(no subject)

[ataxi]

How, the question arises, can a person oppose capital punishment but support the right to abortion and the right to die?

From my point of view it is morally wrong to forcibly end the life of a resisting, conscious being.

Capital punishment

Killing criminals does not reverse the consequences of the crimes they have committed. Capital punishment encourages a vindictive mentality. The death penalty encourages us to think that sometimes we have a right to kill. Capital punishment costs the state more money to administer than life imprisonment. The death penalty is impossible to mitigate or cancel after being implemented.

Abortion

Is it ever morally acceptable to abort a foetus? Here are two scenarios where I believe abortion is definitely acceptable:

1. When the foetus is not conscious or capable of feeling pain. A zygote is initially a simple group of cells with no differentiated organs or brain. Abortion at this stage of pregnancy is qualitatively equivalent to the use of contraception: it reduces the chance of an new conscious being appearing in the future. Quantitatively, the probability change is quite different.
2. When the best available medical diagnosis suggests that the expected number of living beings after the foetus is carried to term is less than one.

I am able to conceive of other, more extreme scenarios in which abortion is practically a moral requirement. The question becomes not whether the law should permit abortion at all, but when and how*. Although most pro-lifers claim a belief in the absolute sanctity of life, I believe that the substantial point of disagreement between the pro-life and pro-choice positions is the "when and how" question and not the "whether" question.

The expected quality of life of parents and child should be considered. The law could focus on two types of abortion: abortion by choice, and abortion by medical necessity. The best means of determining when a foetus becomes a conscious organism could be used as the guideline for permitting abortion by choice, and the best means of determining survival chance for foetus and mother as the guideline for permitting abortion by medical necessity. Other factors could decide the issue in borderline cases.

The question of whether it's morally acceptable for a mother to choose to abort a fully developed, healthy and conscious foetus I have to avoid for now because I'm unsure of my own position.

Euthanasia

This is a problem on the libertarian-totalitarian axis. Libertarians are opposed to the idea of "victimless crime", a category into which suicide and euthanasia naturally fall. Pro-euthanasia activists focus on the possibility that a terminally ill person who suffers pain may experience an undignified end to life if not allowed to stop living at a chosen time. My personal belief is that a state with limited resources should have better things to do than force a painful extension of life on a person who would prefer to die and is capable of articulating that preference.

Summary

I might keep this post as a personal reference and update it when I elaborate on my feelings. At the moment I hope anyone reading would find my position internally consistent, whether or not they agreed with it. The more difficult parts of these questions need to be dealt with. One area which I feel I'm neglecting is the value of the social bonds that executed criminals, mothers and foetuses, the elderly and the terminally ill have with wider society, and whether allowing these bonds to be unilaterally severed is morally acceptable. As actions in a social context capital punishment, abortion and euthanasia all share one major flaw which is that they are irreversible.

* See this Telegraph article discussing research on foetus consciousness.

EDIT: lj-cut for the sake of your screen space.