>The 'all' for whom the regulation is to be 'equally good' do not include the
>unborn (or the irreversibly unconscious), but rather the 'all' comprising
>those who want or 'need' to choose these killings, all those who oppose
>them, and all who look on more or less indifferently. The 'equal right to
>coexist' is emphatically not the 'equal right of the unborn and the
>permanently unconscious' which those on one side of the so-called 'ethical'
>debate had been asserting. No, indeed. Anyone on that side of the debate
>must now - in virtue of the other side's 'right to coexistence' - stand
>aside to let people on the other side opt for the killings they (often, no
>doubt, reluctantly) propose:
this is a problem. there is nothing in habermas's theory--that i recall--that suggests that the unborn wouldn't be included. ken m will know more since i'm not much of a habermasian and certainly not especially interested in philosophical ethics. at any rate, i think this is spin.
here's one reason why: the dude hasn't considered that some of the people sitting at the table in this discussion are people who might have been aborted, like me. i certainly present my experiences at the table as part of my reasons why i support abortion. (just like when i opposed the gulf war i was frequently asked to speak be/c my step son was there.)
secondly, dude's argument falls apart insofar as no conversation/debate can address the "all" of the future. we make policy now that will effect future generations.
thirdly, habermas draws on the work of sociologists and social psychologists who argue that part of our socialization is about the ability to take on the role of the other. we may not fully understand what their life is like, but we can try really hard. part of moral reasoning is having the ability to speak for those others when they can't speak for themselves for some reason. this seems sensible to me. part of learning how to be a scholar, for example, is learning to look at one's arguments from the perspective of a hostile critic. i can sure do that and so can most folks here, whether they actually acknowledge it or not.
having debated a guy who i deeply respect but who is an opp. of abortion, one of the things i admire most about him was the fact that he was actually capable of acknowleding the other side and truly understanding it. he could actually articulate, in a reasonable way, what the others positions in the debate were. additionally, sidney and daniel callahan have been married for years and take opposing positons on this debate. surely they are capable of something similar. and from those illustrative experiences, i'd have to say that someone is actually speaking for the potential human life otherwise called a fetus and someone can speak for, as marta and others do.
in that sense, they are represented in the convo.
another finally -- surely no where in habermas's work is the claim that every single friggin individual must participate in the convo. it's a mistake to think of it that way.
kelley