The Right to Choose Abortion

[Moontanman]

Jeskill - I agree with you post almost entirely, but i have a pedantic point and as this is philosophy I thought I would raise it (highlight mine).

 

As we have no agreed concept of how consciousness arises how can we know that an ur-consciousness does not arrive with the joining of gametes. Now I do not believe this is the case - but I would struggle to prove/disprove it as there is precious little knowledge or experimental evidence either way. I do not believe in a soul (immortal or otherwise) but I also do not think that science can rule out the existence of something that is by definition supernatural - especially when we are still struggling to explain consciousness - the sine qua non of wishing/being able to explain anything.

 

 

Isn't it a bit unrealistic to require science to rule out the supernatural? No matter how small the gaps of human knowledge become there will always be room to insert a "supernatural" idea into the gaps. I remain open the the possibility of something supernatural but I think the idea has run it's course as far as really expecting the supernatural to pop up and confront science. If the supernatural exists it's influence on the universe is orders of magnitude less than the forces we can measure and that makes any effects it has negligible. But more on topic I think it should be pointed out that ultimately the so called pro life movement has the goal of not only stopping any and all abortions (I do tend to agree that abortion should be somewhat limited) but their real goal is to stop birth control completely.

 

These are the same people who opposed birth control back in the early part of the last century. It's very important to them to define a human life as starting at conception, this rules out many types of birth control and then they will argue that any birth control interferes with gods plan, that all sexual contact (yes that's what I said) should have the opportunity to result in a child. (yes that does limit approved sexual contact somewhat) This is the original argument of these people and it is not just a Catholic "thing" fundies tend to think like that, at least the inner circles....

 

Oh boy! Good old fashioned "manontopgetitoverwithquick" sex.... good for the soul.....

[jeskill]

Jeskill - I agree with you post almost entirely, but i have a pedantic point and as this is philosophy I thought I would raise it (highlight mine).

 

As we have no agreed concept of how consciousness arises how can we know that an ur-consciousness does not arrive with the joining of gametes. Now I do not believe this is the case - but I would struggle to prove/disprove it as there is precious little knowledge or experimental evidence either way. I do not believe in a soul (immortal or otherwise) but I also do not think that science can rule out the existence of something that is by definition supernatural - especially when we are still struggling to explain consciousness - the sine qua non of wishing/being able to explain anything.

 

(The following definitions are from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.)

I think that we do actually have a good idea that a just-formed zygote does not have consciousness, just by logical reasoning. Here me out: If consciousness is defined as "the state of being aware" and "aware" is defined as "having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge", we can argue with a large degree of accuracy that a just-formed zygote is not conscious. Perception requires a somatosensory system and the ability to process the sensory information. Most of the stuff I've read states that a fetus likely cannot perceive until 22 - 24 weeks. Here is an example of one such article. The act of being conscious is more than perceiving, though -- if being aware requires knowledge and realization of what is being perceived in order to connect it to an internal representation and process the information, how can a fetus with no previous experience have such a thing?

Edited November 9, 2011 by jeskill

[imatfaal]

Isn't it a bit unrealistic to require science to rule out the supernatural? No matter how small the gaps of human knowledge become there will always be room to insert a "supernatural" idea into the gaps. I remain open the the possibility of something supernatural but I think the idea has run it's course as far as really expecting the supernatural to pop up and confront science. If the supernatural exists it's influence on the universe is orders of magnitude less than the forces we can measure and that makes any effects it has negligible. /snipped .....

Yes is it completely unrealistic - but that wasn't what I was getting at. If we bring science into the question it must be science not merely rational and sensible assumptions; and in vexed questions that are most frequently decided on ethical and moral grounds the difference between reasonable/rational and scientific/empirical is most important (not that I was really suggesting that jeskill had done this)

 

(The following definitions are from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.)

I think that we do actually have a good idea that a just-formed zygote does not have consciousness, just by logical reasoning. Here me out: If consciousness is defined as "the state of being aware" and "aware" is defined as "having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge", we can argue with a large degree of accuracy that a just-formed zygote is not conscious. Perception requires a somatosensory system and the ability to process the sensory information. Most of the stuff I've read states that a fetus likely cannot perceive until 22 - 24 weeks. Here is an example of one such article. The act of being conscious is more than perceiving, though -- if being aware requires knowledge and realization of what is being perceived in order to connect it to an internal representation and process the information, how can a fetus with no previous experience have such a thing?

My main argument would be (facetiously) that our definitions and understanding of consciousness are so vague that it is not correct to be so dogmatic. do not single celled organisms perceive and respond to environmental stimuli - I realise I am splitting hairs. But more importantly - no I do not think we can segue from scientific reasoning to logical reasoning and retain the same level of persuasiveness and rigour.

[jeskill]

My main argument would be (facetiously) that our definitions and understanding of consciousness are so vague that it is not correct to be so dogmatic. do not single celled organisms perceive and respond to environmental stimuli - I realise I am splitting hairs. But more importantly - no I do not think we can segue from scientific reasoning to logical reasoning and retain the same level of persuasiveness and rigour.

Hmmm. Let me mull that over for a bit.

[IamJoseph]

I think it is insane that in today's over populated world that there are people still trying to ban abortion. Abortion should be a woman's choice along with extensive education to prevent further unwanted pregnancies by using birth control.

 

 

 

Another view. Better than making this issue a right of one party, even though it takes two to tango, there is surely anothor far more impacting reason for this dire situation confronting humanity. The blame game only disregards the real issue. It cannot be selfishness when humans today have an issue with their own survival and life management, and no matter how one turns this as vanity and self centredness, the real issue is parents are not accorded correct facilities and respect for having children. The very pointing to issues such as population explosion proves the point.

 

In fact, the more the population and the worse the climate pollution - the better for humanity. Howzat? Consider this: no matter what we do and whatever measures we take, we cannot survive on this planet in the near future. I speak like 1000 to 2000 years from now. Even if repro is restricted to one per lottery prize winner, our population will still overwhelm in the future; nor can we restrict the populations of trillions of other life forms. This factor is not negotiable and not a multi-choice question. Its a mathematical fact hovering over humanity with no options whatsoever.

 

So what's the answer? Only one. Humanity has to go forth and multiply - and have dominion of other wrlds [all the worlds]. Here, there will be no such thing as jobless - all nations will have to contribute work to enable the task ahead: let's say the set goal is, an inhabitable dome city on the moon, and five bases on Mars - within the next 100 years. Here, reproduction will be highy respected and facilitated - so will a more adverse climate pollution. Its the only reason humanity will see the light and propel us to where lies humanity's survival answer. More population! Worse climate! Please!

Edited December 3, 2011 by IamJoseph

[MichaelPenn]

I think it is insane that in today's over populated world that there are people still trying to ban abortion. Abortion should be a woman's choice along with extensive education to prevent further unwanted pregnancies by using birth control. Abortion should not used as a birth control method and woman should be educated on the important of birth control and the emotional consequences that accompanies the decision of getting an abortion. For most woman it is one of the hardest decisions that they might have to make in their lifetime.

 

There will always be a small percentage of women who think nothing of it by using abortion as a birth control method and if there was some way they could be held accountable for their actions which is a slippery slope, a solution is needed in this area. Teen pregnancy is another issue that is most likely the biggest reason behind these anti abortion groups and I am unsure in this area if it should be the right of the teenager or her parents that is likely to be largely affected by this decision. The reality is you cannot prevent teenagers from having sex since this is a biological program of hormones raging that causes them to desire sex. I think teenage girls should be fitted with a birth control device whether they are sexually active or not since they are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of raising babies. The unrealistic idea that parents can educate their children to abstain from sex goes against the biological grain of human nature.

 

On the other hand there are many childless couples that desperately want to adopt so I can understand their interests in that abortion be illegal. However this should not be the primary reason for the movement in the first place. I realize that I might be conflicting my beliefs by stating it should be a woman's choice on abortion while at the same time believing that teenager girls should be fitted with a birth control device. Something has to draw the line due to this being such a complicated issue. What do you think?

 

Studies show that as literacy rates go up, unwanted pregnancy goes down.

Education works. That needs to be our first line of defense.

 

I am a Democrat. I am an atheist. And I am pro-life.

Yes, a woman has a right to her body. But a child is not her body. It's a separate entity.

 

I don't believe in abstinence - it's just not practical. But we have oral contraceptives, vaginal contraceptives, condoms, etc. There are plenty of options to prevent a child from being conceived. Abortion is psychologically damaging, it effectively ends a life, etc. In the incredibly rare chance that a woman on birth control, and a man using a condom, somehow manage to conceive a child, why is adoption not an option? Why do we instantly jump to the idea of killing the child, rather than finding someone else to care for it? Surely there is a couple out there who would be willing to step up and take the baby to keep it from being aborted. Now, from a medical perspective, does outlawing abortion work? Interesting question to think about, right? Will it deter people from considering it an option? Or will it lead to unregulated, unsafe abortions, which may end up doing more harm? Truth is, I don't know.

 

If you believe in abortion, where is the line drawn? Can a woman have an abortion every year, because she decides she doesn't feel like using protection? How far along is too far along? Whatever your answer to that particular question is, why do you select that period of time to draw the line? What really is the difference between a fetus and a newborn? Neither one can fend for themselves - they still need something to help sustain them.

 

I don't have all the answers, but I ask this:

If we decide to put abortion in a positive light, is that really the road we want to take?

 

Or is it better that we educate people, develop innovative methods for birth control, and push the current methods we already have?

 

I have enough trust in people to say that if you give them the right information, they'll most often make the right decision.

[kitkat]

In history, we already know what would happen if abortion is made illegal. Many women died from botched unregulated abortions but this won't stop women who become pregnant from seeking someone that is willing to do an illegal abortion. The adoption process standards are too high for many people who wish to adopt. If abortion becomes illegal then the adoption process needs to lower their standards for approving adoptions. As it is right now, women are being left with little options other than to raise a child that they didn't want.

 

There are no easy solutions to problems that arise from unplanned pregnancies and there is no one solution fits all cases. This issue at this particular time in history when the number of people that are currently alive are struggling to support themselves is on the rise makes no sense whatsoever.

[jeskill]

Studies show that as literacy rates go up, unwanted pregnancy goes down.

Education works. That needs to be our first line of defense.

As someone who is pro-choice, I agree with this statement.

 

I don't believe in abstinence - it's just not practical. But we have oral contraceptives, vaginal contraceptives, condoms, etc. There are plenty of options to prevent a child from being conceived. ...

Just out of curiosity, do you draw the line at conception? If so, how do you justify the use of contraceptives that prevent implantation as opposed to preventing fertilization?

 

Abortion is psychologically damaging.

Do you have statistics to back this statement up that come from peer-reviewed sources? The evidence from peer-reviewed papers I've read suggest that post-abortion trauma is not the norm and is highly affected by previous personal trauma.

 

In the incredibly rare chance that a woman on birth control, and a man using a condom, somehow manage to conceive a child, why is adoption not an option?

The chance of conceiving using birth control is between 0.1 and 5 percent. For condoms, the failure rate is between 3-14%. That's not "incredibly rare".

 

I have enough trust in people to say that if you give them the right information, they'll most often make the right decision.

I agree, but the right information should be backed by evidence as opposed to conjecture.

 

My main argument would be (facetiously) that our definitions and understanding of consciousness are so vague that it is not correct to be so dogmatic. do not single celled organisms perceive and respond to environmental stimuli - I realise I am splitting hairs. But more importantly - no I do not think we can segue from scientific reasoning to logical reasoning and retain the same level of persuasiveness and rigour.

 

This may be a subject for another thread, but it was my understanding that, from a physiological perspective, we do have a rather robust definition of consciousness. For example, peeps from stanford have outlined the physiological aspects of consciousness as they pertain to brain functioning, Psychologists such as Patrick Korch or Rachel and Stephen Kaplan have discussed the evolution of recognition and interpretation in humans as being mental processes that are not ubiquitous in all animals. To bring it back to your example, certainly, a single-celled organism can perceive and respond, but I've never heard of a single-celled organism deciding on which response to perform based on their perception. They can't do that because their responses (and most responses of most animals) are innate.

 

That being said, I do recognize that consciousness is not simply a black and white concept, and that there is likely a sliding scale here.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by the last sentence. Could you elaborate?

[MichaelPenn]

Do you have statistics to back this statement up that come from peer-reviewed sources? The evidence from peer-reviewed papers I've read suggest that post-abortion trauma is not the norm and is highly affected by previous personal trauma.

I have never met a psychologically healthy woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and hasn't affected her life at all. Empirical

 

(Note - I say 'psychologically healthy' because I did meet a woman who suffered from a myriad of psychological illnesses and had an abortion. Due to her condition, I don't think she even actually realized what had happened.)

 

The chance of conceiving using birth control is between 0.1 and 5 percent. For condoms, the failure rate is between 3-14%. That's not "incredibly rare".

If you go back into my post, you'll notice that I said the odds of both of these events occurring at once, then resulting in actual conception.

 

I agree, but the right information should be backed by evidence as opposed to conjecture.

Agreed.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Michael Kovich

[jeskill]

I have never met a psychologically healthy woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and hasn't affected her life at all.

 

That is not the same as psychological trauma. It is possible to have an abortion, have it affect your life, and not be traumatized by it. Although, anecdote does not equal evidence, I have talked to at least 10 women about their abortions. Only 1 regretted it -- she felt pushed into it by her husband. All others used words like "relief" to describe how they felt about it.

 

If you go back into my post, you'll notice that I said the odds of both of these events occurring at once, then resulting in actual conception.

Well what are the odds then? This is not evidence, but conjecture. Moreover, it's an incredibly high standard to suggest that everyone use both condoms and the pill, especially when you consider how many people are in long-term monogamous relationships.

 

 

 

[MichaelPenn]

That is not the same as psychological trauma. It is possible to have an abortion, have it affect your life, and not be traumatized by it. Although, anecdote does not equal evidence, I have talked to at least 10 women about their abortions. Only 1 regretted it -- she felt pushed into it by her husband. All others used words like "relief" to describe how they felt about it.

You're just playing with words now. It's quite silly.

 

1. Are you familiar with empirical research? I quote from Wikipedia, "Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience." That's what I cited in my earlier post. I did not push it as the results of some peer-reviewed, published paper, so let's not get off-track here. I spoke of psychological damage, then further elaborated with the following, "I have never met a psychologically healthy woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and hasn't affected her life at all." - In context, it was clear that I meant, "I have never met a woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and has not negatively affected her life at all." And I've met many more than "at least 10." Clearly, this would equate to being psychologically damaging.

 

Well what are the odds then? This is not evidence, but conjecture. Moreover, it's an incredibly high standard to suggest that everyone use both condoms and the pill, especially when you consider how many people are in long-term monogamous relationships.

Once again, I'm not seeing what you're actually contributing with this post. Did you see me write anywhere that it's standard for someone to use both condoms and the pill? Not at all. What I had done was recommend a dual-approach in order to significantly reduce one's chances of being faced with considering an abortion. If you go back into my post, you'll see the following statement preceding my comment about using two methods: "There are plenty of options to prevent a child from being conceived." What I was very clearly trying to convey was that it's entirely possible for people who do not desire to have a child to take steps to significantly reduce their chances of having one - the aforementioned being one such example. Additionally, where are you seeing any level of conjecture in my statement? Are you saying it's conjecture for me to say that if a man wearing a condom and a woman using birth control decide to have sex, their chances of conception are significantly lower than that of a couple using one method, or no method at all?

Edited January 13, 2012 by Michael Kovich

[imatfaal]

You're just playing with words now. It's quite silly.

No; Jeskill was quite reasonable discerning how much importance to put on your statement

 

1. Are you familiar with empirical research? I quote from Wikipedia, "Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience." That's what I cited in my earlier post. I did not push it as the results of some peer-reviewed, published paper, so let's not get off-track here. I spoke of psychological damage, then further elaborated with the following, "I have never met a psychologically healthy woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and hasn't affected her life at all." - In context, it was clear that I meant, "I have never met a woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and has not negatively affected her life at all." And I've met many more than "at least 10." Clearly, this would equate to being psychologically damaging.

 

A few things - for observations to be able to sway an argument as proof some background to the observations is needed. As a simple example - almost all the policemen I see carry guns; so should I assume that in my country all policemen carry guns? But I work in the centre of London with all the government offices that supposedly necessitate armed police. In fact the percentage of UK policemen that are armed is very small - whereas the percentage that I see is very large. This is a form of selection bias. I would have to query your selection regime and the absolute numbers. I notice from your profile that you are 19 - yet you have met and discussed inner feelings with many more than 10 women who have had an abortion. This makes me believe that you are interacting with a particular group that would heighten the danger of selection bias

 

 

Once again, I'm not seeing what you're actually contributing with this post. Did you see me write anywhere that it's standard for someone to use both condoms and the pill? Not at all. What I had done was recommend a dual-approach in order to significantly reduce one's chances of being faced with considering an abortion. If you go back into my post, you'll see the following statement preceding my comment about using two methods: "There are plenty of options to prevent a child from being conceived." What I was very clearly trying to convey was that it's entirely possible for people who do not desire to have a child to take steps to significantly reduce their chances of having one - the aforementioned being one such example. Additionally, where are you seeing any level of conjecture in my statement? Are you saying it's conjecture for me to say that if a man wearing a condom and a woman using birth control decide to have sex, their chances of conception are significantly lower than that of a couple using one method, or no method at all?

My problem is that you seem to say that a woman who has taken two opportunities to prevent conception should be held by law to carry that child to full term. Will the male partner be forced to live a vastly altered life for the remaining 40 weeks of gestation? Will the state guarantee immediate and safe adoption to a loving and caring family? Are you with Newt Gingrich on the question of the legality/illegality of abortion after rape and incest?

[jeskill]

With regards to the condom + pill approach, I'm saying that without actual probabilities and numbers, we can't assume that the rate of failure is, as you put it, "incredibly rare". Probabilities allow us to better evaluate risk and therefore, allow us to better evaluate potential actions.

[MichaelPenn]

My problem is that you seem to say that a woman who has taken two opportunities to prevent conception should be held by law to carry that child to full term.

Please quote me on where exactly it was that I said this. I quoted my original statement, on multiple occasions, making it clear that my point was that if a woman doesn't want to have a child, there are plenty of ways she can work to prevent that.

 

I would have to query your selection regime and the absolute numbers.

I'll say, yet again, that I did not push my statement as scientific fact - but rather as personal observation. You're fighting something that just hasn't occurred.

 

This makes me believe that you are interacting with a particular group that would heighten the danger of selection bias

Age is irrelevant. Your belief is pure conjecture.

 

With regards to the condom + pill approach, I'm saying that without actual probabilities and numbers, we can't assume that the rate of failure is, as you put it, "incredibly rare". Probabilities allow us to better evaluate risk and therefore, allow us to better evaluate potential actions.

Well, we have the statistics on condoms and we have the statistics on the pill and other options. Let's look at an example set:

 

From American Pregnancy Association: "The typical use of male condoms, which is the average way most people use them, has a failure rate of 14-15%. This means that 14-15 people out of every 100 will become pregnant during the first year of use. Spermicidal agents increase the effectiveness to over 95% when used correctly and consistently."

 

From Planned Parenthood: Birth Control Implant - Implanon: "Effectiveness is an important and common concern when choosing a birth control method. Implanon is very effective. Less than 1 out of 100 women a year will become pregnant using Implanon."

 

So we have a male using a correctly worn condom with a spermicidal agent, equaling over 95% effectiveness. The aforementioned male is having sex with a female using Implanon, with which less than one out of one hundred women a year will become pregnant. Combine the two of them and that sure seems incredibly rare to me, as both the condom AND Implanon would need to fail. You could even go so far as to factor in the male's sperm count, etc. and how that affects the likelihood of pregnancy - because even every heterosexual couple who has unprotected sex doesn't result in a pregnancy.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Michael Kovich

[imatfaal]

Please quote me on where exactly it was that I said this. I quoted my original statement, on multiple occasions, making it clear that my point was that if a woman doesn't want to have a child, there are plenty of ways she can work to prevent that.

 

The clear indication is here; you outline a scenario, suggest an alternative and then consider the ramification of such a law change. If you didnt mean that then I misread this paragraph which I still maintain is pretty clear.

In the incredibly rare chance that a woman on birth control, and a man using a condom, somehow manage to conceive a child, why is adoption not an option? Why do we instantly jump to the idea of killing the child, rather than finding someone else to care for it? Surely there is a couple out there who would be willing to step up and take the baby to keep it from being aborted. Now, from a medical perspective, does outlawing abortion work? Interesting question to think about, right? Will it deter people from considering it an option? Or will it lead to unregulated, unsafe abortions, which may end up doing more harm? Truth is, I don't know.

 

 

 

I'll say, yet again, that I did not push my statement as scientific fact - but rather as personal observation. You're fighting something that just hasn't occurred.

 

I have never met a psychologically healthy woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and hasn't affected her life at all. Empirical

If you are stating things as empirical - the clear implication is that they are more than merely anecdotal. If they are to be given any credence then some details need to be provided

 

 

Age is irrelevant. Your belief is pure conjecture.

Age is by no means irrelevant. And yes I made it quite clear I was tendering a conjecture; but my question still stands, you offered your own personal experience as proof or weight to your argument. And when challenged on it you have merely sidestepped.

[jeskill]

I'd respond to the other stuff, but Imaatfal said what I would have said, only more succinctly. The only comment I'd make is that I do agree that sex education and better availability of contraceptives certainly seems to reduce the number of unwanted teen pregnancies, and thus, the number of abortions. I just don't think that this measure would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero, and I don't think that a woman who has taken precautions and still gets pregnant should have to carry it to term.

The other issue that's been sidestepped is what to do about contraceptives which may prevent implantation of a fertilized blastocyst (instead of preventing conception). This is a huge issue in the "life at conception" argument. If you are against abortion, but you are OK with people using the pill, where are you drawing the line and why?

 

 

 

Why do we instantly jump to the idea of killing the child, rather than finding someone else to care for it? Surely there is a couple out there who would be willing to step up and take the baby to keep it from being aborted.

 

If it's healthy. If it has down syndrome or fetal alcohol syndrome it's less likely to be adopted. Come to think of it, the number children with fetal alcohol syndrome and other preventable diseases caused by mothers with addictions and unhealthy lifestyles would also probably increase if abortions were illegal.

 

Edited January 16, 2012 by jeskill