The “plausible alternative coalitions” game seems to illustrate — by contrast — the historical processes by which actual political positions came about. For instance, the anti-abortion position didn’t actually come about through an “expanding sphere of moral worth” extending rights to fetuses; and the fact that anti-abortion folks are not the same people as animal-rights folks is evidence that it didn’t.
Early anti-abortion jurisprudence in England and the U.S. categorized a woman taking an abortifacient as felo de se — a felon against herself — the same standing as a suicide. [1] The crime was not defined in terms of the fetus possessing rights, but in terms of a violence against the woman’s body. On similar reasoning, many first-wave feminists opposed medical abortion as a violent intrusion;[2] while they were interested in reproductive freedom, for many of them this meant the right of a wife to choose when and whether to have sex with her husband.
Other issues involved in banning abortion in the U.S. included the legal establishment of the medical profession (with physicians using the law to drive midwives out of business) and eugenics. The major customers of abortion in the 19th century were middle- and upper-class native-born white women; and eugenicists raised the concern that these desirable classes would commit “race suicide” and be outbred by undesirable immigrants and poor people. [3]
The modern religious “pro-life” anti-abortion position, although it is often stated in terms of fetal rights, is also entangled with other motives: among these, religious opposition to contraception in general, and opposition to the social consequences of individual control over reproduction, viz., sexual freedom or license.
Few of these actual historical entanglements have the sense of an “expanding sphere of moral worth” towards the fetus; in other words, a moral foundation of fairness and justice. They show patterns more attached to other moral foundations — care towards the woman herself; loyalty towards racial and class groups; religious authority; and sexual sanctity or purity.
The major customers of abortion in the 19th century were middle- and upper-class native-born white women; and eugenicists raised the concern that these desirable classes would commit “race suicide” and be outbred by undesirable immigrants and poor people.
Conversely they were in favor of abortion and sterilization (frequently forced) for the poor and undesirable.
Did you know that when Republicans banned partial-birth abortion in 2003, they limited the penalty to a maximum of two years? Two years, for what pro-lifers consider murder?
Of course, the pro-choice side has its hypocrisies too. But they at least have can claim the moral high ground by being slightly more protective of bodily autonomy, and much more protective of the disadvantaged.
I’m a little worried about politics being the mind-killer here. So I’m not going to get too involved. But I’d point out that not everyone who is pro-life is certain that abortion is murder. Moreover, you are talking about legislation, and legislation always involves compromises. So having a punishment that is less harsh than what their articulated beliefs would call for is not an indication of hypocrisy.
Now, what is hypocritical and is very similar, is that the people who say that abortion is murder aren’t out spending time bombing clinics. Whenever a clinic is bombed or a doctor killed, they rush out to say that they don’t support it. But if they did actually believe, then they would. However, there may be some degree of scope insensitivity and other cognitive biases at play here rather than simple hypocrisy.
Now, what is hypocritical and is very similar, is that the people who say that abortion is murder aren’t out spending time bombing clinics. Whenever a clinic is bombed or a doctor killed, they rush out to say that they don’t support it. But if they did actually believe, then they would. However, there may be some degree of scope insensitivity and other cognitive biases at play here rather than simple hypocrisy.
So by that logic where all the pre-civil war abolitionists except John Brown were hypocrites.
Why assume that everyone believes all murders should get the same punishment? It seems to me that even though some “animal rights activists” might believe that slaughtering a cow is murder, they still might not think it deserves the same penalty as murdering a human. I don’t believe there is necessarily a contradiction here.
The “plausible alternative coalitions” game seems to illustrate — by contrast — the historical processes by which actual political positions came about. For instance, the anti-abortion position didn’t actually come about through an “expanding sphere of moral worth” extending rights to fetuses; and the fact that anti-abortion folks are not the same people as animal-rights folks is evidence that it didn’t.
Early anti-abortion jurisprudence in England and the U.S. categorized a woman taking an abortifacient as felo de se — a felon against herself — the same standing as a suicide. [1] The crime was not defined in terms of the fetus possessing rights, but in terms of a violence against the woman’s body. On similar reasoning, many first-wave feminists opposed medical abortion as a violent intrusion;[2] while they were interested in reproductive freedom, for many of them this meant the right of a wife to choose when and whether to have sex with her husband.
Other issues involved in banning abortion in the U.S. included the legal establishment of the medical profession (with physicians using the law to drive midwives out of business) and eugenics. The major customers of abortion in the 19th century were middle- and upper-class native-born white women; and eugenicists raised the concern that these desirable classes would commit “race suicide” and be outbred by undesirable immigrants and poor people. [3]
The modern religious “pro-life” anti-abortion position, although it is often stated in terms of fetal rights, is also entangled with other motives: among these, religious opposition to contraception in general, and opposition to the social consequences of individual control over reproduction, viz., sexual freedom or license.
Few of these actual historical entanglements have the sense of an “expanding sphere of moral worth” towards the fetus; in other words, a moral foundation of fairness and justice. They show patterns more attached to other moral foundations — care towards the woman herself; loyalty towards racial and class groups; religious authority; and sexual sanctity or purity.
Conversely they were in favor of abortion and sterilization (frequently forced) for the poor and undesirable.
Not necessarily the same eugenicists, of course.
Did you know that when Republicans banned partial-birth abortion in 2003, they limited the penalty to a maximum of two years? Two years, for what pro-lifers consider murder?
Of course, the pro-choice side has its hypocrisies too. But they at least have can claim the moral high ground by being slightly more protective of bodily autonomy, and much more protective of the disadvantaged.
I’m a little worried about politics being the mind-killer here. So I’m not going to get too involved. But I’d point out that not everyone who is pro-life is certain that abortion is murder. Moreover, you are talking about legislation, and legislation always involves compromises. So having a punishment that is less harsh than what their articulated beliefs would call for is not an indication of hypocrisy.
Now, what is hypocritical and is very similar, is that the people who say that abortion is murder aren’t out spending time bombing clinics. Whenever a clinic is bombed or a doctor killed, they rush out to say that they don’t support it. But if they did actually believe, then they would. However, there may be some degree of scope insensitivity and other cognitive biases at play here rather than simple hypocrisy.
So by that logic where all the pre-civil war abolitionists except John Brown were hypocrites.
What would the analogy be for people who think that the death penalty is murder? How about for people who think that war is murder?
Why assume that everyone believes all murders should get the same punishment? It seems to me that even though some “animal rights activists” might believe that slaughtering a cow is murder, they still might not think it deserves the same penalty as murdering a human. I don’t believe there is necessarily a contradiction here.