I'm glad we basically agree, it's always reassuring to be able to express your views and find you have them in common with other people.
I think the "sliding scale" factors like expected quality of life, and the risk of problems drafting and administering the related legislation are real and much more difficult to talk around than what I've discussed above. However I think too many people dive into debate about legislation without even bothering to define exactly what it is laws should aim to achieve.
I noticed a consistent (read as: reluctantly admirably) anti-abortion comment regarding the Tookie execution earlier today over at loic's lj, was wondering when a similar discussion would erupt elsewhere.
I'm glad to see some people are thinking about where they stand, and articulating their positions somewhat coherently.
I agree with you on most of what you're saying (although I tend to place more emphasis on the morally deforming effect that capital punishment and institutionalised torture can have on a society).
I think the wider social aspects of all these processes are very important and often don't get much airtime.
For example the wider social consequences of free, no-guilt abortion at any stage of pregnancy could include an increase in feelings of depression and worthlessness amongst women, an increase in unsafe sex and related disease transmission, an increase in the burdens on the health system due to related complications, a tendency for men to demand abortions from their wives and girlfriends, etc.
These things need to be considered because they have a moral content that runs alongside the nuclear "to abort or not to abort" arguments.
I very nearly agree with you entirely, except that I'm a bit more pro-choice than you are. I would argue in favour of abortion if the probable number of lifeforms post-pregnancy was equal to one, too.
My father is oddly passionate (for a man who is rarely overtly passionate about anything) about abortion. He's pro-choice, too, but is vehement that it's not an *easy* decision; my parents had to wrestle with it when I was a baby, because they thought my mother was pregnant, and another pregnancy for my mother would have fallen firmly into category two of your list. As it turns out, she wasn't pregnant, but his perspective is still a little interesting.
"I would argue in favour of abortion if the probable number of lifeforms post-pregnancy was equal to one, too"
Just to clarify my actual position is slightly "more pro-choice" in the sense of intuitively preferring the need for slightly more lenient controls on abortion.
I gave those two specific examples to illustrate two situations where I thought my position on abortion being acceptable was defensible on correspondingly specific grounds.
In the first case, that the foetus is not conscious, and therefore to my mind does not enjoy rights in the conventional sense.
In the second, that refusing abortion is murdering more than one people on average, whereas permitting it is killing one only (assuming the procedure is guaranteed safe - adjust the required expected value for the scenario accordingly if it is not).
I find it scary that many strident pro-life activists are also very supportive of the idea of capital punishment. I don't see how those concepts can be reconciled in any way that isn't totally hypocritical.
Capital punishment isn't really a solution to the problem it is meant to deal with, and neither is incarceration. In both cases, the criminal is written out of society; I would say they are qualitatively equivalent, to borrow your phrase. It could be argued that a death penalty is actually less harsh than life without parole (or even with parole, in many cases), in that there is less suffering involved.
I am very much pro-choice, simply because I believe that any situation in which a parent would want to abort their child is a situation in which a child should not be raised. I am strongly pro-euthenasia, because I believe that the extension of life in those cases does not benefit the patient in any way. I am ambivalent about capital punishment, but lean away from it on the basis that it is irreversible.
"Capital punishment isn't really a solution to the problem it is meant to deal with, and neither is incarceration. In both cases, the criminal is written out of society; I would say they are qualitatively equivalent, to borrow your phrase"
This is an issue that concerns me. To my mind life imprisonment is definitely preferable if only because (a) there is no real "life without parole" sentence in Australia AFAIK and (b) the sentence can be reversed or reduced if justice has been miscarried (hmm, bad word to use in a discussion that touches on abortion).
But in general my ideal justice system would tend to recommend less than whole-of-lifespan periods of incarceration even for serious crimes. Even then it's not always clear that imprisonment is an appropriate response to crime.
From the perspective of the law, the best response to a crime is the one that produces the best result for society overall, and scary as it is to say that might potentially include letting the criminal go free (not saying it is, just putting the idea
Taking a criminal (someone who is already on the boundaries of society) out of society entirely and putting them into a population entirely made up of criminals doesn't sound like an effective means of rehabilitation. Combined with physical and psychological abuse at the hands of authority figures and fellow inmates, I'd say it's downright detrimental
( ... )
The role of punishment is partially preventative (acts as a deterrent) as well as rehabilitative. This makes sense to me, but the tradeoff between the two goals is difficult to calculate.
As far as the bad effects of jail on inmates' psychology go, perhaps there could be some alternate way of restricting the rights of convicted criminals without incarcerating them that would also act as a significant deterrent. Controlling their income, movement, status or civic rights without actually throwing them behind locked doors. The trouble is that it's probably a bad idea to give a convicted criminal a very real opportunity to commit further crime during the course of a sentence. I don't know about this.
"I would actually go so far as to say that it would be in the interest of society to attempt to determine whether any given criminal is capable of rehabilitation."
I think that might potentially be a good thing if possible, but is currently unrealistic.
It seems we are all of very similar minds on this issue - that quality of life and self-determination are paramount and that murder by a state is as detestable as murder by an individual.
I would like to add an interesting point to the discussion of euthanasia. From what I heave heard in documentaries and discussions with people who have been involved with the terminally ill - people who swear that they would prefer to die than be an invalid, or if terminally ill with no quality of life often completely reverse that stance when faced with the actual situation.
It seems that there is nothing quite like coming close to death to revitalise the will to live.
Aristotle. It was mentioned in a column by Hugh Mackay or Andre Malan in the last weekend rag, in reference to the widening disconnect between what people claim their values to be and what they are in practice.
Comments 43
Reply
I think the "sliding scale" factors like expected quality of life, and the risk of problems drafting and administering the related legislation are real and much more difficult to talk around than what I've discussed above. However I think too many people dive into debate about legislation without even bothering to define exactly what it is laws should aim to achieve.
Reply
I'm glad to see some people are thinking about where they stand, and articulating their positions somewhat coherently.
I agree with you on most of what you're saying (although I tend to place more emphasis on the morally deforming effect that capital punishment and institutionalised torture can have on a society).
Reply
For example the wider social consequences of free, no-guilt abortion at any stage of pregnancy could include an increase in feelings of depression and worthlessness amongst women, an increase in unsafe sex and related disease transmission, an increase in the burdens on the health system due to related complications, a tendency for men to demand abortions from their wives and girlfriends, etc.
These things need to be considered because they have a moral content that runs alongside the nuclear "to abort or not to abort" arguments.
Reply
My father is oddly passionate (for a man who is rarely overtly passionate about anything) about abortion. He's pro-choice, too, but is vehement that it's not an *easy* decision; my parents had to wrestle with it when I was a baby, because they thought my mother was pregnant, and another pregnancy for my mother would have fallen firmly into category two of your list. As it turns out, she wasn't pregnant, but his perspective is still a little interesting.
Reply
Just to clarify my actual position is slightly "more pro-choice" in the sense of intuitively preferring the need for slightly more lenient controls on abortion.
I gave those two specific examples to illustrate two situations where I thought my position on abortion being acceptable was defensible on correspondingly specific grounds.
In the first case, that the foetus is not conscious, and therefore to my mind does not enjoy rights in the conventional sense.
In the second, that refusing abortion is murdering more than one people on average, whereas permitting it is killing one only (assuming the procedure is guaranteed safe - adjust the required expected value for the scenario accordingly if it is not).
Reply
Capital punishment isn't really a solution to the problem it is meant to deal with, and neither is incarceration. In both cases, the criminal is written out of society; I would say they are qualitatively equivalent, to borrow your phrase. It could be argued that a death penalty is actually less harsh than life without parole (or even with parole, in many cases), in that there is less suffering involved.
I am very much pro-choice, simply because I believe that any situation in which a parent would want to abort their child is a situation in which a child should not be raised. I am strongly pro-euthenasia, because I believe that the extension of life in those cases does not benefit the patient in any way. I am ambivalent about capital punishment, but lean away from it on the basis that it is irreversible.
Reply
This is an issue that concerns me. To my mind life imprisonment is definitely preferable if only because (a) there is no real "life without parole" sentence in Australia AFAIK and (b) the sentence can be reversed or reduced if justice has been miscarried (hmm, bad word to use in a discussion that touches on abortion).
But in general my ideal justice system would tend to recommend less than whole-of-lifespan periods of incarceration even for serious crimes. Even then it's not always clear that imprisonment is an appropriate response to crime.
From the perspective of the law, the best response to a crime is the one that produces the best result for society overall, and scary as it is to say that might potentially include letting the criminal go free (not saying it is, just putting the idea
Reply
Reply
As far as the bad effects of jail on inmates' psychology go, perhaps there could be some alternate way of restricting the rights of convicted criminals without incarcerating them that would also act as a significant deterrent. Controlling their income, movement, status or civic rights without actually throwing them behind locked doors. The trouble is that it's probably a bad idea to give a convicted criminal a very real opportunity to commit further crime during the course of a sentence. I don't know about this.
"I would actually go so far as to say that it would be in the interest of society to attempt to determine whether any given criminal is capable of rehabilitation."
I think that might potentially be a good thing if possible, but is currently unrealistic.
Reply
I would like to add an interesting point to the discussion of euthanasia. From what I heave heard in documentaries and discussions with people who have been involved with the terminally ill - people who swear that they would prefer to die than be an invalid, or if terminally ill with no quality of life often completely reverse that stance when faced with the actual situation.
It seems that there is nothing quite like coming close to death to revitalise the will to live.
Reply
Nicely put.
I can easily believe your caveat regarding euthanasia. What we are is what we repeatedly do.
Reply
That has the ring of a quote. Any idea who from?
Reply
(edited for disastrous spelling, gah)
Reply
Leave a comment