believes that permitting government inquiry into the justification of abortion (given the fallibility and corruptibility of government) poses an unacceptably high risk of intrusion into legitimate bodily autonomy that is not warranted by the benefits of the prohibition, whereas the same is not true with human genetic engineering (either because the latter does not as closely impact legitimate bodily autonomy issues or because the potential public impacts of each instance of gene editing warrant accepting greater costs to control it.)
- zeroname 8y ago
  > That is an explicit statement that the legality of abortion necessarily implies the ethical acceptability of abortion. No, it isn't. Read carefully: If aborting a fetus for no particular reason (as in "general legalized abortion") is ethically defensible, then... > It's an ethical defense of the legality of a thing that does not depend on the ethical acceptability of the thing itself. That's a fair point. Nevertheless, I would maintain that many pro-choicers would consider abortion itself ethically defensible, regardless of the implications of its legality or lack thereof. > One can defend... I find this sentence unreadable. Since you are not keen on defending the ethics of abortion, but rather the ethics of the legality of abortion, it's probably moot anyway.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> > The absence of a legal prohibition doesn't mean something is ethical > Nobody claimed otherwise. Yes, you did, when you said: “If it's ethically defensible to abort fetuses for no particular reason (i.e. general legalized abortion)” That is an explicit statement that the legality of abortion necessarily implies the ethical acceptability of abortion. > > it can mean that the perceived incidental costs of policing it outweighs the benefits. > That's an ethical defense. It's an ethical defense of the legality of a thing that does not depend on the ethical acceptability of the thing itself. > We can disagree about the costs and benefits of abortion or genetic engineering, but purely based on principles I don't see how you can defend non-medically indicated abortion but not genetic engineering. One can defend the legality of non-medically indicates abortion but not designer babies theogh genetic engineering because one believes that permitting government inquiry into the justification of abortion (given the fallibility and corruptibility of government) poses an unacceptably high risk of intrusion into legitimate bodily autonomy that is not warranted by the benefits of the prohibition, whereas the same is not true with human genetic engineering (either because the latter does not as closely impact legitimate bodily autonomy issues or because the potential public impacts of each instance of gene editing warrant accepting greater costs to control it.)

zeroname 8y ago
> That is an explicit statement that the legality of abortion necessarily implies the ethical acceptability of abortion. No, it isn't. Read carefully: If aborting a fetus for no particular reason (as in "general legalized abortion") is ethically defensible, then... > It's an ethical defense of the legality of a thing that does not depend on the ethical acceptability of the thing itself. That's a fair point. Nevertheless, I would maintain that many pro-choicers would consider abortion itself ethically defensible, regardless of the implications of its legality or lack thereof. > One can defend... I find this sentence unreadable. Since you are not keen on defending the ethics of abortion, but rather the ethics of the legality of abortion, it's probably moot anyway.