A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Pro-life

Federal Funding & Abortion: Intended Consequences?

by 3 Comments

While there is no federal funding for abortion, the Trump administration has backed a rule that would forbid federal funding from going to clinics that provide or refer abortion services. In many cases, women rely on such clinics for medical services other than abortion, so if federal funding is cut, then these women might have to do without such things as pre-natal care and gynecological exams. As such, the rule presents a practical and moral quandary. To be specific, clinics that need federal funding will have to chose between reducing (or eliminating) services they cannot fund or eliminating abortion services and referrals.

On the one hand, opponents of abortion can make the argument that the defenders of abortion are in the wrong here: if the clinics would simply stop offering abortions and referrals, then they could receive the federal money they need to offer non-abortion services to women. As the anti-abortion folks see it, abortion is wrong and thus this option would be the morally best choice. If the abortion defenders refuse, the anti-abortion folks can say “look what you made us do” when the federal government refuses to provide funds to these clinics. On this view, the abortion defenders would bear the moral blame for the harm done to women by the denial of funding. This is because they are willing to allow this harm so that the clinics can still offer abortion services and referrals.

Embed from Getty Images

On the other hand, the defenders of abortion can make the argument that the anti-abortion folks are in the wrong. The anti-abortion folks are effectively holding the well-being of women (and babies) who need the other services hostage to their demand that the clinics not offer abortion services or referrals. As such, any harm done to the women (and babies) would fall upon the anti-abortion folks who insist that it is better that the women (and babies) suffer than that the clinics provide abortion services or referrals.

In sum, the anti-abortion folks would presumably say “the blame lies on the abortion defenders; if they simply stopped offering abortion services and referrals, the clinics could have the funding.” In contrast, the abortion defenders would presumably say “any blame lies on the anti-abortion folks; federal funding already cannot be used for abortion and they are just hurting women by pushing this rule.” On the face of it, the abortion defenders seem to have the better moral position on this issue: the anti-abortion folks already have a ban on federal funding for abortion, this expanded rule is morally greedy and hurts women whether the clinic choses to accept funds or elects to continue to provide abortion services and referrals. Interestingly, this could very well be a feature of the rule rather than a bug.

From the standpoint of an anti-abortion person who is a fiscal conservative, this rule creates a win-win situation. If a clinic accepts federal money, it would no longer be able to offer abortion services or referrals. If a clinic declines the money, this reduces the federal money being spent (assuming, however unlikely, that it is not simply spent elsewhere).

Anti-abortion folks who do not care about women or are hostile to them would also be quite pleased by this rule. If a clinic accepts money, then women who need or want abortions will have a harder time getting them, thus they will be harmed. If the clinic rejects the money, then it will have less funding and will be less able to provide services, thus harming women in various ways, including unwanted pregnancies that could end in abortions.

While one would like to think that harming women (and babies) would be an unintended consequence of this rule, it seems reasonable to think that this is an intended consequence. That is, the rule is not really about the ethics of abortion (since federal funding cannot go to that anyway) but about cutting ever deeper into federal support for the health of women and babies.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Pro Life, Pro-Environment?

by 40 Comments

Human fetus, age unknown
Image via Wikipedia

Here in the States we are going through the seemingly endless warm up for our 2012 presidential election. President Obama is the candidate of the Democrats and the Republicans are trying to sort out who will be their person.  The Republican candidates for being the presidential candidate are doing their best to win the hearts and minds of the folks who will anoint one of them.

In order to do this, a candidate must win over the folks who are focused on economic matters (mainly pushing for low taxes and less regulation) and those who are focused on what they regard as moral issues (pushing against abortion, same sex marriage and so on). The need to appeal to these views has caused most of the candidates to adopt the pro-life (anti-abortion) stance as well as to express a commitment to eliminating regulation. Some of the candidates have gone so far as to claim they will eliminate the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) on the grounds that regulations hurt the job creators.

On the face of it, these seems to be no tension between being pro-life and against government regulation of the sort imposed via the EPA.  A person could argue that since abortion is wrong, it is acceptable for the government to deny women the freedom to have abortions. The same person could, quite consistently it seems, then argue that the state should take a pro-choice stance towards business in terms of regulation, especially environmental regulation. However, if one digs a bit deeper, it would seem that there is a potential tension here.

In the States, the stock pro-life argument is that the act of abortion is an act of murder: innocent people are being killed. There are, of course, variations on this line of reasoning. However, the usual moral arguments are based on the notion that harm is being done to an innocent being.  When people counter with an appeal to the rights or needs of the mother, the stock reply is that these are overridden in this situation. That is, avoiding harm to the fetus (or pre-fetus) is generally more important than avoiding harm to the mother. In some cases people take this to be an absolute in that they regard abortion as never allowable. Some do allow exceptions in the case of medical necessity, rape or incest.  There are, of course, also religious arguments-but those are best discussed in another context.

If this line of reasoning is taken seriously, and I think that it should, then a person who is pro-life on these grounds would seem to be committed to extending this moral concern for life beyond the womb. Unless, of course, there is a moral change that occurs after birth that create a relevant difference that removes the need for moral concern. This, however, would seem unlikely (at least in this direction, namely from being a entity worthy of moral concern to being an entity who does not matter).

It is at this point that the matter of environmental concerns can be brought into play. Shortly before writing this I was reading an article about the environmental dangers children are exposed to, primarily in schools. These hazards include the usual suspects: lead, mercury, pesticides, arsenic, air pollution, mold, asbestos, radon, BPA, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other such things.

Currently, children are regularly exposed to a witches brew of human made chemicals and substances that have been well established as being harmful to human beings and especially harmful to children. They are also exposed to naturally occurring substances by the actions of human beings. For example, burning coal and oil release naturally occurring mercury into the air. As another example, people use naturally occurring lead and asbestos in construction. As noted above, it is well established that these substances are harmful to humans and especially harmful to children.

If someone hold the pro-life position and believes that abortion should be regulated by the state because of the harm being done, then it would thus seem to follow that they would also need to be committed to the regulation of harmful chemicals and substances, even those produced and created by businesses. After all, if the principle that warrants regulating abortion is based on the harm being done to the fetus/pre-fetus, then the same line of reasoning would also extend to the harm being done to children and adults.

If someone were to counter by saying that they are only morally concerned with the fetus/pre-fetus, then the obvious reply is that these entities are even more impacted by exposure to such chemicals and substances. As such, they would also seem to committed to accepting regulation of the environment on the same grounds that they argue for regulation of the womb.

It might be countered that these substances generally do not kill the fetus/pre-fetus or children  but rather cause defects. As such, a person could be against killing (and hence anti-abortion) but also be against regulation on the grounds that they find birth defects, retarded development and so on to be acceptable. That is, killing is not acceptable but maiming and crippling are tolerable.

This would, interestingly enough, be a potentially viable position. However, it does seem somewhat problematic for a person to be morally outraged at abortion while being willing to tolerate maiming and crippling.

It might also be argued that businesses should be freed from regulation on the utilitarian grounds that the jobs and profits created will outweigh the environmental harms being done. That is, in return for X jobs and Y profits, we can morally tolerate Z levels of contamination, pollution, birth defects, illness and so on. This is, of course, a viable option.

However, if this approach is acceptable for regulating the environment, then it would seem to also be acceptable for regulating the womb. That is, if a utilitarian approach is taken to the environment, then the same would seem to also be suitable for abortion. It would seem that if we can morally tolerate the harms resulting from a lack of regulation of the environment, then we could also tolerate the harms resulting from abortion.

Thus it would seem that a person who is pro-life and favors regulating the womb the grounds that abortion harms the innocent, then that person should also be for regulating the environment on the grounds that pollution and contamination also harm the innocent.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Health Care & Abortion

by Leave a Comment

Rally for Healthcare Reform and to Stop Stupak...
Image by Steve Rhodes via Flickr

The debate about whether the health care bill would cover abortions led to considerable controversy as well as the shouting of “it’s a baby killer.” Ant-abortion folks were, of course, determined to abort any abortion coverage and were rather loud about the matter. The end result was that there will not be federally funded abortion funding under the bill. There will be, however, exceptions for situations involving rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. Those who wish to get abortion coverage will need to buy their own coverage.

On the face of it, this seems reasonable. After all, coverage is provided in cases in which abortion is medically necessary as well as in cases when abortion is almost universally regarded as morally acceptable. Cases in which abortion would be a matter of choice rather than medical necessity would not be funded. In most cases, medical coverage should follow this pattern: what is medically necessary should be covered and what is not should require purchasing additional coverage (or perhaps not be covered at all).

However, this pattern is not always followed. In some cases, what is not medically necessary (like Viagra) is covered while what is actually necessary (like the brace I needed after my quadriceps tendon repair surgery) is not covered. As such, it could be argued that if coverage is provided for other medically unnecessary things, then the same should apply to abortion (and if abortion is not covered, then these other things should not be covered either). So, if abortion is not to be funded when it is a matter of choice, the same principle should be applied across the board.

Another obvious point of concern is that the arguments against providing coverage for abortion tended to be moral or religious arguments. To be specific, the general idea is that since abortion is wrong (or people do not want to fund it), then federal money should not be used to fund it. Of course, if that were to be adopted as a general principle (if X is wrong or people do not want to fund X, then X cannot be funded with federal money), then many things that federal money funds (like war) would have to be cut as well.

Of course, if we should use religious views to decide what should be funded by the state, why not save a lot of money on health care and just go with Christian Science?

Turning back to the main point, it could be argued that the state has to fund things that are regard as immoral by some (such as war) for the general good. After all, while money used to buy weapons kills people, this is acceptable for the greater good. Interestingly,the same sort of argument could be given for funding abortion with federal money.

One final point is that the bill does not seem to ban, limit or restrict abortions. While it could be argued that not paying for an abortion restricts it, that is a poor argument. After all, the federal government does not pay for my running shoes, but it does not thus limit or restrict my right to run.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Obama & The Left

by Leave a Comment

Obama is being attacked from both the right and the left. The right is attacking because they think he is going to transform America into a liberal land of socialism, government health care, expanded abortion rights, and gay marriage. The left is attacking him because they think he won’t transform America into a liberal land of socialism, government health care, expanded abortion rights, and gay marriage.

Because Obama is taking a fairly moderate approach, the left wing folks are rather upset by his failure to be the liberal savior they envisioned. While some of their criticism is well founded, the folks on the extreme left need to keep in mind that Obama is not their President, but the President of the United States. He has to govern the whole country and has to be aware of the legitimate needs and concerns of all the people, not just the folks on the far left.

As an analogy, I’ll use my own experience as a professor. I teach at a state university and my classes do not have any pre-requisites. As such, a class might have a student who has just been accepted to Harvard law school and a student who barely passed high school and who is now taking remedial math and english to get up to speed. While I could teach the class in a way that is aimed entirely at the future Harvard student, that would not take into account the legitimate needs of the other students. Likewise, making my class into a remedial high school class would help the other student, but would hardly be good for everyone else in the class.  Since I am the professor for the whole class and not just the two extreme students, I have to teach to the middle. The price for this is that the class will be somewhat disappointing for the future Harvard student while being rather tough for the remedial student. But, I have to do what is best for the class as a whole.

Likewise, Obama cannot give the left everything they crave. After all, it is not just their country. While the folks on the left think they are right and that justice requires that they get their way, the reality is that all the other people cannot be ignored. They have concerns and rights as well. And, of course, there is the practical matter of getting people to go along-and this often requires compromise.

Naturally, there are matters on which there should not be compromise. But, most of politics is open to such compromise and, in fact, requires it. While the folks on the left should argue for what they value (as the folks on the right should), they should also temper their complaints and criticisms.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Palin & Socrates

by 71 Comments

Sarah Palin Kuwait 13b
Image via Wikipedia

In a somewhat odd speech, Sarah Palin informed the public that she was resigning as governor of Alaska. With Sanford’s recent adventure, this has been a rather weird time for Republican governors.

Palin’s speech was certainly interesting. She seemed to be speaking without notes and apparently with only minimal preparation. On the positive side, she seemed to be saying what she really felt which is a rare thing in politics.

Not surprisingly, the response has been largely along ideological lines. The folks who dislike her are claiming that she is either getting out ahead of a scandal or looking to head down to the lower 48 to start her bid for 2012. Those who like her think that she is doing what is right for Alaska and that she is a victim of various malign forces (such as the media and the Democrats).

While I found her speech to be rambling and a bit strange, she did make a point that I found rather interesting. To be specific, she seemed to be claiming that being in politics had caused trouble and that in order to get things done, she had decided to resign. This made me think of Socrates‘ remarks in the Apology:

Some one may wonder why I go about in private giving advice and busying myself with the concerns of others, but do not venture to come forward in public and advise the state. I will tell you why. You have heard me speak at sundry times and in diverse places of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign, which is a kind of voice, first began to come to me when I was a child; it always forbids but never commands me to do anything which I am going to do. This is what deters me from being a politician. And rightly, as I think. For I am certain, O men of Athens, that if I had engaged in politics, I should have perished long ago, and done no good either to you or to myself. And do not be offended at my telling you the truth: for the truth is, that no man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly striving against the many lawless and unrighteous deeds which are done in a state, will save his life; he who will fight for the right, if he would live even for a brief space, must have a private station and not a public one.

Socrates’ view does have a degree of plausibility. Good people who get involved in politics seem to end up compromising away their good intentions or being unable to take action if they stick with their values. People who act outside of politics do often have a greater opportunity to avoid compromise and sometimes can get more done. It will be interesting to see what Palin does. Will she, for example, become a spokesperson for the pro-life movement? Or is this, as some have suggested, just a clever ploy to get lined up for 2012?

Another point worth considering is that Palin is actually acting in accord with the professed ideology of Republicans. One standard line that Republicans often use is that government is bad. Naturally, this caused me (and others) to wonder why they would be so eager to be involved with what they consider to be the problem. In this case, Palin is acting in a way consistent with that view: she is leaving the (alleged) badness of government.

As to why she is really leaving, time will be an indication. If she stays out of government, then it would seem that her speech was sincere. If she ends up running for another office, then the sincerity of her words can be called into question.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Three Deaths

by 8 Comments

Three killings have attracted a great deal of media attention recently. In one case, a military recruiter was murdered, apparently because of the alleged killer’s religious and political views. In another case, a doctor was killed, apparently because of the alleged killer’s religious beliefs about abortion. In the most recent incident, a guard was killed at the Holocaust Museum. In this case, the alleged killer is said to have been motivated by racist views.

When such horrific events occur, people try to determine why. Some of this is due to a desire to prevent future incidents and part of it is due to simple curiousity. In each of these cases, some people have placed the blame for the actions of the alleged killers upon their membership in various groups. These groups are then often painted with a broad, bloody brush in the form of claims that these groups actively encourage such violence.

In the case of the military recruiter, some alleged that such violence is inherent to the character of Islam. In the case of the doctor, it was alleged by some that the pro-life movement encourages such violence against doctors and that it is to blame for the killing. In the case of the guard, it has been claimed that the alleged killer is a product of the conservative movement or the liberal movement (depending on who you ask).

While all three alleged killers had involvement with particular groups and movements (Islam, pro-life and right wing organizations), only the third case involved the alleged killer being an active member of racist groups known to advocate violence. However, the general conservative movement is not such a group. While I have heard people try to draw, for example, a causal chain between Rush Limbaugh and the alleged killer of the guard, this sort of claim is absurd. While I do not agree with Rush on most issues, he does not advocate such violence.

The same holds in the case of the death of the doctor. While there are pro-life people who (in horrible irony) advocate killing doctors who perform abortions, the majority of pro-life people are just that-pro-life. They do not advocate murder, nor are they joyful when a doctor is murdered.

Likewise in the case of the recruiter. While some Muslims hate Americans and would be glad to kill one of us, most Muslims are not so inclined.

The evidence seems to be that in each of these cases, the alleged killer acted alone. There also seems to be good reason to suspect some sort of mental instability in each case. As such, while such killings might be portrayed as revealing something about Islam, pro-choice, and conservative groups, they do not. They show that people can chose to do terrible things based on their moral, religious and political views. Naturally, some folks have tried to use these awful incidents to criticize and attack the people they disagree with. However, that is a mistake-both moral and logical.

This is not to say that groups do not exist that have such murders as their goals. Sadly, there are such groups. However, these groups should not be lumped together with other groups that happen to have some similarities. For example, Islam should not be defined by Al Qaeda anymore than conservatives should be defined by the KKK.  While it is easy to swing a bloody brush across a vast swath, reason and ethics requires us to have better aim.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: