the Greater Nomadic Council

I happen to be similarly equivocal on the issue, but let me take up the pro-life gauntlet for the moment.

Your mental image of an X-Y scale is praiseworthy since it's honest, and I think you're right that the majority of pro-choicers think this way. However, this kind of argument doesn't work for someone who believes souls emerge in correspondence with bodies--there is nothing quantitative about a soul. It's either there or it isn't.

Further, how does one legislate the value scale? If the fetus is potentially human, when is its value not enough for forbidding abortion, and when is it enough?

Finally, coming from a moral philosophical POV, could you extend this reasoning into post birth--is the value of a 6 month old child greater than a 2 month old child? Or are the moral standards saying they are equal mere matters of convention?

I will post another comment later--I shouldn't take time away from studying since comprehensive exams are tomorrow.

I'll take your points in order:

Your mental image of an X-Y scale is praiseworthy since it's honest, and I think you're right that the majority of pro-choicers think this way. However, this kind of argument doesn't work for someone who believes souls emerge in correspondence with bodies--there is nothing quantitative about a soul. It's either there or it isn't.

Whether or not a fetus has a soul is not testable. It is a matter of faith. Since I have no religious faith, I find the argument a bit silly and beside the point. I'm attempting to determine moral principles based on reason and compassion not the interpretation of ancient texts in translation. If someone objects to abortion for religious reasons, no amount of rational argument will change his or her opinion. Although I respect an individual's right to evaluate the morality of any given scenario through the lens of religion, their opinions are not relevant to my consideration of this issue. I believe laws and morals should be based on principles derived from reason.

Further, how does one legislate the value scale? If the fetus is potentially human, when is its value not enough for forbidding abortion, and when is it enough?

You can't. The law is not fine-tuned enough for such nuance nor are our politicians wise enough to implement it were it possible. The article I linked makes the distinction between moral and legal questions. While the two are always intertwined, they are not identical. Laws should be in place to reduce the amount of harm caused to a society (part of the reason I'm against the Drug War), not proscribe every individual action which the majority (or a vocal minority) does not consider moral. Given that in the past when abortion was illegal there were massive complications and problems with abortion—thus proving that there will be abortions, legal or not—the proper course of action for the government is to keep abortion legal and safe. It is up to the individual to determine the morality thereof on a case by case basis. Likewise, a look at the countries in which abortion has been strictly criminalized and pregnancies monitored shows a lessening of care for children, higher rates of child abandonment, juvenile crime, etc.

Obviously hard-core opponents of abortion who view it as akin to genocide will never accept this position, but I have already abandoned any attempt to persuade such people as the basis of their opinions are such that make them exceedingly difficult if not impossible to change via rational argument. I'm also allergic to extremists.

Finally, coming from a moral philosophical POV, could you extend this reasoning into post birth--is the value of a 6 month old child greater than a 2 month old child? Or are the moral standards saying they are equal mere matters of convention?

This is a reductio ad absurdum and you know it. Yes, the line between human and fetus is unclear and likely impossible to define. However, there is a general consensus that third trimester abortions should be banned except in the most extreme cases of danger to the mother. As the article points out, only .8% of abortions occur in the third trimester. This makes the blurring between late-term fetus and baby a moot point. We've already agreed that at some point the value of the fetus becomes nearly equivalent to that of a born human (whose value we may calculate as infinite, which implies not a line, but an exponential curve), but owing to the crucial fact that it has not yet been born, it does not have that full value. However, as practice also demonstrates, the value of late-term fetuses (aside: the Latin plural of "fetus" is "fetus") is so high that only the most extreme counterweight makes an abortion morally acceptable however sad it remains. That is one of the key points the article makes: you must weigh various goods against one another in making a moral evaluation. We do this everyday. Few decisions are clear, binary choices (wouldn't life be dull if they were?). At the very beginning of a pregnancy concerns which later do not carry enough weight are still enough to make an abortion acceptable (so states the article).

I lean strongly towards accepting this argument as it fits very closely with my own inchoate ideas. However, with a question of such complexity and seriousness, I think it's important to always remain open to new arguments and considerations, so I refuse to fully accept the reasoning I've just outlined.

Also, I would like to point out that, though I have criticized those opinions which stem from religious conviction (not the people who hold them, just the opinions) I have found reading works written by opponents of abortion often the most challenging and helpful in forming my own opinions. Were I to have read nothing but pro-choice works I imagine I'd have few qualms, but many slogans.

Well I think your arguments are good, I'm really just trying to work out my own position. Frankly, I'm pretty convinced that pro-choice is a bad position electorally for the Democratic party, and that it's scaring away a lot of potential voters and consequently helping the GOP make the world a shittier place. Let's face it--opposition to abortion was basically the only understandable rationale for voting Bush last time around, given that every other rationale is simply not compelling enough to overcome the widespread dismay over the war and Bush's general incompotence. Among GOP issues, only abortion retains the resonance of a moral crusade, where an impassioned minority can make the electoral difference, while the pro-choice majority is relatively indifferent. So I think that thinking Democrats are going to have to debate whether or not they are really correct on abortion, and if so, whether abortion is worth the tradeoffs stemming from lost elections.

As for your reasoning, I think it's strong, though I think you run into problems here...
[block]
Laws should be in place to reduce the amount of harm caused to a society (part of the reason I'm against the Drug War), not proscribe every individual action which the majority (or a vocal minority) does not consider moral. [/block]

This kind of utilitarianism seems to contradict the notion of unalienable individual rights, which is the basis for the pro-life argument. That is, pro-lifers believe moral rights extend to conception, and hence legal rights ought to be extended as well. I don't think any of us are against an unalienable right to life, it's just a matter of how far it extends.

For my part, I'm all for consequentialism and utilitarianism in the construction of public policy--as long as its a "rule utilitarianism", which is balanced by the notion of basic human rights and conscious of the value of moral traditions developed over centuries.

Frankly, I'm pretty convinced that pro-choice is a bad position electorally for the Democratic party, and that it's scaring away a lot of potential voters and consequently helping the GOP make the world a shittier place. Let's face it--opposition to abortion was basically the only understandable rationale for voting Bush last time around, given that every other rationale is simply not compelling enough to overcome the widespread dismay over the war and Bush's general incompotence. Among GOP issues, only abortion retains the resonance of a moral crusade, where an impassioned minority can make the electoral difference, while the pro-choice majority is relatively indifferent. So I think that thinking Democrats are going to have to debate whether or not they are really correct on abortion, and if so, whether abortion is worth the tradeoffs stemming from lost elections.

Well, there was the whole gay marriage question for starters. I think you're partially right, though. From what I've heard from many who did vote for Bush, one of the largest reasons was the broader area of morality/values. They simply felt like Bush embodied their values better than Kerry who scared/angered/disgusted them. His tepid support for gays and abortion were enough to signify that he does not share the same values as the more conservative voters. Obviously there were many other motivations for voting either for Bush or against Kerry, but that seems to have been a significant motivator. Of course, that requires voters to ignore the fact that the Bush administration appears to be largely amoral.

This kind of utilitarianism seems to contradict the notion of unalienable individual rights, which is the basis for the pro-life argument. That is, pro-lifers believe moral rights extend to conception, and hence legal rights ought to be extended as well. I don't think any of us are against an unalienable right to life, it's just a matter of how far it extends.

For my part, I'm all for consequentialism and utilitarianism in the construction of public policy--as long as its a "rule utilitarianism", which is balanced by the notion of basic human rights and conscious of the value of moral traditions developed over centuries.

I think you just answered your own potential objection. :)

Btw, blockquotes are <blockquote></blockquote>

I don´t have any concrete evidence to back this up, but my feeling is that opposition to gay marriage isn´t really an issue that decent and/or idealistic people get too excited about--it´s mostly a scare tactic aimed at the ignorant. Consequently, it´s less likely that the kind of people who go into activism spontaneously are likely to do be motivated by it. On the other hand, if the GOP has the money, they can pay people to rile the masses up, which is exactly what they did. But I think that the GOP volunteer base, along with evangelical activism, would be substanitally reduced if abortion wasn´t an issue. This is one reason why the GOP isn´t going to move too rapidly to criminalize abortion--in all liklihood, it´ll be an even bigger issue in 2008.

I disagree. While I don't think gay marriage per se was the issue, the moral stance it signified was. Opposition to abortion or gay marriage are both manifestations of the same mindset (in most cases). The two are morally distinct (one is problematic, the other is pretty straight-forward for non-faith-based thinkers), but not necessarily emotionally, which is how most people vote.

Have you had a chance to read the articles I linked yet?