Shall we read a book together while holding hands and skipping through the meadows...?

[Malola]

"H3ll, yes!", I say... XD

I propose Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal--Even if the Fetus is a Person by David Boonin.
At least that's the one I'll be reading throughout June. This means one chapter per day with one extra day to write down your views/criticism on GR's finest group: Sentientism... XD
I just finished Animals and Ethics 101: Thinking Critically About Animal Rights and, to my chagrin, it turn out to be a disappointment. So I'm looking forward something not so introductory and with good ol' hard-core philosophically sound argumentation. (<= Does that order of descriptors make any sense?) What better than someone as fine as David Boonin? *wolf whistles*

This controversial philosopher often dwells upon the reasons why abortion should legal (i.e. "it's morally permissible regardless of what the law currently states") and that argument of the statu of "person" is not strong enough to prohibit women from having abortions.

This group tends to lean towards an Animal Rights/Welfarism type of sentiocentrism/sentientism (maybe some of you are abolitionist vegans), however I see no reason why the topic of abortion can't be discussed since fetuses are beings that may or may not have moral considerations due to sentiocentrist reasoning. Of course, that is not to say that there may be other reasons to support or being against abortion aside from sentiocentrist reasons... reasons that should be taken into consideration if they make sense.

By the subtitle is clearly that either Boonin doesn't agree with sentiocentrism or he believes there are better arguments for giving women a wider range of choice.

Whether people tag along or not, I'll write here my impressions of the book after I finish.

[Gurlinthewurld]

Wonderful idea, Malola! I'm trying to find a copy of the book; so far I've only found a review. Could you explain or elaborate sentiocentrism? Merci :) PS Interesting & sorry to hear re Animals and Ethics 101.

[Malola]

Gurlinthewurld wrote: "Could you explain or elaborate sentiocentrism?..."

It's just another word for sentientism... a moral position that sentience should be considered as a necessary condition for moral consideration. Things/objects that don't have sentience can't have moral consideration by themselves, they have consideration only with regards a sentient being that may need them or is attached to it.

Anyways, would it possible to put this books as "currently-reading", please? *watery eyes*
I think only Admins can do it.

[Gurlinthewurld]

Malola: absolutely! It's done :)

In this group, I have had the settings set as 'Non-moderators can add books to this group's shelf.' So anytime you are reading a book that you believe adds to the discussion of sentientism, feel free to add to the bookshelf, by all means! And that goes for all group members :)

Also, thanks for the elaboration: I asked because I wasn't sure if the term implied something different from my understanding of the blanket term 'sentientism.'

I agree that the book Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal--Even if the Fetus is a Person is related to sentientism in a few different ways. Some may argue that abortion rights imply anti-sentientism, but as with any discussion on abortion, it isn't simple. And the title, well, it simply begs for a discussion! I wish I were able to find a copy of the book to read along with you, but I couldn't find a copy. In any case, I personally would be interested in the discussion. Perhaps others in the group will join in!

Today, I ordered the book The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America's Food Business I hope it arrives soon; I think that it would be related to this book group, also.

Many of the books I want to read, including the 2 above are not accessible or available to me in my current local library, etc. I am frustrated beyond belief. I want to read this, because I am very interested in alternatives to meat as a solution to end the slaughter industry, and eliminate a tremendous amount of suffering. So, I dug into my pockets for this book ... (*To be clear, I don't think the book is primarily about the development of plant based meat. I do think investment in alternative meat, plant based industries et al. on a mass scale are viable methods to end factory farming).

To be honest, there is an overflow of gore in our society, in the media, and in our day to day life. I have become a little PTSD on all the suffering. I hope the book is less traumatizing and more incentive to take action. Anyone who wants to read along, with either Malola or me, please do!

Kat :)

[Malola]

Ok, cool... It'll try reading along with you. In these challanges I offer from 5-10 pages per day, so it won't collide with other tasks I may have. The Meat Racket is fine.

I'd recommend you Kindles, djvu, PDFs, ePubs platforms where to get those books from, but from your text it's pretty obvious that you're a "classic reader". You seem to find an actual physical book preferable than digital readers... Or so it seems to me. XD lol I've almost completely switch to digital.

[Gurlinthewurld]

I do, too - all online (Libbyapp, Overdrive et al.), but in the case of The Meat Racket, a new paperback was better than the price for downloading kindle or other digital formats :)

(But there were a couple of art books I wanted, and indeed, they are nice to have in hand.)

I'll check out djvu, thnx! The Internet Archive is a good resource, too, but difficult to find newly published works there.

[Gurlinthewurld]

I have begun to read - I'll be creating a new post for it to have a discussion about it. I'd like to post my thoughts without spoilers! :)

[Malola]

Hi, again!
lol It's seems it's only you and I, Kat, talking to the void. XD

After I finish both books, I'll post a summary in a couple of FB groups I'm in. Not at the moment since I deactivated my FB account. (I have a not so little FB addiction... so, in order to avoid having my time sucked by my ridiculous lack of control, I periodically allow myself to go nuts for 3-4 days and deactivate it for at least three weeks.)

[image error]

Anyways, so... I have read chapters 1-7 from Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal--Even if the Fetus is a Person.
As for the writing style... Geezus Lawrd... *shoots herself in the head*
I picked this book because a friend was reading A Defense of Abortion and I mistakenly thought Beyond Roe was also academic. Nope. It's introductory. BUT it's not as annoying as my histrionic ar$e might lead you to believe. lol XD
Boonin is very thorough, so he's trying to make a case using circumlocutions (so it becomes quite repetitive since he wants to drill in one's head his point without leaving the skeptic reader with an "I gatcha!" opening)... and analogies. He does NOT take for granted that you'll agree with him, quite the opposite... his whole thesis relies on the idea that most people will disagree with him, including pro-choice people. And so, his thesis is EVEN IF the fetus is a person, body autonomy weighs more and should be respected.

I would have hoped that he give ground on metaethics, but so far he's kept his writing according to what he said he'd do in the preface. That's good enough for me.
Personally, the book doesn't lose points/stars for that.

I thought he'd dwell on Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist gedankenexperiment, but so far that's not the case. (Though uses McFall v. Shimp which is a real jurisprudence).

Since I'm already pro-choice (though, out of sentiocentrism), I mostly have agreed with him.
So, nothing to argue in case of rape, contraceptives not working... and (though slight uncomfortable) in cases of unwanted pregnancy due to 'irresponsible' behaviour.
BUT I must admit he caught me off-guard in chapter 7: poking holes at my apprehension towards gender selective abortion, maybe it is not unethical (i.e. it is morally permissible) to have one after all.
I'm still chewing that since it gave me a healthy level of cognitive disonance. Boonin is not oblivious to the fact that there might be cases where banning such abortions is called for (I guess he was thinking in China and India and the troubles that that has caused given that a daughter is less desirable than a son), BUT he argues that there doesn't seem to be any evidence to think the West (or at least US) is in one of those cases.

Overall a 5/5... I'm not to fond of the circumlocutions, but the good weighs the annoying.
Let's see how it goes later on.

(Tomorrow I'll catch up with Meat Racket.)

[Gurlinthewurld]

Thanks so much for this, Malola. This is a really thorough analysis, and I get the sense from it that I would be in agreement with you, and probably share the same "cringe" (my word, description and sentiment), say in chapter 7. There is a lot to discuss, and even more to discuss when the moral burden, blame, etc. placed on women is lifted. At some point in the debate about abortion, society needs to come to terms with why there aren't more choices, better choices. Until then, it's limited to personhood, and body autonomy. And present day, the focus is for women to have the right, at all! (PS I'm avid anti-FB :)

[Malola]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat uuuuuuuuuuuuup¿¿¿

:v
Chapters 8-21
Boy, oh, boy... is Boonin thorough. :v Yeah, he is...
So,
i) Circumlocutions are annoying, but OK. Fine. I've stated that as long as he makes a good case, I'll let that pass.

ii) He's well organised. In his gedankenexperiments he uses fake names while discussing differents at one stage or the other, so he goes alphabetically with:
-Alice/Al. (Symbolising rape, sexual relations non consented.)
-Barbara/Bob. (Symbolising contraceptives that didn't work properly.)
-Carol/Carl. (Symbolising abortion as a type of contraception.)
-Dororthy/Daniel. (Symbolising sex selective abortion.)
-Elaine/Evan. (Symbolising abortion due to fetus with an abnormal condition.)
-Francine/Frank. (Symbolising abortion as killing the uterus when it is viable.)
-Gloria/Gabriella. (Symbolising infanticide.)
-Heather/Heath. (Symbolising feticide, here Boonin makes a case that some might argue that feticide laws are in contradiction with pro-abortions laws.)

Overall he's mostly fine here, the sets a well-defined line in "viability". However, I find cringey the sex selection abortion, I find sad that the inevitable conclusion in the cases of fetuses with abnormalities is that their lives are (more) expendable (yes, women still have the right to choose) and I disagree that there's a contradiction between feticide laws and decriminalisation of abortion laws.

iii) He plays a littler more with other issues, like consent, intend, natural purpouses, the type of relationship mother-child is, etc...
He makes a good case standing his ground; except...

iv) He later says that maybe the elements that he has picked one by one could be defeated with he add them together. I quote: "Maybe no one dif-ference between the two cases is enough to make a difference, but some combination of differences is enough to make a difference. (...) Combining one irrelevant difference with another irrelevant difference is just going to result in a bigger irrelevant difference."
Yeah, no... I could make a case that X element is NECESSARY, but NOT sufficient to tip the balance, therefore SEVERAL (or at least an especific combination) elements could result in giving the anti-abortion argument soundness.

v) It seems to me that he doesn't know how to solve the doctrine of the double effect. (Who does, BTW?)
I can agree that killing is not the same as letting die in most cases... but, I do think in certain cases, certain roles require us to think as both of these as one and the same.
I don't have an obligation with the neighbour's kid so I can "let him die" by not feeding them... but I surely can't use that argument for my own kid. Letting my kid die from starvation equates to killing him precisely because of the role I have with regards to him/her.

He needs to fine tune that argument.
HOWEVER, I don't think he will. The doctrine of double effect is definitely problematic. Even the reasoning I gave ("it depends of the role I have") can be highly problematic. So I'll reluctantly agree with him, but only because I can't solve that philosophical problem myself... and not because he has a better ground for his position.

[Gurlinthewurld]

Thanks for laying that out, Malola. It seems, in general and with the doctrine of double effect question, the judgment and weighing of what option causes the most, and what causes the least suffering, long and short term, to the mother is the core issue and the final matter. And she should be the one to judge. The rest (ie law, meds) should facilitate that decision. Will be interesting to see if the author ever gets to that.

[Malola]

Waaaaaaaaaat uuup¿¿¿

i) "It seems, in general and with the doctrine of double effect question, the judgment and weighing of what option causes the most, and what causes the least suffering, long and short term, to the mother is the core issue and the final matter." = *duckface* Yeah, but you clearly are an utilitarian though. Other theories would have different conclusions.

"And she should be the one to judge. = This is in tension with what's above. Here you're appealing to body autonomy in a strong sense... leaning towards a deontological morality type of rule and not really an utilitarian position.
But, what do I know? *shrugs* I find myself biting the bullet (we say in Spanish: "shooting my own foot") in quite a lot of gedankenexperiments.

ii) Anyways... I haven't even started Meat Racket. My bad.
I have as a general rule not to have more than 10 "currently reading" books. I hadn't noticed at the time. Since, Boonin's is out, this one goes in.

iii) About Boonin's book.

Chapters 22-28 (end).

He starts by disserting about several restrictions the State imposes on pregnant women who want to abort (e.g. mandatory ultrasounds, waiting periods, counseling and so on).
Overall I think he makes a good case asserting why most of these restrictions are illegitimate because either they are manipulative, unnecesary, impose economic (and other type of) burdens and so on.
He actually helped me to further understand why some of these restrictions might appear inocuous but they're not quite so.

The only one that has left me in an "agnostic position" is the "parental notification" one. I agree that it's not completely unreasonable to make a teen might notify their parents or a judge (just notify, not having their consent) that they'll want an abortion or that they had had one. (Having to notify someone doesn't mean you have to tell them before the act.)
Where I'm struggling here is with the fact that I think there's tension in this and privacy/intimacy rights. I dislike it, but given that we're talking about teens, I don't quite agree that something like this should be quite open who people who literally don't have their brains fully developed and lean towards impulsiveness.
(I repeat: I'm making a case of having to NOTIFY an adult... NOT of needing their consent.)
Boonin makes a case arguing a) body autonomy, b) why should be any difference if the a girl is 17 and not 18?
(a) is strong, I must admit; but (b) waivers... If we're going to play that game, I can always add one more day and make a case of "why should I be considered and adult just because I'm 18?" or I could take one more day and go "well, why do doctors don't think I'm a child"... if all it takes is adding or substracting days to complaing about X.
The point of legal ages is to set ranges... not to make a case of perfect ontology. I'm not less stupid for being an adult. It's just reasonable for the State to set a minimum age for being able to make certain decisions.

Anyways... Kudos to Boonin. Overall a quite fine book.
He's humble and openly accepts that maybe he's not so convincing. He even recommends some books that try to refute his argument.
Chances are I'll read A Defense of Abortion in the future.

[Malola]

Yeah... I just saw some mistakes. *duckface* :v

That aside, I gotta say, the exercise of having written here was interesting.