Support NeoGAF

[FoxSpirit]

*takes a look at Asia*

No shit Sherlock. There is a whole continent where in parts abortion is rampant and considered normal. In some areas the number of abortions before the first pregnancy even worries health professionals.

 

[Platy]

This is just throwing up your hands and saying there's no way to figure out what's right or wrong, though. "Personhood" is really just a word that refers to rights-having status. Sure, moral truths are such that you can't put a finger on them, can't identify them as things out there in the world, and can't test them, and they're the subject of lots of philosophical debate. How can law exist that's based on something as volatile as the definition of morality? If morality is an issue you could argue that some acts and people are better than others.

Clearly you don't really think this. You think you've got a criticism of a certain kind of pro-choice argument, but actually this criticism applies just as well to the standard you want to set for when abortion is morally permissible. It applies to every moral argument there is!

I also note that you're still talking kind of like personhood is a binary thing. You say that we can't pinpoint where it starts, but what I was saying earlier is that an advantage of personhood theories is that they don't have a starting point, really. It's a continuum. And I'm not sure I understand this: "Abortion law just makes the fact illegal, to change it, should it be then replaced by one that defines where personhood starts?" A normal way for law to work is that we outlaw acts based on an understanding of what's right and wrong, keeping in mind that we need to balance the simplicity of the law against our desire to treat every unique case in exactly the way it deserves.

Also you can see how big is the fetus' rights to stay inside the mother compared to how big is the right of the mother to see something that is making her "sick" out of her.

The fetus is free to survive outside ..... IF IT CAN

This kind of logic can be aplied to conjoined twins that don't share any organ, for example

 

[farmerboy]

Just how you claim empirically-collected evidence is bullshit, I can even more easily pronounce your own claims as even bigger bullshit. You have no better evidence to back up your claims regarding this field. Literally none.

I'm not making any "claims", I don't see the value of an empirical study about an emotion. I dont think an emotion can be empirically valued.

Emotions can be very irrational. And they can change. And change back again.

I think it'd be more accurate if this was a poll, claiming that at the time of the poll 95% of respondents did not feel regret about their choice. Personally I think that would be a more accurate reflection of peoples mindsets.

 

[hockeypuck]

I think it'd be more accurate if this was a poll, claiming that at the time of the poll 95% of respondents did not feel regret about their choice. Personally I think that would be a more accurate reflection of peoples mindsets.

That's great, because that's exactly what the authors said in the conclusion of their abstract. They didn't extrapolate past 3 years. Did you read the study?

Women experienced decreasing emotional intensity over time, and the overwhelming majority of women felt that termination was the right decision for them over three years. Emotional support may be beneficial for women having abortions who report intended pregnancies or difficulty deciding.

If you have issue with the authors only having 6 data points per participant for 3 years and then using fancy statistical computations to bring out some magical pattern that you think is bullshit, then I have no answer for you other than whatever counterpoint you can offer is less grounded because you are using personal opinions versus research. You say you're not making any claims, but I would argue that "I don't think an emotion can be empirically valued" is a claim, is it not? Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man. And this should be a thread about research.

 

[farmerboy]

^ I think this a vastly more complicated topic than what can be conveniently represented in a study. I have no qualms in the way the study was conducted, just that I don't think any study would be able to cover the topic adequately.

I'm also concerned that someone might read it and think it helps them in their decision, one way or the other.

 

[charlequin]

This is why abortion debates are so annoying one side wants to condemn and judge all as murderers.

More precisely, one side wants to use the word "murder" repeatedly while betraying with their actions that they don't really think murder is occurring.

i assume you don't have kids.

Having children does not automatically make someone opposed to abortion, and in many cases (given that becoming a parent helps someone develop a new appreciation for the difficulty of pregnancy and the challenges of raising a child) it does exactly the opposite.

I basically think the question doesn't tell us anything.

Oh, it tells us plenty. "Most women who would choose to have an abortion will also not go on to suffer long-term negative emotional consequences for doing so" is very much under debate, and establishing the truth of that statement has fairly significant implications for how we talk and legislate about the issue.

I'm not making any "claims", I don't see the value of an empirical study about an emotion. I dont think an emotion can be empirically valued.

I mean... it's nice that you have an unsupported opinion about that, I guess? Psychological investigation into experienced emotions is not a new thing that they invented for this study.

 

[Guileless]

I think for most people it's more 'I haven't got mine, and I sure as shit can't give you yours'.

I'm sure this is how people rationalize it; what it means in practical terms is "my right to consume at the level I want trumps the rights of the fetus." Variations of this argument are employed frequently by affluent late capitalist societies for a variety of reasons.

 

[Metra]

I think none of the alternatives regarding abortion (in favor or against) represent a solution to the problem.

As I see it:

• The problem: Pregnant woman does not desire/love the unborn child. It's a problem because it'll likely lead to an adverse outcome to the mother and/or child/family/society.
  
• Not a problem: Pregnant woman desires/loves the unborn child. That's the ideal scenario, from all perspectives (social, biological, moral) - in my opinon.

The solution - in this context - should transform the problem into "not a problem".

Making abortion illegal (or advocating against abortion) does not solve the problem, as the pathological relationship between the mother and her child is still there. Therefore, an adverse outcome - at some point - is likely. This alternative (against abortion) may be an a posteriori solution IF an effective interventionist approach - to the mother/child relationship - can be provided (as soon as possible). I do not know, however, what (and how) such approach should be (done), especially at a large/population scale.

Abortion (or advocating in favor of abortion) does not represent a solution, either. The child is dead, and the "not a problem" scenario cannot be achieved. This is an a priori alternative to the mother alone. It does not allow, nor require, further interventions - since the problem was aborted, not solved.

Anyway... that's why I don't feel comfortable trying to justify those alternatives. Regardless, when dealing with a problem that proves tough to be solved, I believe it's often wise to invest on prevention.

Also (and a bit unrelated to my post), it seems that this study's sample is non-probabilistic (ie. sample was not randomized); therefore, "95% of women who've had abortion don't regret it" is an inference (sample -> population), and cannot be made. I only glanced at the methodology, however, so it's possible that the sample is indeed random, and I didn't notice.

 

[USC-fan]

I think none of the alternatives regarding abortion (in favor or against) represent a solution to the problem.

As I see it:

• The problem: Pregnant woman does not desire/love the unborn child. It's a problem because it'll likely lead to an adverse outcome to the mother and/or child/family/society.
  
• Not a problem: Pregnant woman desires/loves the unborn child. That's the ideal scenario, from all perspectives (social, biological, moral) - in my opinon.

The solution - in this context - should transform the problem into "not a problem".

Making abortion illegal (or advocating against abortion) does not solve the problem, as the pathological relationship between the mother and her child is still there. Therefore, an adverse outcome - at some point - is likely. This alternative (against abortion) may be an a posteriori solution IF an effective interventionist approach - to the mother/child relationship - can be provided (as soon as possible). I do not know, however, what (and how) such approach should be (done), especially at a large/population scale.

Abortion (or advocating in favor of abortion) does not represent a solution, either. The child is dead, and the "not a problem" scenario cannot be achieved. This is an a priori alternative to the mother alone. It does not allow, nor require, further interventions - since the problem was aborted, not solved.

Anyway... that's why I don't feel comfortable trying to justify those alternatives. Regardless, when dealing with a problem that proves tough to be solved, I believe it's often wise to invest on prevention.

Also (and a bit unrelated to my post), it seems that this study's sample is non-probabilistic (ie. sample was not randomized); therefore, "95% of women who've had abortion don't regret it" is an inference (sample -> population), and cannot be made. I only glanced at the methodology, however, so it's possible that the sample is indeed random, and I didn't notice.

Better solution is adoption. It crazy we have so many people that have to spend $10000-$20000+ and travel to other countries to get a baby. Then we have so many people that dont want their baby here.

 

[boiled goose]

I think none of the alternatives regarding abortion (in favor or against) represent a solution to the problem.

As I see it:

• The problem: Pregnant woman does not desire/love the unborn child. It's a problem because it'll likely lead to an adverse outcome to the mother and/or child/family/society.
  
• Not a problem: Pregnant woman desires/loves the unborn child. That's the ideal scenario, from all perspectives (social, biological, moral) - in my opinon.

The solution - in this context - should transform the problem into "not a problem".

Making abortion illegal (or advocating against abortion) does not solve the problem, as the pathological relationship between the mother and her child is still there. Therefore, an adverse outcome - at some point - is likely. This alternative (against abortion) may be an a posteriori solution IF an effective interventionist approach - to the mother/child relationship - can be provided (as soon as possible). I do not know, however, what (and how) such approach should be (done), especially at a large/population scale.

Abortion (or advocating in favor of abortion) does not represent a solution, either. The child is dead, and the "not a problem" scenario cannot be achieved. This is an a priori alternative to the mother alone. It does not allow, nor require, further interventions - since the problem was aborted, not solved.

Anyway... that's why I don't feel comfortable trying to justify those alternatives. Regardless, when dealing with a problem that proves tough to be solved, I believe it's often wise to invest on prevention.

Also (and a bit unrelated to my post), it seems that this study's sample is non-probabilistic (ie. sample was not randomized); therefore, "95% of women who've had abortion don't regret it" is an inference (sample -> population), and cannot be made. I only glanced at the methodology, however, so it's possible that the sample is indeed random, and I didn't notice.

I honestly see no problem with abortion because aborting an unborn fetus is not an issue at all to me.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm sure this is how people rationalize it; what it means in practical terms is "my right to consume at the level I want trumps the rights of the fetus." Variations of this argument are employed frequently by affluent late capitalist societies for a variety of reasons.

I'm sorry did you just claim abortion is a by product of decadent Bourgeois Capitalism?

Better solution is adoption. It crazy we have so many people that have to spend $10000-$20000+ and travel to other countries to get a baby. Then we have so many people that dont want their baby here.

There isn't a lack of adoptable domestic children oh my god.

Also part of getting an abortion is so as to not be pregnant. To avoid giving up 9 months of their life to act as an incubator against their will.

 

[Guileless]

I'm sorry did you just claim abortion is a by product of decadent Bourgeois Capitalism?

If you're interested, Pope Francis develops the argument at length in Laudato Si, popularly known as the "climate change encyclical."

Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the limits it imposes; this in turn is the condition for a more sound and fruitful development of individuals and society. An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world. Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our “dominion” over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.[94]

117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for “instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature”.[95]

118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings.....

When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.

123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided...

 

[farmerboy]

^^Thanks Guileless, that's a very interesting read. I find it difficult to disagree with it.

I mean... it's nice that you have an unsupported opinion about that, I guess? Psychological investigation into experienced emotions is not a new thing that they invented for this study.

I've only ever offered "my" opinion.

I think some here would/might support it.

I'd be willing to bet that in the absence of actually finding a study that supported my opinion (my opinion=feelings change) I could sling someone a million bucks, create the study myself and find that the study supported my viewpoint. The question would be "Have you ever not regretted something only to regret it later in life - or vice versa?"

 

[excelsiorlef]

If you're interested, Pope Francis develops the argument at length in Laudato Si, popularly known as the "climate change encyclical."

A simple yes would have sufficed.

Also why would I care what the Pope has to say about abortion, he's the ultimate abortion is murder advocate. He talks nice but the end result is abortion is bad, wrong, and ought to be illegal because god.

Especially because now apparently a poor person and a disabled person is just like a fetus. That's insulting.

PS Abortion in some form has been around forever sooo

If the claim you are trying to make is that abortion is just something the bourgeois do to be able to selfishly consume more. That is a revolting claim , also ignores that many have abortions just to be able to afford to continue their life in poverty.

Now if you want to make an argument that abortions rates would drop if there were less poor folk, absolutely. However, the solution to that isn't ban abortion for fuck sakes

 

[Brannon]

Better solution is adoption. It crazy we have so many people that have to spend $10000-$20000+ and travel to other countries to get a baby. Then we have so many people that dont want their baby here.

I agree, with the countless number of children and babies in foster care and adoption agencies in the US alone, it IS crazy to spend that much and go that far to get one. There is no shortage here, that's for sure.

 

[Platy]

I think none of the alternatives regarding abortion (in favor or against) represent a solution to the problem.

As I see it:

• The problem: Pregnant woman does not desire/love the unborn child. It's a problem because it'll likely lead to an adverse outcome to the mother and/or child/family/society.
  
• Not a problem: Pregnant woman desires/loves the unborn child. That's the ideal scenario, from all perspectives (social, biological, moral) - in my opinon.

The solution - in this context - should transform the problem into "not a problem".

Hard to find a common ground because some people see the not a problem as "pregnant woman is not pregnant anymore" ....

 

[USC-fan]

I agree, with the countless number of children and babies in foster care and adoption agencies in the US alone, it IS crazy to spend that much and go that far to get one. There is no shortage here, that's for sure.

People want babies, not children. have you look at the foster care adoption websites for the children up for adoption? Almost every kid has some type major medical problem and very few are under 2.

If you want a healthy baby you almost always have to go over seas. Available babies for adoption peaked in this country in 1974 and have went down since then. it even harder for LBGT couples as they are banned in a lot of countries from adopting. Also given gay marriage has been legal this year, you could see a raised in LBGT couples trying to start a family through adoption.

 

[cooljeanius]

I don't really get how anyone can make ANY decision and not have regrets about it... I mean, maybe I'm just depressed, but don't other people also consider the possibilities of what could have been if they had made the opposite choice of the one they actually did, and then kinda wish that they could have actually seen for themselves? Maybe I'm just odd like this; I always made sure to leave my finger in the book as a bookmark whenever I had to make a decision when reading those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books as a kid, and I'd regret it if I ever missed a branch, but I guess most people were happy just taking one path to an end and being done with it...

(Just for clarity's sake, I'm defining "regretting a decision" as "wishing one could have made a choice in a decision that is different from the choice that that person actually made")

 

[Guileless]

excelsiorlef, forget about abortion for a second. The argument goes way beyond abortion; that is a symptom of the problem according to this line of thinking.

When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.

That is the foundation of the consumer economy: encouraging humans to "place themselves at the centre," and selling them things to get them there. I think it's naive to believe that the kind of thinking that stridently defends abortion rights on principle does not have wider implications. (And vice versa with regard to rabid free market true believers.) Read the responses in this thread and the fetal organ harvesting thread and consider the core of his critique: the postmodern late capitalist consumer society "sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests" and "gives absolute priority to immediate convenience."

 

[FuuRe]

This is just throwing up your hands and saying there's no way to figure out what's right or wrong, though. "Personhood" is really just a word that refers to rights-having status. Sure, moral truths are such that you can't put a finger on them, can't identify them as things out there in the world, and can't test them, and they're the subject of lots of philosophical debate. How can law exist that's based on something as volatile as the definition of morality? If morality is an issue you could argue that some acts and people are better than others.

Clearly you don't really think this. You think you've got a criticism of a certain kind of pro-choice argument, but actually this criticism applies just as well to the standard you want to set for when abortion is morally permissible. It applies to every moral argument there is!

I also note that you're still talking kind of like personhood is a binary thing. You say that we can't pinpoint where it starts, but what I was saying earlier is that an advantage of personhood theories is that they don't have a starting point, really. It's a continuum. And I'm not sure I understand this: "Abortion law just makes the fact illegal, to change it, should it be then replaced by one that defines where personhood starts?" A normal way for law to work is that we outlaw acts based on an understanding of what's right and wrong, keeping in mind that we need to balance the simplicity of the law against our desire to treat every unique case in exactly the way it deserves.

For what its worth, i don't think abortion should be illegal, i just don't think it is right to abort except in very specific situations, i value life and the right to it for unborn babies but you won't ever see me outside of an abortion clinic trying to change peoples minds.

I'm not trying to end the discussion, i just accept not everyone thinks like me.

I just stand by the facts that it is murder, no matter what philosophical or circumstantial arguments are put over it, and that you cannot pinpoint when a life earns the right to continue itself.

 

[Pau]

I'm sure this is how people rationalize it; what it means in practical terms is "my right to consume at the level I want trumps the rights of the fetus." Variations of this argument are employed frequently by affluent late capitalist societies for a variety of reasons.

No, it's "My right to my body trumps the rights of the fetus." Just because I'm a person who can give birth doesn't mean that I have to be an incubator for nine months against my will.

I really do think if men had to deal with this, the conversation would be vastly different. (Especially those who say if you're not prepared to carry a fetus to term, then don't have sex ever.) It's not even about being able to consume more. I think a lot of people forget that being pregnant and giving birth is a considerable experience that can affect everything in your life beyond just monetary concerns.

excelsiorlef, forget about abortion for a second. The argument goes way beyond abortion; that is a symptom of the problem according to this line of thinking.

That is the foundation of the consumer economy: encouraging humans to "place themselves at the centre," and selling them things to get them there. I think it's naive to believe that the kind of thinking that stridently defends abortion rights on principle does not have wider implications. (And vice versa with regard to rabid free market true believers.) Read the responses in this thread and the fetal organ harvesting thread and consider the core of his critique: the postmodern late capitalist consumer society "sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests" and "gives absolute priority to immediate convenience."

Access to legal (and safe) abortions can have long term benefits both for the individual and society, it's not just some immediate thing that people decide on in the moment and if they really thought about it, it would be more beneficial in the long term for themselves and humanity to not do the opposite. What are the wider negative implications inherent to a person's right to their body?

 

[injurai]

From an evolutionary standpoint, it's not uncommon for female animals to abandon their children either due to the offsprings health or the rearing conditions. I wouldn't expect human women to be all that torn up over abortion.

Most psychological fallout happens when the mother wants the child, as seen when stillbirths occur.

 

[Brannon]

People want babies, not children. have you look at the foster care adoption websites for the children up for adoption? Almost every kid has some type major medical problem and very few are under 2.

If you want a healthy baby you almost always have to go over seas. Available babies for adoption peaked in this country in 1974 and have went down since then. it even harder for LBGT couples as they are banned in a lot of countries from adopting. Also given gay marriage has been legal this year, you could see a raised in LBGT couples trying to start a family through adoption.

That is the case, but to depend on people who don't want to be pregnant for whatever reason can't possibly be the best choice. I'd say surrogacy since only a couple of states ban it, but even that has its own problems.

 

[Gotchaye]

I think none of the alternatives regarding abortion (in favor or against) represent a solution to the problem.

As I see it:

• The problem: Pregnant woman does not desire/love the unborn child. It's a problem because it'll likely lead to an adverse outcome to the mother and/or child/family/society.
  
• Not a problem: Pregnant woman desires/loves the unborn child. That's the ideal scenario, from all perspectives (social, biological, moral) - in my opinon.

The solution - in this context - should transform the problem into "not a problem".

Making abortion illegal (or advocating against abortion) does not solve the problem, as the pathological relationship between the mother and her child is still there. Therefore, an adverse outcome - at some point - is likely. This alternative (against abortion) may be an a posteriori solution IF an effective interventionist approach - to the mother/child relationship - can be provided (as soon as possible). I do not know, however, what (and how) such approach should be (done), especially at a large/population scale.

Abortion (or advocating in favor of abortion) does not represent a solution, either. The child is dead, and the "not a problem" scenario cannot be achieved. This is an a priori alternative to the mother alone. It does not allow, nor require, further interventions - since the problem was aborted, not solved.

Anyway... that's why I don't feel comfortable trying to justify those alternatives. Regardless, when dealing with a problem that proves tough to be solved, I believe it's often wise to invest on prevention.

Accepting this sort of quasi-formal way of framing the issue for the moment, it seems like you understand that the actual best outcome as far as many people are concerned is "woman doesn't have a child". That is, if I'm understanding you right when you say that it's "often wise to invest [in] prevention", you mean taking measures to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place, right? Note that (obviously) this doesn't get you to your "not a problem". So is there a problem with preventing an unwanted pregnancy from happening in the first place? Of course not! But then abortion looks an awful lot like a way of achieving exactly the same outcome as prevention. So it sure seems like a solution, in the everyday sense of the word. Ideally I should avoid getting my pants dirty. But if my pants get dirty I can wash them, and that solves my problem - it gets me back to where I would have been if I'd prevented the problem in the first place. I mean, sure, you can say that another way to make this not a problem would be for me to decide that I really like having dirty pants, but in that case it's weird to have first said that I should try to avoid getting my pants dirty to begin with - surely that's something I should have been aiming for, if me loving my dirty pants is the right place to try to end up.

Obviously that's silly. But what makes it silly is present in your analysis of abortion too. If the destruction of a fetus isn't much of a tragedy, the situations are pretty similar. This feels like you're trying to lawyer your way to establishing that abortion isn't a "solution", for a very specific sense of "solution" and a very specific understanding of exactly what the problem is, while obscuring where the actual disagreement is. I'm not sure how useful this is.

Edit:

That is the foundation of the consumer economy: encouraging humans to "place themselves at the centre," and selling them things to get them there. I think it's naive to believe that the kind of thinking that stridently defends abortion rights on principle does not have wider implications. (And vice versa with regard to rabid free market true believers.) Read the responses in this thread and the fetal organ harvesting thread and consider the core of his critique: the postmodern late capitalist consumer society "sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests" and "gives absolute priority to immediate convenience."

I think it's very important to distinguish seeing "everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests" from thinking that it's valuable for all people to be able to make important decisions about their own lives. Sure, it's a bit suspicious when someone's politics basically just line up exactly with what maximizes their own material well-being, and fuck other people, future generations, animals, etc., but it's hard for me to see how the pro-choice movement is an example of this. Defenses of abortion very often come from people who don't have much reason to be personally concerned with the legality of abortion going forward. Opposition to environmentalism, sure, it's easy to see how that fits this framework on basically any understanding of the issue. The pro-choice movement only comes close to looking this way if you more-or-less grant that the right analogy is slavery - we refuse to recognize the humanity of a certain kind of person because it is useful (not necessarily to us but to people like us). We (well, people we have more sympathy for rather than us personally, in many cases) think we're better off by harming other people, and we make this permissible by deciding that those other people aren't actually people.

Okay. This is all pretty fair; it's the sort of thing we should spend at least a little time wondering about just because the downside risk of being wrong is so great. Obviously there are some plausible arguments that even if fetuses are full persons abortion is still morally permissible, but even so maybe individuals deciding whether to get an abortion should weigh more heavily the value of the fetus than they in many cases do.

Of course, this alone can't be decisive. You could generate this sort of concern for literally everything we do - maybe our interest in wanting to do whatever-it-is blinds us to the evil of it. When I clap my hands I kill countless innocent bacteria, etc. You don't think it's plausible that I'm being impermissibly self-centered when I go jogging because I greedily use so much more oxygen that way. That's not a failure to steward nature responsibly. So I agree that it's really important to have a worked-out theory of what sorts of things have rights. We shouldn't just rely on our gut instinct, and we should look especially carefully when we seem to find that the stuff we're using up is unimportant. But lots of people do that. Even going in keeping in mind that I might be biased towards people like women I know and against ugly fetuses, I feel pretty confident that early fetuses aren't very valuable. I'm pretty much always happy to hear a theory of why they are, but, for example, the Pope's just isn't very plausible. I think probably where I'm most worried that I'm letting my own convenience blind me to the interests of to-some-extent persons that I'm harming in pursuing what's convenient for me is my eating of meat, although mostly I eat just fish and poultry at this point.

 

[Guileless]

What are the wider negative implications inherent to a person's right to their body?

Re-posting:

When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative. Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests. There is a logic in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay...

The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same “use and throw away” logic generates so much waste, because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

^ So much gish galloping in this quote. Holy shit

 

[Pau]

Re-posting:

I'm not seeing the leap between us asking others not to treat our bodies as objects to... treating other people as objects through forced labor, etc.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Re-posting:

So you're not going to make your own argument you're just going to copy and paste the pope. You literally just pasted the same thing twice on the same page practically back to back.


Like I said abortion debates are useless when the opposition is like this folks.

And again it's insulting to compare a fetus to a slave, a child laborer, sex abuse of kids (fucking lol at the leader of the Catholic church talking about that and blaming things like abortion for it. Pretty sure abortions didn't male those countless priests molest kids and didn't make the Church hide and protect them) an old person, a poor person, a disabled person

 

[MultiCore]

So you're not going to make your own argument you're just going to copy and paste the pope.


Like I said abortion debates are useless when the opposition is like this folks.

And again it's insulting to women to compare a fetus to a slave, a child laborer, sex abuse of kids (fucking lol at the leader of the Catholic church talking about that and blaming things like abortion for it. Pretty sure abortions didn't make those countless priests molest kids and didn't make the Church hide and protect them) an old person, a poor person, a disabled person

Yeah, I mean, typically, you'd try to keep your slaves alive.

(I'm sorry, I couldn't help making this wisecrack here. Carry on and harbor no ill will from my joke.)

 

[farmerboy]

So you're not going to make your own argument you're just going to copy and paste the pope. You literally just pasted the same thing twice on the same page practically back to back.


Like I said abortion debates are useless when the opposition is like this folks.

And again it's insulting to compare a fetus to a slave, a child laborer, sex abuse of kids (fucking lol at the leader of the Catholic church talking about that and blaming things like abortion for it. Pretty sure abortions didn't male those countless priests molest kids and didn't make the Church hide and protect them) an old person, a poor person, a disabled person

Excuse me while I chuckle at the bolded.

The foetus, the slave, the child labourer, the abused kids, the old person, the poor person and disabled person are not being compared to each other but are being shown as examples of marginalised entities whereby they can become victims of a culture that views them as a burden that does not serve the individuals interest.

 

[Gotchaye]

Let's all try to avoid chuckling at how dumb the other side is.

 

[ChouGoku]

I just figured out I got a girl pregnant today, we have talked about abortions before, so this makes me feel better

 

[Prophet Steve]

Re-posting:

So uh, I don't see anything about the negative implications of a person's right to their body and more of a statement on that being self-centered goes with selfishness.

Just try to explain things in your own words.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

But what about adoptions? there are a lot of couples unable to have kids, why can't they take care of the unwanted babies? i don't conceive why abortion seems to be the only viable choice.

If anything, i would feel less regrets if i gave my baby in adoption rather than killing him.

And guys, honestly, i think you need to have a kid to understand that personhood is invalid in this argument, as then it would make sense to kill babies, people in vegetative state, or with alzheimer's, etc.

There's no magic switch or binary value about life and the right to it, personhood is out of this argument.

The only scenario where i could find abortion reasonable is in fetus inhability, in case of risk of death of the mother i have mixed feelings since i as a father (and my wife thinks the same too) would try everything before the abortion, how would we feel about killing our baby before feeling totally secure there was no other way?. And about rape i really dunno, i'm honest, i would be pro abortion, but my wife says the baby isn't the culprit in that case, and she's right.

Adoption guys, there's huge barriers for parents wanting to adopt, some are ok but some are excessive, who would be more fit to take care of the child than a couple willing to take care of one?

There should be a raise on adoptions now that same sex couples are able to marry, so it's all for the better.

There are probably more than enough babies and children around waiting to be adopted. We don't really need to push for more babies. "Let's not abort babies so that we have more spare ones for adoptions" is not really that great an idea.

Just because a woman completes her pregnancy term, gives birth and then gives it up for adoption doesn't mean it's a responsible thing to do. It's basically still abandoning the baby and relying on luck in hope that the baby will get a better home.

 

[charlequin]

I've only ever offered "my" opinion.

Yes, and if your opinion is that you can't perform a study that draws useful, falsifiable, and actionable conclusions about people's emotional states, then it's not in any way a founded opinion. Waving your arms around and asserting that it is impossible to meaningfully study people's emotions is not the action of someone who is interested in deeper understanding here.

(my opinion=feelings change)

Not what was under discussion there, though.

If you do have an argument against the three-year timespan, actually make it. What timescale would you expect to see a reversion of results on? What would you expect to be more common factors for women who later switched back to regret, compared to those who don't? How large would you expect this regression to be, at least in orders of magnitude? If this is a real psychological phenomenon we should be able to talk about it at least at some level of specificity.

If your position is just "human beings sometimes change their minds, therefore I disbelieve this study," you're effectively offering "I disagreed with this conclusion so I created a reason to do so" as your argument. Which, again, if that's your position, that's your position, but the flaw from a logical level should be pretty clear.

I'm not seeing the leap between us asking others not to treat our bodies as objects to... treating other people as objects through forced labor, etc.

You need to start with an implicit axiom that people have no right to self-determination of any kind (because all determination emanates from the divine) and from there reason out that relativism is innately corrupt because it's the starting point of denying that first axiom (and therefore, opens the door equally to all other denials.)

 

[excelsiorlef]

Excuse me while I chuckle at the bolded.

The foetus, the slave, the child labourer, the abused kids, the old person, the poor person and disabled person are not being compared to each other but are being shown as examples of marginalised entities whereby they can become victims of a culture that views them as a burden that does not serve the individuals interest.

Which makes that a comparison. I mean if they're all examples of a thing they can be said to be related and thus comparable.

Reality is all but the fetus are fully formed born humam beings not physically connected to another being in a parasitic fashion.

That's why they are completely not the same and can never be talked about in a list format like the pope did by grouping a fetus with a bunch of variations of born people.

 

[Arjen]

Man, I can't even begin to imagine how hard it is to make such a decision, big respect for everyone who has ever been in such a situation, must have been really hard. So i guess that 95% is a good figure since a vast majority still felt it was a good decision.

 

[stl]

I don't think the government has any business telling consenting adults what they can do to their own bodies, but at the same time I don't agree with abortion. People talk about pro choice, well you made a choice when you had sex. A risk that comes with that is pregnancy. Not willing to take the risk, don't have sex. This is excluding rape or high risk pregnancies that may have birth defects or endanger the woman's live. What they should do is lighten up on adoption laws and allow birth mothers to get some sort of payment for giving up their babies for adoption. My wife and I adopted both of our children, and it took over a year for each due to the waiting list. And while it can cost $30-$40,000 dollars for an adoption, the majority of that money goes to the lawyers and adoption agency. Birth mothers can only receive compensation for documented living expenses, i.e. rent, phone, medical costs.
I used to be more pro choice, but both of my children's birth moms tried to have abortions, but thankfully they were unable to. If they had, to extremely gifted and smart individuals wouldn't be here today.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I don't think the government has any business telling consenting adults what they can do to their own bodies, but at the same time I don't agree with abortion. People talk about pro choice, well you made a choice when you had sex. A risk that comes with that is pregnancy. Not willing to take the risk, don't have sex. This is excluding rape or high risk pregnancies that may have birth defects or endanger the woman's live. What they should do is lighten up on adoption laws and allow birth mothers to get some sort of payment for giving up their babies for adoption. My wife and I adopted both of our children, and it took over a year for each due to the waiting list. And while it can cost $30-$40,000 dollars for an adoption, the majority of that money goes to the lawyers and adoption agency. Birth mothers can only receive compensation for documented living expenses, i.e. rent, phone, medical costs.
I used to be more pro choice, but both of my children's birth moms tried to have abortions, but thankfully they were unable to. If they had, to extremely gifted and smart individuals wouldn't be here today.

So before I say anything else. I want to know are you in favour of laws banning abortion?

 

[Dirtyshubb]

I don't think the government has any business telling consenting adults what they can do to their own bodies, but at the same time I don't agree with abortion. People talk about pro choice, well you made a choice when you had sex. A risk that comes with that is pregnancy. Not willing to take the risk, don't have sex. This is excluding rape or high risk pregnancies that may have birth defects or endanger the woman's live. What they should do is lighten up on adoption laws and allow birth mothers to get some sort of payment for giving up their babies for adoption. My wife and I adopted both of our children, and it took over a year for each due to the waiting list. And while it can cost $30-$40,000 dollars for an adoption, the majority of that money goes to the lawyers and adoption agency. Birth mothers can only receive compensation for documented living expenses, i.e. rent, phone, medical costs.
I used to be more pro choice, but both of my children's birth moms tried to have abortions, but thankfully they were unable to. If they had, to extremely gifted and smart individuals wouldn't be here today.

Not this shitty ‘excuse’ again….

Look, im glad that you have your children, I really am, but just because the thought of their birth mother having gone through an abortion instead of you getting them is a terrifying one, doesn’t mean that your opinion on abortion is valid for OTHER people!

Also, the idea that – You want to have sex? Better deal with the fact you get pregnant and have a child is absolutely insane and shouldn’t be considered by anyone. Yes, the biological reason for having sex is to procreate, but we as a species have moved so far away from a simple hunter/gather/procreating nature that using it as an excuse to not have sex is ridiculous. Sex is an important part for relationships, not only physically but also emotionally. Just because you have it doesn’t mean that you should be forced to have any children that come from it. I mean, unless you disagree with all forms of contraceptives I honestly don’t understand where you are coming from. So is the point of contraceptives – use them to delay having a child until one day it fails and “Well, looks like its time to have a kid because the thing I used specifically to stop this from happening didn’t do its job”?!?

And before you try your shitty argument with regards to contraceptives – no form of contraceptive is 100% reliable, and more importantly you don’t always know when it has failed so it isn’t as simple as ‘condom broke, better take the morning after pill’.

Also, if you wanna go down the line of ‘its nature, better deal with the results’ what about vaccines and other forms of medical treatments, I mean our bodies naturally cant fight certain infections/diseases etc. so should we just deal with that fact? No, of course not because we have the ability to prevent that from happening. Same goes for unwanted pregnancies, why go through all the risk and danger of pregnancy to only put the child up for adoption, living in an environment that is statistically more likely to lead them into prison or to not finish school?

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I'd ask another question: what do we consider a tolerable threshold for the percentage of women who regret their abortion?

One could make an argument that if even 1% of women regretted the abortion, that's too much. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I don't think it's absurd, either. Conversely, would we be okay if 90% of women didn't regret their decision? What about 80%? 50%? Where do we draw the line and say, "Okay, maybe we should rethink this?"

Consider our legal system as another example. Let's imagine that our legal system convicts people correctly 90% of the time (I'm not sure that's true, this is only an example). Well, 90% is a pretty big number. But is that a satisfactorily high percentage such that we can all say "yep, that's pretty good?" Or should we be in up in arms saying "10% of people who go to jail are wrongfully imprisoned! Unacceptable!" What if the fair conviction rate was 99%? Is it okay if 1% of those we convict are unfairly convicted?

If your answer is "there is no tolerable threshold of unfair convictions. Even .01% is too much," then I would point out that someone could say the same of abortions, and what percentage of women regret them.

Please note one last time that I do not necessarily agree with the argument I've just presented. I'm only trying to show why this is more complicated than "95% is unquestionably good, abortion haters pwned."

I think there's a world of difference between "some women regret choice X they are legally allowed to make" and "some convictions *by the government* are erroneous".

When a woman aborts, and later decides she regrets that choice? It's on her. She must deal with the consequences of the choice she made, and while it's not ideal, people make choices they regret all the time. We don't build laws around concern that someone might regret a thing.

When a government wrongly convicts, they are imposing upon an otherwise free citizen. They've abridged the life and rights of a fully aware, living, breathing member of society. This isn't even remotely analogous to abortion.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think there's a world of difference between "some women regret choice X they are legally allowed to make" and "some convictions *by the government* are erroneous".

When a woman aborts, and later decides she regrets that choice? It's on her. She must deal with the consequences of the choice she made, and while it's not ideal, people make choices they regret all the time. We don't build laws around concern that someone might regret a thing.

When a government wrongly convicts, they are imposing upon an otherwise free citizen. They've abridged the life and rights of a fully aware, living, breathing member of society. This isn't even remotely analogous to abortion.

Not to mention what a horrible precedent that would set. I mean like a miniscule miniscule miniscule percentage of folk who undergo sex reassignment surgery regret it, should we deny the 95-99% of genuine trans folk surgery that can save their lives and mental health? Fuck no that'd be inhumane.

 

[Poop!]

I have two kids and at the time told my girlfriend she could get an abortion and it was ok with me. She is pro-choice so that means it was her choice to carry our boys. To this day, I would make the same decision again. I hate this "well you don't have kids!" crap. I have kids and I would have aborted them if I was the female. And I love the shit out of my kids now and would destroy anyone that would ever try to harm them. I don't believe in the whole "life begins at conception" crap.

And if it is "murder" and they are a true person in the womb... then why couldn't I claim my unborn kids on my taxes while they were inutero? Why couldn't I file for an SSN? If they are a "person" then they have all the rights of a person.... but it isn't a person, yet.

The whole debate is silly. If it's your body, it's your choice if you are for it or against it.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I still believe effective and accessible birth control (for both sexes. Its coming MEN!) is the real answer to end the debate.

Colorado was on the right track

As I understand it... that even despit this study I imagine most of those women would have preferred to prevent the unintended pregnancy from the get go instead of going through the unpleasant medical procedure that abortions still are.

Then again maybe I am outdated here.

 

[Poop!]

I still believe effective and accessible birth control (for both sexes. Its coming MEN!) is the real answer to end the debate.

Colorado was on the right track

As I understand it... that even despit this study I imagine most of those women would have preferred to prevent the unintended pregnancy from the get go instead of going through the unpleasant medical procedure that abortions still are.

Then again maybe I am outdated here.

I think Vasectomies should be free to anyone that wants one. I don't mind my tax payer dollars going to that in any way shape or form.

 

[stl]

So before I say anything else. I want to know are you in favour of laws banning abortion?

Read again what I typed. My personal view is that I don't always agree with abortion, and the excuse that "We didn't have birth control" is bs. But I don't agree with the government dictating what people do with their bodies. That would make me pro choice.

 

[stl]

Not this shitty ‘excuse’ again….

Look, im glad that you have your children, I really am, but just because the thought of their birth mother having gone through an abortion instead of you getting them is a terrifying one, doesn’t mean that your opinion on abortion is valid for OTHER people!

Also, the idea that – You want to have sex? Better deal with the fact you get pregnant and have a child is absolutely insane and shouldn’t be considered by anyone. Yes, the biological reason for having sex is to procreate, but we as a species have moved so far away from a simple hunter/gather/procreating nature that using it as an excuse to not have sex is ridiculous. Sex is an important part for relationships, not only physically but also emotionally. Just because you have it doesn’t mean that you should be forced to have any children that come from it. I mean, unless you disagree with all forms of contraceptives I honestly don’t understand where you are coming from. So is the point of contraceptives – use them to delay having a child until one day it fails and “Well, looks like its time to have a kid because the thing I used specifically to stop this from happening didn’t do its job”?!?

And before you try your shitty argument with regards to contraceptives – no form of contraceptive is 100% reliable, and more importantly you don’t always know when it has failed so it isn’t as simple as ‘condom broke, better take the morning after pill’.

Also, if you wanna go down the line of ‘its nature, better deal with the results’ what about vaccines and other forms of medical treatments, I mean our bodies naturally cant fight certain infections/diseases etc. so should we just deal with that fact? No, of course not because we have the ability to prevent that from happening. Same goes for unwanted pregnancies, why go through all the risk and danger of pregnancy to only put the child up for adoption, living in an environment that is statistically more likely to lead them into prison or to not finish school?

Boy, where to start. Are you so amped up to yell at anyone who has a different opinion than you that you didn't actually comprehend what I typed. I stated at the very end of my post that "I used to be MORE pro choice" implying that I am still pro choice, I just wish the government would relax a lot of the adoption laws so women and a viable alternative to abortion.

And I understand that sex is more than procreation. Shit happens during sex. I get that. But at the same time, take some personal responsibility. Just like I don't want to hear excuses for people who smoke for 30 years then get lung cancer. Birth control should be free and easily obtainable for whoever wants it. Vasectomies should also be free. There needs to be better sex education in our schools, starting at junior high. This religious agenda to not educate kids on sex and diseases is ridiculous. There are lots of ways we as a society could improve when it comes to sex ed and birth control.

My point is that there are many steps we could be taking to help drastically reduce unplanned pregnancy that are not being pursued. That should be our focus. It is not a black or white issue, pro choice or pro life. We need to find ways to help eliminate unplanned pregnancies without imposing on peoples personal liberties.

And as I replied above, I am pro choice. But I have a problem with abortion. That is my problem to bear. And I also believe it Is none of my business what a consenting adult does to their body. Which is what I stated in the very beginning of the post. So save your sarcastic bs for someone else.

 

[BamfMeat]

I think Vasectomies should be free to anyone that wants one. I don't mind my tax payer dollars going to that in any way shape or form.

Vasectomies are not 100% either. Nothing is, other than no PiV sex. I'm indirectly here because of my grandfathers failed vasectomy, and directly here because my mom consciously (as in, thought about it, but didn't) have an abortion with me.

That said, I don't think it's my place to tell a woman what's best for her and her potential children. I don't care how pro-life you are, you don't get to make that choice.

Also, keep in mind that just because someone doesn't "regret" their decision doesn't mean it didn't have an emotional impact. Someone very close to me had one in her very early 20s, she's in her 40s now and she thinks about what would the baby be like, but she doesn't regret the decision.

 

[-Minsc-]

A more important discussion than whether abortion is right / wrong or the women's choice in the matter is what can be done to help prevent the need for women to have to make that choice in the first place. Though that's for another thread.

 

[GreatestHits]

I'm pro-choice and that 95% statistic is very curious. You can't just say it's your body, because it's not. It's your body and someone else's. It's still your choice, but to completely put a halt to one of the most amazing biological miracles known to the universe, after it's already set in motion, is traumatic. No regrets? Ha sure. I regret even asking my son's mother to get an abortion. I was selfish, foolish, and looking back from this point in my life it's obvious that this was my destiny. However, if you were to put my destiny in my own hands at the time, I would've missed out. It's always up to the mother, but the decision is a huge one, not something you should ever look back at and be OK with IMO. You are ending life after it's already set in motion

I think the word regret is very important here. To regret this decision 3 years later is to never have dealt with it and to be eternally tormented. Hardly anyone is going to let a problem in themselves like that persist. Even if you don't like the decision, you can still not regret it, in fact I would say it is human nature to accept what happened, which I suppose explains 96% of people having done that. But the way this study is being explained it almost seems as if the mother's are fine with abortion, and perhaps that's the shock. But I don't think most mothers are OK with going through it, however have accepted it as the best decision for them at the time