4 ms·

Yeah, there's a lot of complication for sure, even in "real" cases of self-defense (e.g., if you talk a bunch of shit to someone, and they attack you, and then

Yeah, there's a lot of complication for sure, even in "real" cases of self-defense (e.g., if you talk a bunch of shit to someone, and they attack you, and then you shoot them, how self-defensy is that?) I would prefer not do weird metaphorical gymnastics in discussing abortion -- it's pretty straightforward what the relevant tradeoffs are. I wish the nation could just battle it out over those, facing the hard choices directly.

jimkleiber 4y ago
I agree I don't want to do metaphorical gymnastics, and yet law and the interpretation of it can be exactly that. I mean often SCOTUS is trying to extrapolate meaning from 1-2 sentences in a Constitution written over 200 years ago, using many metaphors to do so. I also don't feel very clear on what are the relevant trade offs, but maybe it's more clear to you. What do you see as the relevant tradeoffs?
- shanusmagnus 4y ago
  You could decompose the issues many ways, but it seems like some of the principal components are: Component 1: human life is valuable, and ending a human life is a serious matter not just for the individual, but for society Component 2: personal autonomy, esp wrt control of one's own body, is one of the most profound of freedoms, and one of particular importance to the American people Most Americans would probably agree that these two components explain the majority of the 'moral variance' on the issue. So then it's a matter of making an uncomfortable choice between them: when do we value human life less than autonomy? Answering that question will almost certainly require some further difficult reckoning: Sub-component 3: what really counts as a human life? A person born without a brain? A brain dead patient? A patient reduced to the level of an animal due to Lewy Body Dementia? A 8.9 month old unborn baby? A 4 week fetus? A fetus that isn't viable outside the mother's body? Sub-sub-component 4: what do we count as viable? What amount of medical intervention is allowed for a fetus to be considered viable? And then things like: Intersection {1,2}: What about when a person wants to exercise autonomy to end his own life, but is unable / unwilling to do so by himself? Should it be legal to enlist someone to help? Etc. Tradeoffs all the way down. Seems more productive to admit that they exist and that you're taking a position. I agree with you that when making a legal ruling metaphor may be required (e.g., saying that the right to commercially transact is a kind of free speech), but in the current context it seems totally gratuitous. Specifically, if we're talking about making exceptions when the mother's health is at risk, that's easy to discuss explicitly -- human life is important, but the fully realized adult life is more important than the nascent life of the fetus.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    I really appreciate how you broke this down, including the components you chose, and agree I'd rather have discussions based on such a structure than on more abstract metaphors. Thank you.

jimkleiber 4y ago

I agree I don't want to do metaphorical gymnastics, and yet law and the interpretation of it can be exactly that. I mean often SCOTUS is trying to extrapolate meaning from 1-2 sentences in a Constitution written over 200 years ago, using many metaphors to do so. I also don't feel very clear on what are the relevant trade offs, but maybe it's more clear to you. What do you see as the relevant tradeoffs?

shanusmagnus 4y ago
You could decompose the issues many ways, but it seems like some of the principal components are: Component 1: human life is valuable, and ending a human life is a serious matter not just for the individual, but for society Component 2: personal autonomy, esp wrt control of one's own body, is one of the most profound of freedoms, and one of particular importance to the American people Most Americans would probably agree that these two components explain the majority of the 'moral variance' on the issue. So then it's a matter of making an uncomfortable choice between them: when do we value human life less than autonomy? Answering that question will almost certainly require some further difficult reckoning: Sub-component 3: what really counts as a human life? A person born without a brain? A brain dead patient? A patient reduced to the level of an animal due to Lewy Body Dementia? A 8.9 month old unborn baby? A 4 week fetus? A fetus that isn't viable outside the mother's body? Sub-sub-component 4: what do we count as viable? What amount of medical intervention is allowed for a fetus to be considered viable? And then things like: Intersection {1,2}: What about when a person wants to exercise autonomy to end his own life, but is unable / unwilling to do so by himself? Should it be legal to enlist someone to help? Etc. Tradeoffs all the way down. Seems more productive to admit that they exist and that you're taking a position. I agree with you that when making a legal ruling metaphor may be required (e.g., saying that the right to commercially transact is a kind of free speech), but in the current context it seems totally gratuitous. Specifically, if we're talking about making exceptions when the mother's health is at risk, that's easy to discuss explicitly -- human life is important, but the fully realized adult life is more important than the nascent life of the fetus.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  I really appreciate how you broke this down, including the components you chose, and agree I'd rather have discussions based on such a structure than on more abstract metaphors. Thank you.