Opinions on abortion

[Seshat]

I wrote up this nifty little ranty thing in the thread about anti-abortionists attacking a planned parenthood clinic. Then I realised it was a complete thread derail. So I moved it to here.



I'm for abortion being available, because I know how traumatic I, personally, would find being pregnant and having no option other than enduring the pregnancy and birth.

There is no contraception available to me which is infallible. (I've tried to get doctors to sterilise me, but always get the rather patronising 'you might change your mind!')

In my ideal world, there would be infallible, perfectly reversible, perfectly safe contraception available to all. It would be specifically offered to children's parents when the child hits puberty, and (if refused then) again offered when the child becomes adult. People would reverse it when they wanted children, and get it again after the conception (male) or birth (female) of their desired children.

Abortion, in this fantasy world, would then become limited to those who refused the contraception, those who were raped during their brief fertile period, those who had medical need for it, and those who changed their minds after conception. Two of those groups (the raped and those with medical need) are the exceptions almost all anti-abortionists seem to find acceptable. The other two voluntarily took on the pregnancy or risk of pregnancy, and I'm personally undecided about where the balance of 'rights' is between the woman and the child when the woman chose to become pregnant/chose to risk pregnancy.

Unfortunately, that gleeful day when safe, effective, inexpensive, totally reversible contraception is universally available is not here yet. Until that day, there will be women who, despite trying to avoid it, will become pregnant. There will be men who try to guard against getting their lovers pregnant, and fail.

Pregnancy is a risky activity. We don't force people to bungee jump, or to work in construction, or to climb mountains. I see pregnancy as belonging in that sort of category - things we do that risk permanent damage to our bodies. If it's voluntary, fine. If it's not, don't force people to do it.

[Amethyst Hunter]

My opinion on it is much the same as yours, Seshat. I hope and pray that I (or someone I care about) will *never* find myself/themselves in that kind of position where we'd have to make a decision. Speaking only for myself, I suspect that I would be the type to do something drastic to escape that feeling of being trapped. It's one of the reasons I'm celibate by choice. A few minutes' worth of pleasure isn't worth winding up in an infinitely dire situation, and I'm under no illusions that I'd be one of the lucky few that could get away with anything, not with my luck.

I have a relative who had sex for the first time at age 16. This relative was one of the 'good' 'Christian' kids. Relative came down with a particularly persistent cold one time and was afraid they'd caught something REALLY nasty. (I don't know if said person used any form of protection or not) Testing proved that they were lucky, they *didn't* have anything. Talk about dodging bullets!

In case of a worst-case scenario (rape) or in the (unlikely) event I found somebody I wanted to be with, I want to get sterilized, but 1) I don't have the money/insurance to do it, and 2) even at 31 I'm sure I'll run into the condescending BS that a lot of people have had to deal with in their similar quests.

What drives me nuts over the deal with the city facing the PP controversy is that so many people have been suckered into believing the worst by the liars spreading it. Worse, I've just discovered that this anti-choice group spearheading the effort is ALLIED with KNOWN *domestic terrorists* (Operation Save America/Operation Rescue, which HAS and is documented as having committed violence against similar clinics in the past). These are the kind of people that give both religion and pro-life a bad, bad reputation, and I honestly am afraid for the region because I DON'T trust that one loose nut (or more) that you know is out there to not start some shit somewhere along the line.

I firmly believe the ONLY way to reduce the abortion rate is 1) education, education, education!, 2) teach more men to respect women and teach more women to respect themselves (i.e., dressing up slutty like Britney Spears *is not* "empowerment"), and 3) to make contraception and sterilization (the latter for those who really want it) more widely available and easier to access. Bonus 4) reduce the poverty level, as a good deal of abortions come from women too financially-strapped to take on another child and the expenses associated therein.

[Seshat]

I don't know what the extremist type of anti-abortionist is really thinking, but it certainly looks (from over here near the other end of the spectrum) like their primary interest is in punishing any woman who dares to show any hint of sexuality.


That said, I'd be interested (genuinely) in hearing from the middle-of-the-road anti-abortionists. I assume the reason the sensible type of anti-abortionist is against abortion is the rights of the embryo/foetus (depending on the point at which the abortion occurs). But assuming leaves one looking ridiculous. So - anyone want to enlighten me?

[Greenday]

Seshat, your question is easy to answer. I know many people who are against abortion, but none that go out and protest like idiots. The most used response? "My religion says it's wrong." Hell, I get that response for most stuff. Abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage. Can we say, brainwashed?

[Primer]

In case of a worst-case scenario (rape) or in the (unlikely) event I found somebody I wanted to be with, I want to get sterilized, but 1) I don't have the money/insurance to do it, and 2) even at 31 I'm sure I'll run into the condescending BS that a lot of people have had to deal with in their similar quests.

I knew from a very early age that I did not want children. I started badgering my doctors when I was 16 to get sterilized (even before I became sexually active). I finally convinced them at the age of 31.

I still have not been able to convince any of them into a hysterectomy, though. Hell, if the factory has been shut down, why not bulldoze it? At least I can look forward to being done with it all within the next 5 years or so, according to my mother's history.

And yes, I am pro-choice, until the fetus is viable outside the womb without extraordinary measures.

[CancelMyService]

It just bothers me that the people who oppose abortion from the "every fetus deserves a chance" standpoint are almost always the ones who oppose any type of social assistance as a handout or worse the dreaded "entitlement" slur. Not to mention they also seem as a whole to be in favor of things like war and the death penalty.

If more anti-abortion types were pro-health care and/or education, I'd be more open to their viewpoints. As it is, it just gives the apperance that they only care about their precious fetii until birth, then the hell with them and the mothers.

[TNT]

If more anti-abortion types were pro-health care and/or education, I'd be more open to their viewpoints. As it is, it just gives the apperance that they only care about their precious fetii until birth, then the hell with them and the mothers.

I'm anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, mostly anti-war... and not religious at all.

Now what?

[CancelMyService]

I just hope you realize you're one of the few with that certain set of views. It is a bit refreshing to see someone consistent in their views (even if I don't agree with them) instead of being what I call "pro life until birth".

I can at least respect consistency, when I see someone who's all over the map I just want to stare like a confused puppy.

[Seshat]

I'm anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, mostly anti-war... and not religious at all.

Now what?

Would you care to explain the reasoning behind being anti-abortion? I'd just like to understand the 'other side' - or at least that part of it which has reasons other than 'my religion says so'.

[powerboy]

I am against it, unless it is to save the woman life. If they had been raped, or if they just don't want the child, then they could atleast give it up for adoption. There are other people, who want a child but cannot have one.

[CancelMyService]

I am against it, unless it is to save the woman life. If they had been raped, or if they just don't want the child, then they could atleast give it up for adoption. There are other people, who want a child but cannot have one.

This is a reasonable position, but in order for it to work better the adoption system in the US needs to be fixed badly. There's a reason people end up going to third world countries to adopt, and it's not for lack of available children in the US. I've seen too many horror stories of families adopting and having the kids for months/years before the heretofore absentee parent appears to take the child back, causing untold amounts of trauma for all involved.

[squall]

I understand the need for abortion to exist. There is no reason a raped woman should be forced to carry a child she did not ask for. It is not very feasible that a really young mother in her early teens would be able to take care of a child properly without parental help. There are certain situations where the parents would be hazards to their children. Stupid people will always breed, not always on purpose. If gestation of a child is hazardous to the mother, then obviously the child must be aborted.

Would I personally use abortion as my choice? Probably not.

[Boozy]

I understand the need for abortion to exist. There is no reason a raped woman should be forced to carry a child she did not ask for.

Exactly. I can't believe there are those that would force a raped woman to extend the horror of her experience for a full nine months, thereby reinforcing the idea that she has no control over her body whatsoever. That argument infuriates me. A woman is not a bloody incubator.

[Greenday]

Exactly. I can't believe there are those that would force a raped woman to extend the horror of her experience for a full nine months, thereby reinforcing the idea that she has no control over her body whatsoever. That argument infuriates me. A woman is not a bloody incubator.

Nine months? How about a constant reminder for the rest of her life? One that she sure as hell can't ignore.

[Boozy]

On the same lines as the "women as mere incubators" thing, check out this link:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/0608mr-fetus0609.html

Arizona has apparently determined that a woman is worth about 80% the value of her 8 week-old fetus.

Is this where the campaign for fetal rights leads?

[Seshat]

I am against it, unless it is to save the woman life. If they had been raped, or if they just don't want the child, then they could atleast give it up for adoption.

What about those of us who don't want a pregnancy? Even the best pregnancy, with no complications, leaves the body permanently changed. Pregnancy is not a trivial thing.

[Ryu]

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that abortionists can tell women considering an abortion anything that what is inside of them is not a human being
How do people feel about that?

[Greenday]

Kinda hard to read what you meant there. Do you mean that someone who performs abortions is allowed to tell a pregnant woman that they aren't pregnant or something? If so, I doubt too many doctors would say that as they'd lose business.

New Jersey is a pretty liberal state. Girls can get an abortion even when they are a minor and they don't need parental consent.

[Ryu]

The case summary from what I've read is as follows
A woman went to an abortion clinic to discuss getting an abortion. She was about 6-8 weeks pregnant. The abortionist told her all that was in her was blood, that there was no human inside her. The abortion went wrong and there were complications. She tried suing the person. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that since she knew she was pregnant that it didnt matter that the abortionist told her that there wasnt a human being inside her, as thats not medical fact(as the court ruled), and she could not sue.

[Greenday]

There has to be more to it than just that. Maybe she saw a person who didn't hold a doctor's license. I just refuse to believe that the legal system is so fubar that they'd say a person licensed by the state for their specific job shouldn't have to know what they are doing.

[Ryu]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA4MjAzMzRkMjgzNTY0OTgzOGY1ZTg5MDIwODM4YmU=
"Is there a “baby in there”? That’s what Rose Acuna wanted to know from her obstetrician-gynecologist. She was six to eight weeks along at the time. “Don’t be stupid. It’s only blood,” the physician, Sheldon Turkish, allegedly replied."
Heres the brief: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-15-06.doc.html
The 2nd paragraph, if true, is horrible
"he further noted that those trained in the medical, religious, and philosophical disciplines had failed to reach consensus on the issue of when life begins." Unless you're using a different definition of life that isnt true, its a medical fact that life begins at conception, the argument is whether or not personhood begins at conception or not.

[AFPheonix]

......

This woman didn't have the wherewithal to go find a goddamn grade school biology book to see what stage of development her fetus had reached by the 6 week mark?
The cynic in me says that the doctor did the world a favor by not allowing her to reproduce.

The more even-handed person in me would have had the doctor roll his eyes, point out the frickin' chart on his wall that most clinics that deal with reproductive health have, and shown her.

[Greenday]

AFPheonix, it doesn't matter if she knows what it looks like on the inside or not. You can't see the inside of a woman without special tools which she obviously doesn't have. The doctor was totally guilty of malpractice, and once again, the legal system proves to be about as helpful as a big pile of crap. Except that'd be degrading to the crap.

How is this different from a doctor finding out a patient has cancer and decides to tell the patient they are perfectly healthy? It's not. It's telling lies, pure and simple.

[Seshat]

Okay. From the links you provided, the patient:
A) was told she was six to eight weeks pregnant.
B) had two children already.

Most likely (statistically), those two children were children of her own body, so she'd been pregnant twice already.

From these two facts, I believe the 'reasonable man' should be able to assume she knows that when one is pregnant, one is growing a baby. To think otherwise would be hopelessly patronising - unless the US education system is incredibly broken.

If the doctor didn't have a sheet in front of him stating that the patient was mentally handicapped, the doctor should be able to presume that saying 'you're six to eight weeks pregnant' amounts to saying 'you're pregnant'.

While we're in the second paragraph of the brief, we have an exchange which goes something like this:
Doctor: 'You're pregnant. You have kidney disease. If you continue the pregnancy, you'll die.'
Patient: 'Should I have an abortion?'

Or maybe (depending on who's story you believe)
Doctor: 'You're pregnant. You have kidney disease. If you don't terminate the pregnancy, you'll die.'
Patient: 'Oh.'

From either of these conversations, it's reasonable to assume the patient knew she was pregnant, and that she was at severe risk of death if she continued the pregnancy. If she'd had two previous pregnancies, or was even basically educated to a first-world standard, and wasn't mentally handicapped in a way that prevented her from understanding; it was quite reasonable to presume that she knows that pregnant = baby coming at the end of nine months.


Now, as for this sentence: "She claims that what she needed to hear from her doctor on the day of this visit was that she was carrying 'an existing living human being.'"
I wouldn't be able to say that. I would be able to say she was carrying a potential living human being, but that at that point it was tissue in development.

First sentence, second paragraph: "Acuna decided to terminate the pregnancy and signed a termination of pregnancy consent form."
A reasonable person, who presumed the patient was a reasonable person and not mentally handicapped or grossly uneducated, would presume that she understood the phrase 'terminate the pregnancy'.


Seventh Paragraph: "Judge Chambers noted that demanding that a physician advise a pregnant woman that her non-viable embryo 'is in all material respects equivalent to a person born alive,' would require the doctor to convey a value judgment not a medical fact."
I completely agree. Some of the people in this discussion would claim that an embryo is already a person. Some (including me) wouldn't. The fact that it's debatable and unproveable makes the judge's statement completely correct.

IMO, a doctor, in a position of ethical dilemna, should make it clear to the patient when they're stating known fact, and when they're stating their opinion. To do anything else would be swaying the patient's decision. In an ethical dilemna, the doctor should let the patient's wishes decide what gets done. (Now, if the doctor's ethics forbid him/her to do what the patient wants, the doctor shouldn't be forced to do it either. In such a situation, the doc should provide a referral.)

Hm. And now I realise that I do think the doctor was wrong. At least, he's wrong if he did say 'it's only blood'.
Even if he assumed she knew what 'you're pregnant' meant, he should have said 'you've got a six-week embryo in you right now. Do you need a refresher on pregnancy before you make your decision?'

That said, I think the woman was wrong too. At best, I would consider her handicapped or ignorant. If she had gone through two pregnancies with the whole lot of pre-birth pregnancy explanation classes and all the pregnancy-education material that's all over the first world, and still somehow missed the part where 'pregnant' means 'you have a potential human inside you', then she's incredibly daft.

I think the greater misbehaviour in this case is the patient's.

If the doctor didn't offer additional information, and especially if the doctor actually attempted to skew the patient into thinking 'it's only blood', the doctor was wrong.

But unless the patient was immediately strapped to a gurney and shoved into the procedure room (highly unlikely), the patient had plenty of opportunity to ask people what 'terminate the pregnancy' means, or what 'six weeks pregnant' means. And she should have already known! Especially if those two kids she had were prior pregnancies.

[Ryu]

You're right the woman should have been more educated but the doctor has a duty to patients regardless of their iq and should have made sure she understood what was going on in her body

[Seshat]

You're right the woman should have been more educated but the doctor has a duty to patients regardless of their iq and should have made sure she understood what was going on in her body

I read further into the second link (the link to the brief), to respond to you. Here's what Acuna admits she knew:

"In a certification, plaintiff explained that
'[a]t the start of a pregnancy, [she] knew that at some future date a human being would come into existence.' She understood that without some intervening circumstance or medical procedure, a child would be born, "

Sounds to me like she understood perfectly. If someone were to come to me and say 'I know I'm pregnant, I know that without a miscarriage or abortion I'll be having a child', I'd certainly assume she understood.


The sentence then goes on to say:

"but what she needed to hear on the day of her visit to defendant’s office was that she was carrying then 'an existing living human being.'"


It sounds like Acuna wanted the doctor to explicitly say that the embryo was 'an existing living human being'. In another part of the brief, she says she wanted the doctor to tell her that she was carrying 'a complete, separate, and unique human being'.

The former is a matter for spiritual and philosophical debate, and cannot (with current science) be proven or disproven scientifically. The latter is simply incorrect - a six to eight week embryo is missing a lot of key parts and therefore not complete, and is most definitely not separate.

So IF the doctor had ESP and could know what Acuna wanted, and IF the doctor was willing to make a moral judgement on his patient's behalf, and IF the doctor was willing to flat-out lie - then Acuna claims she would have acted differently.

Doctors aren't required to have ESP. Doctors shouldn't be making moral judgements on the patients' behalf (though they can make moral judgements on their own behalf). And doctors definitely shouldn't lie to patients. I note that the courts agree with me.
"Defendant and amici argue that it would be bad public policy, and probably unconstitutional, under the banner of the law of informed consent, to compel obstetricians to voice plaintiff’s non-medical and ideologically-driven viewpoint in the ongoing debate on abortion. They maintain that whether a six- to eight-week-old embryo is an “existing human being” is not a biological fact, but a moral, theological, and highly personal judgment that has sharply divided society, and therefore it would be inappropriate to impose a duty on doctors to take sides in this highly charged debate."

If the doctor did say something akin to 'don't be silly, it's just blood', then the doctor was at fault for saying that. However, since I now see that Acuna admits that she knew that 'pregnant' equals 'baby coming', I now think that all the remaining fault rests with Acuna. Who would probably be dead, along with her baby, if she hadn't had the abortion.

[Ryu]

To me, I dont know how she felt so I could be wrong, it seems she knew she would be having a baby but somehow thought that what was inside of her was not human yet and would become so later, which medically speaking is impossible, yet it is what the wording allows people to say as it is used to mean personhood rather than humanity
Something which is not human now cannot become human later, that is either a biological or medical law I cant remember which
So to tell her that she did have a human being inside of her would be medically accurate, whether or not it is a person is what must be argued but people are allowed to use terminology which confuses people. I do not think that is fair. There needs to be set definitions made for various terms related to pregnancy and abortion and the doctor needs to make sure the patient understands the terms as they are using them.

The problem with looking at this case is with the fact that we cant know what was going through the womans head and what she actually knew or understood.
However, the fact that the verdict of the case could be used as a basis for other cases is what scares me. What kind of terminology will people be allowed to use to make people think that getting an abortion is alright? Can they say that all that a fetus or embryo is is blood? If so, at what point is it no longer blood? Same with tissue. How long can the fetus or embryo be described with a term that could be misleading to the average person?
This case is about more than just the woman although I do feel the doctor may have let her down, I dont know.

[Seshat]

it seems she knew she would be having a baby but somehow thought that what was inside of her was not human yet and would become so later, which medically speaking is impossible, yet it is what the wording allows people to say as it is used to mean personhood rather than humanity

Whether an embryo is already a human/a person, or will become so, is a philosophical or religious issue, not a medical one. An embryo is living human tissue - and in fact, so are the ovum and the sperm. So is my finger.

A doctor should not sway a patient's mind in philosophical or religious matters. All the doctor can say is something along the lines of 'this is an eight week embryo, it has lost its tail, and is starting to develop organ, muscle and nerve function'.


Something which is not human now cannot become human later, that is either a biological or medical law I cant remember which

The cow tissue I ate last night for dinner was not human then, but will become human. Same with the corn chips I'm eating now.

But a cow embryo cannot become a human embryo.


So to tell her that she did have a human being inside of her would be medically accurate, whether or not it is a person is what must be argued but people are allowed to use terminology which confuses people.

Heck, I wouldn't call it a human being. I would call it a human embryo, or a human foetus, or even a human baby. I'd also call it human tissue. But to me, it's not a person yet, and not a human being. I acknowledge that to many people, it is. But to me, it's not.


I do not think that is fair. There needs to be set definitions made for various terms related to pregnancy and abortion and the doctor needs to make sure the patient understands the terms as they are using them.

There are. Gamete. Embryo. Foetus. Baby.

But the doctor is not qualified to say whether the potential human is a 'person' or not. That's an issue that's puzzled philosophers, religious people and ethicists.

In the absence of humankind actually knowing, the parents have to be the ones to decide whether the embryo is a 'person' or not.


However, the fact that the verdict of the case could be used as a basis for other cases is what scares me. What kind of terminology will people be allowed to use to make people think that getting an abortion is alright?

That's not what the medical community or the pro-choice community wants. (Except for a few extremists - we have fanatics on our side too.)

What we want is for the doctors to be allowed to stand aside and let the patient make up her own mind. If she wants to talk to her priest - GREAT! Good. Wonderful. The point of personhood is a matter for religious, ethical and philosophical debate. She SHOULD be consulting her priest. Or rabbi, or imam, or philosophy professor, or whoever she wants to consult.


Can they say that all that a fetus or embryo is blood? If so, at what point is it no longer blood?

No. It's not blood.

Same with tissue.

They can say it's tissue. They would be considered to be conducting malpractice if they let the patient think of it as 'mere' tissue, or 'just' tissue, without the understanding that this particular tissue is an embryo.

And before you jump up and down and say 'that's what Acuna thought!', I remind you that she herself said she knew that 'without [intervention], a child would be born'.

I now realise that I haven't read anything that specifically says she knew that 'termination of pregnancy' constituted intervening in a pregnancy - but geez, you'd have to be very ignorant to not realise that, wouldn't you?

How long can the fetus or embryo be described with a term that could be misleading to the average person?

Like 'foetus' or 'embryo'?

Pregnancy magazines. Pregnancy books. Pregnancy websites. Pregnancy programs. I can't turn around in this culture (Aussieland, not USA) without seeing lots and lots of information about what pregnancy is, and what a foetus is, and what an embryo is, and what stages of development there are.

There's so much information out there, in our faces, about 'when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much'. And that information uses the same terms doctors use.

There are only two issues I consider to be of importance in this case:

1. Did the doctor say the stupid, incorrect and malpractice-valid phrase 'don't be stupid, it's only blood'?
If so - he sucks, he should be slapped down hard, the patient should get some compensation for being ignorant enough to believe him.

2. Should the doctor make ethical decisions for the patient?
NO! No way, no how, no never, bloody hell no!


Hm. I'll grant a potential third issue:

3. Should patients be better informed than they are?
If Acuna is typical, yes. She should have been sat down with a sensible midwife and told the facts of life. Preferably before she had her first child. Or she should have picked up a pregnancy magazine, or read a pregnancy website, or watched Discovery Channel, or something.

[AFPheonix]

AFPheonix, it doesn't matter if she knows what it looks like on the inside or not. You can't see the inside of a woman without special tools which she obviously doesn't have. The doctor was totally guilty of malpractice, and once again, the legal system proves to be about as helpful as a big pile of crap. Except that'd be degrading to the crap.

How is this different from a doctor finding out a patient has cancer and decides to tell the patient they are perfectly healthy? It's not. It's telling lies, pure and simple.

The doctor performed an ultrasound. So yes, she DID see what was inside of her. She bloody signed a consent form in which she acknowledged that she understood what was going to happen. If at any point she wasn't sure what was going to happen, it was entirely her responsibility to find out. And the cancer thing is not at all a parallel to this. The doctor did not lie about what was going on in her body, he told her straight up she was pregnant. SHE was the one that brought up the idea of aborting it, not him.
If anything, the doctor could be accused of poor bedside manner. The "it's only blood inside" comment is still only ALLEGED. The doctor does not confirm that that was the language he used. Malpractice is not a valid charge here, as he completed the exam and abortion without incident.

[Greenday]

Alright, well, from the first one, the only thing I see from it is the doctor telling the woman that there's only blood in there. I didn't see anything about an ultrasound or any such thing.

[Seshat]

Alright, well, from the first one, the only thing I see from it is the doctor telling the woman that there's only blood in there. I didn't see anything about an ultrasound or any such thing.

In the second one, she acknowledges that she knew she was pregnant, and that she knew that pregnant = baby on the way.

The second link says, in many places, that she's suing because the doctor didn't say that she had 'an existing, living human being' in her. That's it. She knew she was pregnant, she knew she was growing a baby.

To go back to the 'plants and seeds' argument from earlier in the thread: it's like she'd planted a seed, gone back and knowingly pulled out the germinating seed, then been surprised when she didn't get a plant.
'It was only a seed! I didn't know that removing the seed would stop the plant from growing! Someone should have told me there was an existing living tree in the soil!'

[Ryu]

I dont think the issue is that she thought she would still be pregnant but when complications arose and she was told there were still parts of the embryo inside of her she somehow didnt realize that it was an entire embryo as opposed to just blood or just a blob of tissue. So when she was told there was still parts of the embryo in her she didnt know how that could be based on what the doctor said.
She is obviously poorly informed or something but that doesnt mean the doctor shouldnt have ensured she knew that what was in her was an embryo.

[AFPheonix]

For starters, that 1st article is a very slanted opinion piece.

Thing 2, how could she NOT know that she had an embryo in there? It's not like her previous 2 kids showed up under a cabbage leaf.

[Seshat]

She is obviously poorly informed or something but that doesnt mean the doctor shouldnt have ensured she knew that what was in her was an embryo.

Since we don't know the details of this case, I'll take this to a more generic case.

You're familiar with customer service. You know how a sizable percentage of customers don't read signs. Or pamphlets. Or listen to CS staff explain things.

Do you honestly think that customers change just because they're in a doctor's office? A doctor could hit them on the head with one of those big 'stages of development in pregnancy charts', hold it in front of their faces and say 'this, this is what's inside you', and still a lot of people will say 'waah waah they never told me'.

Doctors have a duty of care. A doctor who does an abortion without having attempted to have the patient understand, is negligent. But a doctor does his part when he gives the patient a pamphlet on pregnancy, shows them a chart, explains the chart and the pamphlet, sends them to a midwife/obstetrics nurse/qualified counselling service/whatever, and recommends they discuss the matter with their priest/rabbi/ethicist/friends/'when is an embryo a living person'-ethics-counsellor of choice.

Patients have a duty too. They have a duty to say 'I understand', 'I'd like more information' or 'I don't understand' and be accurate when they say it. They have a duty to listen when they're told this stuff, and to try to understand it. They have a duty to make their own moral/ethical decisions, and suck up the consequences of those decisions once they've made them.

Unfortunately, these patients are the same customers who claim they understand 'all sales final' or 'returns must have a receipt', buy the stuff, then come back and say 'noone told me!'

[rahmota]

Okay coming into this one very late term....I'll give my opinion on this one and then eject.:p

It should remain legal as the fetus is not a baby until it can exist outside the body of the mother. until then it is in all senses of the word a parasite dependent upon the host(mother's) body for all (Repeat ALL) life support. Remove it early and it will not be able to exist on its own. Remove it early enough and it is not even a fetus but a lump of cellular tissue not unlike a blister on your toe. Yes it may be a potential sentient lifeform but until that potential is realized it is not. This is of course leaving all emotions/religion/belief structure out of the situation and looking at it from a strictly biological standpoint. Sorry if that sounds so cold but its the reality truth that a lot of people dont want to accept or look at or consider.

I do think that casual abortions as a form of birth control should be discouraged very strongly and more and better alternatives be put into place. But society doesnt want to bear the cost of those sorts of things. Too bad because better sex education, access to birth control and counselling for responsible sexual practices would probably help reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies and reduce the amount of welfare children around. So which in the long run would be more economical?

Just some thoughts.

[blas87]

If those who insist on doing damage to abortion clincs, aka, taking lives to save lives, if more of those people were more willing to offer health care for these babies that they fought so hard to abolish the right to an abortion for, I'd understand the pro-life point of view a bit better.

I consider pro-choice as being a CHOICE. You are not that poor little 16 year old girl who was raped and is now pregnant. You are not the girl whose boyfriend just ran for the hills when he found out he is going to be a father. You have no idea how this person may feel. You cannot speak for God. You cannot say what God forbids and what God allows.

We as women fought for this right for how many years? And people just want to take this right away? Ok, take them all away then.

Take away the right to have an abortion, and you'll still see top secret clinics and unlicensed people with dirty knives and folding tables performing abortions. Do you people want women resorting to such measures just because their right was taken away?

[Lace Neil Singer]

What about those of us who don't want a pregnancy? Even the best pregnancy, with no complications, leaves the body permanently changed. Pregnancy is not a trivial thing.

I agree. I am not physically, mentally or financially able to have a child. I also worked hard to overcome my eating disorder and depression, and refuse to jepordise all that. I am not maternal at all. I like children once they have reached the age where they can converse, but not when they're screaming, vomiting and pooping everywhere. I like to be able to spontaniously jump on the bike and shoot down to Brighten, take a train to London, or just stay out til 4am if I want to. Finally, I like being able to spend my spare money on me, myself and I.

My boyf feels exactly the same as me. If I got pregnant, he'd draw out the money to pay for an instant abortion. We've only had one scare (I'm on the pill and he always uses a condom) when the condom split; we rushed to the chemist to get the morning after pill. Whether it was a false alarm or if the morning after pill did its job, I don't know; but it worked.

I'd love to get sterilised, however I am not 30 yet and no doctor will ever sterilise a woman under 30 over here, cuz they think we might change our mind later. :rolleyes: Even over 30s still get that crap. If I did, I'd prefer to adopt, maybe an AS kid so we can be on the same wavelength. I have no desire at all to have babies.

[tendomentis]

I believe a woman has the right over her own body, but without getting to "Merchant of Venice" about the issue, the fetus is not part of her body. It is, in fact, a separate organism with its own DNA. It may be utterly dependant on the woman's body for the first 9 months or so, but it is still its own organism.

So, the woman can do whatever she wants to her own body, but if it terminates another organism with DNA that identifies that organism as belonging to the human species, I can't understand why that wouldn't be considered murder of a human in the same way that I am entitled to do what I want with my own body, but if I use my hand to brutally impact another human's skull until they are terminated it is considered murder. To say that being considered a human being is dependant on your cognitive abilities would classify extremely mentally retarded human adults as no longer human (as some newborns are born with a greater cognitive ability than the most extreme cases of mental retardation).

One could argue that a 3 day old fetus, while having its own DNA does not posess any mind at all is to set a bar that no human may be truly qualified to set. A human couldn't be completely objective in making that qualification as we are biased by the very nature that we are using our supposed intelligence to make that determination to begin with. Only an entity whose intelligence is not based on the presence or absence of neural tissue would be qualified to make that determination.

At the same time, one of my biggest rants is the critical situation of overpopulation by the human species, so I'm all for the next two generations being limited to one child per couple.

I just can't understand the mentality that would allow convicted murderers to live, humans who have knowingly and willingly taken away another organism's ability to live, but disallow a human entity to be allowed the opportunity to continue living once the process of life has already been initiated. So I see being pro-choice and anti-death penalty as a somewhat hypocritical standpoint.

[Seshat]

It may be utterly dependant on the woman's body for the first 9 months or so, but it is still its own organism.

So is a bacterium, a virus, and a mosquito.


To say that being considered a human being is dependant on your cognitive abilities would classify extremely mentally retarded human adults as no longer human.


How about to 'ability to survive independent of the mother'?


I just can't understand the mentality that would allow convicted murderers to live, humans who have knowingly and willingly taken away another organism's ability to live, but disallow a human entity to be allowed the opportunity to continue living once the process of life has already been initiated.


If you read earlier in this thread, you'll see that I consider 'personhood' to appear at some nebulous and unknowable-to-science point between conception and the stage in which an infant displays a distinct personality. Science is unable to answer questions such as that - there is no way to apply scientific method to the question.

Since science can't answer it, I consider the question of where in that continuum personhood appears to be a matter for religious and philosophical debate. So far, the best religious, theological and philosophical minds humanity has, have not been able to come to a consensus agreement on that issue.

Since the experts do not agree, I believe that whether an embryo/foetus is an independent person is a decision to be made by the parents and their ethical advisor, and not by doctors or lawyers.

That is why I'm pro-choice.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'm all for the next two generations being limited to one child per couple.


Agreed. IMO China has the right idea, but they're going about it the wrong way in that they *mandate* abortion for anyone going over the limit - which takes away all choice. Forced abortion is as bad as forced breeding.

I see being pro-choice and anti-death penalty as a somewhat hypocritical standpoint.

Not necessarily. The reason many pro-choice people are also anti-death penalty is because there are instances, they say, where the penalty has been found to be applied inequally (i.e., singling out one race/class moreso than others for the specific reason of race/class).

Myself, I personally have no problem with the death penalty - at least, for cases where it's proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that the accused did it. In that case I can't say that I would feel too badly about some scumbag frying in the chair or whathaveyou for having committed some terrible crime and is pretty much unredeemable (religion aside) and incapable of any rehabilitation, and will pose a direct threat to society if allowed even paroled freedom (Google William Pettit in Connecticut; that horrible crime was committed by parolees). Good riddance to bad rubbish, as far as I'm concerned.

[tendomentis]

Agreed. IMO China has the right idea, but they're going about it the wrong way in that they *mandate* abortion for anyone going over the limit - which takes away all choice. Forced abortion is as bad as forced breeding.

A topic I've done a lot of thinking on... I would imagine a system whereby a couple only can count one child as a tax deduction would work better in the USA. Any more children than the one would not be able to be used as a tax deduction (families with more than one child at the enactment of said law to be exempt of course).

Personally, I believe bettering a population can be done just as effectively with "personal benefit incentives" as with state-mandated requirements, and will generally keep the overall population better contented than using state-mandated requirements. In this case, a couple who restricts themselves to one child benefits more financially than couples who decide to have two or more children. Having more than one child hasn't been made illegal, but such a law would make it less beneficial to have a large family.

To the best of my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect), there are no religious or medical mandates that would require a couple to have more than one child, and if this is true there would be little to create legitimate opposition to this kind of legislation.

[Rapscallion]

To the best of my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect), there are no religious or medical mandates that would require a couple to have more than one child,

I believe there's something in the tenets of most religions to say that the adherents should 'go forth and multiply'.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Tendo:To the best of my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect), there are no religious or medical mandates that would require a couple to have more than one child

Look up the "Quiverfull Movement". They are a religious group who take the be fruitful and multiply concept literally. Their biggest best known family is the Duggars of Arkansas with 17 kids.

[DesignFox]

I believe in a woman's right to choose.

Mostly, I believe that keeping abortion legal is necessary to keep women from stuffing unwanted babies in garbage cans or resorting to unlicensed back-alley abortionists.

Not to mention what happens when you force a woman to carry/attempt to care for a baby she doesn't want or can't afford. Then you run into all sorts of horrible possibilities for the youngster from birth defects to nutrition problems...etc.

Oh, and the wonderful burden that pregnant mothers who can't afford health care puts on the rest of society...IF they can even QUALIFY for medical assistance to begin with.

I could go on...but I think most of the points I would make have already been made.

[tendomentis]

Tendo:

Look up the "Quiverfull Movement". They are a religious group who take the be fruitful and multiply concept literally. Their biggest best known family is the Duggars of Arkansas with 17 kids.

Well, obviously. I'm aware of the "be fruitful and multiply" mandate, but my reasoning was that no mandate exists that would allow people an exemption to the one child rule on religious grounds.

As it would likely be interpreted from a legal standpoint, the mandate to "multiply" doesn't specify by what number to multiply against :)

I.e., the mandate could still be observed by only multiplying by one. Is it what the observers of that mandate would assume that means? Probably not, but as it was never specified, observers of that mandate would have no legal ground to challenge the one child rule.

[Greenday]

Even if the government tries to enforce a 1 child per family rule (which I wouldn't mind seeing), God knows how many people will claim this is against the freedom of religion.

[tendomentis]

Even if the government tries to enforce a 1 child per family rule (which I wouldn't mind seeing), God knows how many people will claim this is against the freedom of religion.

The government wouldn't be able to force couples to restrict themselves to one child without violating various human rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union would have a field day with it if they tried.

If you read my earlier post, you would understand that the "one child law" would only go so far as to limit tax credits that parents receive to one child and one child only. The couple would be free to have more than one child, but they would no longer receive tax credits for the other children as they do now, thereby giving an INCENTIVE to couples to keep to only one child.

Many (not all) large families in the USA have as many children as they do specifically to take advantage of the tax credits afforded by having many children to claim as a tax deduction (particularly lower income households). From a fiscal standpoint, the tax credits received from having multiple children could outweigh the minimum financial requirements of actually having that many children to care for......which is why we have so many large families in the USA where the children exist in a perpetual state of neglect.

This particular "one child law" applies only to tax credits, and only exists to offer families with one child more of an incentive to stay small as opposed to the current system (which is essentially the antithesis).

I don't have the links to the studies to back up my comments here at work, but a quick google should provide you the necessary references.

[AFPheonix]

While our current fertility rates are at their highest since 1970, they're still only at ~2.13 births per woman. Not very high at all. In fact, if there had been no incoming immigration in this country since 1990, our population would have actually declined.
It's not really the US or the rest of the 1st world that's contributing to overpopulation. It's countries who are coming out of the third world that are experiencing lower infant mortality, but still haven't quite figured out that they don't need to have three gazillion children in the hopes that a few make it past childhood.

[tendomentis]

While our current fertility rates are at their highest since 1970, they're still only at ~2.13 births per woman. Not very high at all. In fact, if there had been no incoming immigration in this country since 1990, our population would have actually declined.
It's not really the US or the rest of the 1st world that's contributing to overpopulation. It's countries who are coming out of the third world that are experiencing lower infant mortality, but still haven't quite figured out that they don't need to have three gazillion children in the hopes that a few make it past childhood.

I'm sure it wasn't always as bad in China as it is now either. It would set a good example, and demonstrate a possible move towards more forward thinking on the part of the United States (something we as a nation generally lack). Would it make a huge dent in and of itself on the overpopulation problem? Not so much.

But if other nations followed suit, it would. And that's the point.

[Seshat]

To the best of my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect), there are no religious or medical mandates that would require a couple to have more than one child, and if this is true there would be little to create legitimate opposition to this kind of legislation.

I believe there are. There are certainly cultural reasons: many cultures view the number of children a man sires to be a mark of his masculinity.

The Roman Catholic Church has an injunction against contraception. I've never fully understood the Pope's reasoning there, but the injunction exists.

Islam has limits on when contraception is permissible. Again, don't ask me for details - I just did a quick Google search and double-checked my results on several sites. It looks like the interpretations of Sharia law may vary depending on which school of Islamic thought you're working from.

The Mormons encourage large families, and while contraception is permissible, it's a religious duty to have many children.

There are probably other religions where it's a religious duty to have multiple children. I only researched the ones that came to mind immediately.

[tendomentis]

And, AGAIN, this change in policy would not prevent people who felt it was their duty from having more children, it would only remove the tax credit rewarding system that currently awards those (IMHO selfish) people with tax credits for doing so, thereby giving a financial incentive to keep families small.

It wouldn't make 1+ children/family illegal, just not as profitable as it is now.

[linguist]

are you honestly calling raising children profitable? a $1000 tax credit is nothing compared to what the average family spends yearly on raising a child. i know families who are spending that much or more every month just on child care, let alone all the other costs associated with raising children.

and what about multiple births? would your system penalize parents of twins (or triplets, etc.) since they'd be having more than one at one time?

[tendomentis]

As I said in an earlier post, SOME parents intentionally "pump out" as many children as they can to take advantage of welfare and tax deductions while essentially allowing their children to live in neglect, so in those cases they are doing it in the interest of profit.

I'm not making this up. Even in relatively upscale areas around DC, I know a handful of people personally who either are or know someone else who is doing this very thing.

Obviously, if a woman is naturally having (stress NATURALLY, taking fertility drugs to increase the chance of multiple births shouldn't apply) multiple children in one pregnancy, that couple would be exempt for the +1 children as a result of that pregnancy if one of the children in that birth was that couple's first child. This could be easily proven via medical records.

Just as individuals must have proof of other tax deductions, they would have to have the medical records to prove that the other children were the result of a single pregnancy. Easy as sleep.

Turning a blind eye to the population problem is just another example of the "boiling frog" mentality that humans in 1st world nations tend to exercise in issues like this. This would START to correct this inescapable issue before it becomes a larger problem. In past human civilizations, overpopulation of some cultures lead to resource wars and resulted in more deaths and damage.

[rahmota]

Well to jump in I'll say that your plan might complicate the tax laws quite a bit more than they already are. One reason a nice simple flat tax would be the best as it wouldnt "reward" people for haivng more kids.

Which to be perfectly honest I have never felt rewarded by having multiple kids. What tax relief I get for having more than one kid (which does have limits and strict requirements to get already) is spent/exceeded by the amount of upkeep and costs associated with the kids. To put it in strict business terms.

Kids have a daily maintenece drain on your resources. They (at least in America) do not contribute to the main income of the family until they are teenagers and then only for a few years before they become adults on their own and move out or whatever. And usually during the time they are working and living at home they are spending their moeny on themselves so at least the parent doesnt have to spend as much of their own on them, but the bad thing is teenagers have a whole nuther set of expenses too and usually big ones.

I'll agree that not paying attention to the population problem is not going to solve anything. However the solution is going to be somewhat complex and difficult to implement.

Seshat: One of the things about the roman catholics prohibitions against contraception that I've heard/read about the most is that it intereferes in the divine will of god to either impregnate or not the woman.

[tendomentis]

While you may take good care of your multiple children, I know many families where that isn't the case and the parents are using the children to bleed more money from welfare and claim the children as tax deductions. They contribute to the overpopulation just to profit, and the neglected children suffer.

I agree that the tax law would get complicated if any exceptions were allowed, but without the exceptions for natural multiple births, the new law would be unjust as natural multiple births aren't planned and are more or less a product of chance. If progress was easy, we would have already done it.

[DesignFox]

I don't really see a tax break or lack there-of doing anything to offset the problem with population.

People who want a bazillion children are going to go forth and multiply. That's just the way it is. The groups I notice who typically breed like rabbits, aren't always the most well-off. I don't think taking away the tax-break will stop them from breeding; I think it will just hurt them more because they will have an even harder time financially. Children are a huge drain on resources. I watch some of these moms do the absolute best they can for their kids, and I see others who are obviously struggling and shouldn't have those kids. I simply cannot see how they are making any sort of profit out of the tax break.

I think another big problem has already been mentioned- cultural or religious upbringing. It is engrained in some people's minds that they HAVE to have large numbers of children, or else they aren't being a good [insert religious/culture type] here.

So, I don't see taking away a tax break keeping those types of people from having more children- they will only feel punished by our government for being a "good" [insert religion/culture]. And their children will only suffer further.

The United States is too culturally and religiously diverse to enact any such limitations. Unless we have a clear cut crisis like China, you'll be hard pressed to convince some groups of people that they should be limiting the size of their families.

[tendomentis]

It doesn't speak well for the United States if nothing will be done about a population crisis until the situation is critical.

What I'm proposing would slowly start to turn the reigning mentality of "have as many children as you can" to a more efficient and responsible mentality. No, it wouldn't happen overnight, and no it wouldn't work on everyone, but it would little by little make a difference, especially if other nations started enacting similar policies.

It's preferable to waiting until the situation is critical and then using state sponsored abortion and penalization of the parents to accomplish the same end result, at least in my opinion.

[DesignFox]

It would be preferable. But I don't see it happening.

[Seshat]

What I'm proposing would slowly start to turn the reigning mentality of "have as many children as you can" to a more efficient and responsible mentality. No, it wouldn't happen overnight, and no it wouldn't work on everyone, but it would little by little make a difference, especially if other nations started enacting similar policies.

Cultural, rather than financial, change is what's needed. I know you're trying to make a cultural change through financial means, but there are people using art and religion to make a cultural change through other means. Some of them are having great success, especially in the third world.

There are small but growing areas of the third world where the women now have the right to insist on their husbands wearing a condom, and where there are trained maternity and pediatric nurses improving the child mortality figures. (One of the cultural pressures for having multiple children is high child mortality - having many kids increases the chance of child survival. Reduce child mortality and you reduce the pressure to have many kids.)

The problem with using financial means is that it increases the stress on already-poor families who are genuinely trying to raise their children properly. Yes, it reduces the incentives for the people who do use children as a form of income, but it penalises those who are making a real effort.

[AFPheonix]

And furthermore, it will have an economic effect as the total population of the US grows older, since there will be fewer young people to assist with monetary care of the old.
The US needs to set a better example to the world not by totally undercutting our ability to take care of our elders later on, but perhaps by doing a better job with developing nations who have a higher birth rate.
Hell, the US could set a great example by instituting decent sex ed in schools and promoting condom and contraceptive use better amongst its citizens, and helping to spread the message and the materials abroad.

[Boozy]

The US birth rate hit an all-time low in 2002 (the last year for which statistics are available). It has been declining steadily for 12 years.

Population growth may indeed become a problem for the US. Should the rate of growth become negative (as it has in many areas of Canada), incentives to have more than one child may become necessary. Especially given the attitude the US currently has towards immigration.

Population growth control is not necessary in most industrialized nations. Modernization and access to education naturally lowers birth rates.

[Rubystars]

Unfortunately, that gleeful day when safe, effective, inexpensive, totally reversible contraception is universally available is not here yet.

With the exception of rape, it's called keeping your legs closed.

As for rape, murder is worse.

[rahmota]

Tendo said:While you may take good care of your multiple children, I know many families where that isn't the case and the parents are using the children to bleed more money from welfare and claim the children as tax deductions.

Well thank you I try with the help of the wife. And yes I know a few families that are not as functional as us as well.

The thing I am having trouble wrapping aroud is where you are getting the concept that people are making money on their children from welfare or tax credits.

I've done my own taxes for 10 years running and the tax code only lets you claim two children for the Earned income credit. Which if you're not working or no have taxable income you cant claim. The tax credit only allows you to reduce your tax debt, which if a person is on welfare or makes too little money doesnt exactly help. And the other credit thign (I forget the exact name of it) doent exactly give you an abundance of money for the kids.

Welfare itself I'm not as familiar with the current rules but I do know that changing the rules would as has been stated make it hard on those families who are not plush with money or employed in spectacular jobs and are trying to get by as best they can to simply survive.

With the exception of rape, it's called keeping your legs closed.
For those who believe that way. For others who want to enjoy their life and the deities gift to humanity then safe reliable contraception is a good thing. If we can put a man on the moon why cant we keep a sperm out of the womb?

[Seshat]

With the exception of rape, it's called keeping your legs closed.

So are you suggesting that my husband and I (yes, duly wedded in a church) should never consummate our marriage?

I don't believe that abstinence is the answer. Nor do I believe that non-penetrative sex where everyone keeps a close eye on where any semen goes, is the answer.

Yes, it can be successful at preventing a pregnancy - but denying one of the great pleasures and one of the great bonding experiences of life is not, in my opinion, a suitable solution.

As for rape, murder is worse.

1. Whether abortion is murder is an unproven question. As repeatedly stated in this debate, the issue of when an embryo/foetus is a separate person is unproven and probably unproveable, therefore I believe the question of whether to abort or not should be up to the parents and their ethical advisor of choice.

2. I, quite seriously, would rather be killed than made pregnant. Forcing me to carry the pregnancy would traumatise me. The child would have dreadful genetics and unless he/she lucked out amazingly, would be up for a life of pain and misery.
Forcing me to continue a pregnancy would doom two people (me and the child) to a great deal of pain and probable depression and trauma. Those who loved us would be doomed to support us through the pain and trauma, and watch us suffer. Killing me would just cause our loved ones a grief that would eventually pass.

So no, I disagree with the premise that murder is always worse than rape. I also disagree with the implied premise that abortion is murder.

[AFPheonix]

With the exception of rape, it's called keeping your legs closed.


Well, you're just no fun :p

[Rubystars]

For those who believe that way. For others who want to enjoy their life and the deities gift to humanity then safe reliable contraception is a good thing. If we can put a man on the moon why cant we keep a sperm out of the womb?

I agree with contraception too. The current methods are extremely effective, and if you layer them with a condom, the minute failure rate of both methods is not likely to overlap.

[rahmota]

Rubystars: Ahh ok. The way your comment was phrased made it sound like abstinence ws the only opttion you favored.

Also i would have to say that rape can be a much more horrible and horrendous crime for the victim and those aroud them than mere murder. All they can do when they murder someone is kill them. Stop their life and send them to whatever waits on the otherside.

With rape ther person can re-live it over and over for the rest of their lives, be unable to function in normal relationships, receive unpleasant diseases, be impregnanted with demon spawn, destroy their living world, etc....

So in many ways a rapist is a much more vicious criminal than a cold blooded killer. And no I do not equate or relate or believe abortion to be murder. Like I said before its not a person yet at the time periods most abortions take place.

[TennesseeWhiskey]

The way I see it, it's between me, my conscience, and my doctor. After all, it'd be my body going through hell with pregnancy. We won't even go there about having it. :eek: Until someone can come up with a reason a little more valid than "my religion says it's wrong", or all this codswallop about "it's a baby" when it ain't no bigger than the end of my fingernail and can't survive without its host, they can hush and mind their own business.

If more of these "pro life" people would put their money where their mouths are, fine, they're entitled to their opinions, and y'all know what they say 'bout opinions don'tcha? :D Like a previous poster said, they're pro life til it's born, then it's "good luck, don't ask me for shit"

I have no more business having a kid than I would jumping into the cockpit of an airplane and trying to fly that bad boy, knowing I've never even been in an airplane for fuck's sake!

When people have asked about the "biological clock" I just say, yup, mine's been flashing 12:00 from the git-go, that sucker's broken.

Oh yeah, you can have really good sex with your legs closed, just takes a little flexibility....:p

[Sylvia727]

Alright, couple of things I want to address here. Firstly, I'm going back to the OP and explaining this from "the other side". But I'm not affliated with any political party so please confine labels to things I actually am. :) For lack of a better word, "baby" means everything between egg and infant. I will try to remove inflammatory words from my writing, but if I do include a word choice that you feel is unnecessarily judgemental, please suggest a more value-neutral option. It's difficult to remove our biases completely, and I want to engage in a civil debate instead of starting a flamewar.

And Seshat, I agree with everything you said about the ideal birth control. You lost me at abortion, but in the perfect society abortion would never need to be addressed, because no unwanted babies would ever be conceived.

Humanity has not and possibly cannot know when or how personhood is bestowed or gained by the baby. I absolutely agree with this. However, the assumption I have trouble with is that each woman can somehow know when personhood is for her baby, perhaps by consulting a priest or a relative. Hypothetically, let's say that personhood is acheived at 6 months pregnant. The woman who guesses that her 5 month baby isn't a person and the woman who guesses that her 7 month baby isn't a person used the same method. Neither had information or intuition that wasn't available to the other. But the woman who guessed right is carefree while the woman who guessed wrong has just killed an innocent person. It is because we cannot know where the line is drawn that abortions should not be performed.

Hypocritically, I support birth control. Any pill works by making the uterus a hostile home for the newly fertilized egg, so the baby gets flushed with the period. I realize fully that this policy violates my previous argument, but I honestly can't see a better policy. Without birth control, the only other method is abstinance, and while that is a valid choice it shouldn't be the only one. That being said, my personal line is implantation. Once the little egg grabs on to the womb, it's an embryo, and I don't think that it should be terminated at that stage. The devil is in the details; before implantation, I just tell the egg, "sorry, move along" but afterwards more invasive and violent steps are necessary to end the pregnancy.

"Pro-life until birth" is a fair summary of many people, but I'm not one of them. Our entire society needs to be overhauled, and the treatment of low-income mothers and children is just one of many problems we face. I support war only as a last-ditch effort to defend one's country. While the death penalty may be moral in a utopeian society, our legal system is quite frankly educated guesswork and that's simply not good enough. These opinions don't have any specific relevance to the topic of abortion, but I just wanted to point out that I am pro-life in many or all aspects.

I don't consider abortion as a medical necessity to be abortion in the traditional sense of the word. It's a tragedy that a baby/potential person died, but I don't protest cancer. Diseases aren't moral, they're arbitrary. The woman in question chose between two people dying or one person dying and she made the smart choice. That doesn't justify the women who just want birth control.

In the case of rape, or indeed in any unanticipated pregnancy, abortion shouldn't be an issue because the morning-after pill is commercially available. If you're worried about the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy, grab one and keep it at home for emergencies. The government should also provide those to the general public either free or at severe discounts. That would just be a part of the updated healthcare system. The woman who forgets to take this pill would have to carry an unwanted baby to term, but that is why adoption is here (I know that system needs overhauling, too; honestly, we should just reboot the entire USA country). That sucks for her, but it also sucks for the woman who didn't look both ways and got hit by a car. Society can't protect you from everything, and you're not entitled to kill potential people just because fate screwed you over.

I hope I came across as polite and reasonable, please nudge me if I didn't.

[Seshat]

I hope I came across as polite and reasonable, please nudge me if I didn't.

You did to me. I shall attempt to be equally polite in my disagreements with you, which follow.


For lack of a better word, "baby" means everything between egg and infant.

I typically use embryo/foetus, but 'baby' works fine for me too.


And Seshat, I agree with everything you said about the ideal birth control. You lost me at abortion, but in the perfect society abortion would never need to be addressed, because no unwanted babies would ever be conceived.

I would prefer abortions to never be necessary. Most so-called 'pro-abortion' people are like me, and would prefer abortions to never be necessary. It's why we prefer to call ourselves 'pro-choice' than 'pro-abortion'. We'd very, very much prefer to find perfect contraception: safe, effective, affordable, reversible. It doesn't yet exist, but it's what we'd prefer.

Anecdotal evidence for current contraception being inadequate follows:

For medical reasons I can't use hormonal birth control. This limits me to the IUD, barrier methods, and ovulation-timing methods. The medical problems that prevent hormonal methods from working for me also screw up ovulation-timing methods, so strike that one. The diaphragm and cervical cap won't work for me, because the same medical problems cause too much weight fluctuation, so that limits me to the condom, the sponge (unreliable) and the IUD.
I've never had children, so the doctor who put my IUD in said it was quite possible my cervix would be too tight. I'm fortunate not to have a retrovert or bicornate uterus, which are also contraindications for an IUD. If the doctor hadn't been able to give me the IUD, I'd be limited to condoms or the unreliable sponge.


Humanity has not and possibly cannot know when or how personhood is bestowed or gained by the baby. I absolutely agree with this. However, the assumption I have trouble with is that each woman can somehow know when personhood is for her baby, perhaps by consulting a priest or a relative.

I apologise. I never intended to convey that women can somehow know it: i meant more that women should be deemed responsible enough to make their own ethical choices in an unknowable situation.


But the woman who guessed right is carefree while the woman who guessed wrong has just killed an innocent person. It is because we cannot know where the line is drawn that abortions should not be performed.

I agree with you up until the last sentence. My version is: "It is because mankind as a whole cannot know where the line is drawn that abortion should be an ethical decision between the parents, their God, and their ethical advisors of choice."

I don't consider myself to have any right to make that sort of decision for another capable adult; and being a capable adult, I don't feel that anyone else has the right to make such a decision for me.


That being said, my personal line is implantation. Once the little egg grabs on to the womb, it's an embryo, and I don't think that it should be terminated at that stage. The devil is in the details; before implantation, I just tell the egg, "sorry, move along" but afterwards more invasive and violent steps are necessary to end the pregnancy.

And that's fine - but my opinion is that because none of us can know where the line is, I feel that your personal line shouldn't be the deciding factor for my choice. Just as my personal line shouldn't be the deciding factor for your choice.

That's all I, and most sensible pro-choice people, ask. (The fanatics? Well, I'll ignore the fanatics on your side if you ignore the fanatics on mine. Deal?)


"Pro-life until birth" is a fair summary of many people, but I'm not one of them. Our entire society needs to be overhauled, and the treatment of low-income mothers and children is just one of many problems we face.

I respect that. I don't respect the people who are anti-abortion and yet snub women with children they can't care for properly. However, I can see (based on the quote above and the stuff I snipped) that you've thought things through and are attempting to be consistent. That is worth respect, regardless of whether we agree or disagree.


I don't consider abortion as a medical necessity to be abortion in the traditional sense of the word. It's a tragedy that a baby/potential person died, but I don't protest cancer. Diseases aren't moral, they're arbitrary. The woman in question chose between two people dying or one person dying and she made the smart choice. That doesn't justify the women who just want birth control.

Ah. Good. Thank you - that's a reasonable stance to take.


In the case of rape, or indeed in any unanticipated pregnancy, abortion shouldn't be an issue because the morning-after pill is commercially available.

. . . and is ineffective or dangerous for some women. Which isn't something most people know. But women who have endocrine disorders can have some extremely nasty side-effects from it.

I presume, though, that you'd be willing to consider that a 'medical necessity' exemption, now that you know about it. Am I right?


The woman who forgets to take this pill would have to carry an unwanted baby to term, but that is why adoption is here

What about women who have contraception that fails invisibly, and the first they know about the pregnancy is well beyond the 72-hour window of the morning after pill's effectiveness?

What about women who are raped, but because of social shame and stigma, or even because of the trauma of the situation, simply don't admit it to themselves or otherwise can't manage to get the pill before the 72-hour window is closed?

What about women who do take it, but for whom the morning-after pill fails?

Society can't protect you from everything, and you're not entitled to kill potential people just because fate screwed you over.

Not all abortions are because of irresponsibility. Some are, sure. But not all. I don't have any statistics on what percentage are and what percentage aren't.

I have another question for you. What about women like me, for whom pregnancy itself would be a hideous trauma? It's quite possible that I'd suicide rather than tolerating the pregnancy: I certainly wouldn't be healthy during and after it.

There's a lot of silence about that fear, but in the circles I move in, it's quite a common one. It's a phobia-level fear, and one we'd be unable to escape for nine months.

Pregnancy also has a permanent effect on a woman's body, and a not-insignificant risk of mutilation or even death. Should a woman be forced to endure permanent physical changes and potential death, just because your arbitrary line is in a different place from hers?

I and other pro-choicers think that women shouldn't be forced to endure phobic reactions, accept permanent physical changes, risk uterine prolapse or fistulas or other pregnancy-caused mutilations, or risk death, just because someone else has a different idea about when personhood begins than the woman herself does.


Over to you. Imagine I'm pregnant, and you're explaining to me - a phobic woman - why I should endure it. Have fun!

[AFPheonix]

Hypocritically, I support birth control. Any pill works by making the uterus a hostile home for the newly fertilized egg, so the baby gets flushed with the period. I realize fully that this policy violates my previous argument, but I honestly can't see a better policy.

Actually, hormonal birth control does not work in the manner you've described. Copper IUDs yes, the pill, patch, ring, and Mirena, no.
The latter work because they prevent you from releasing an egg in the first place.
This is also why Plan B is only effective for a short window after intercourse, not because it prevents implantation, but because it, as a double strength tri-cyclic, prevents you from ovulating. Once that egg is out there though, well, that's a problem for another day.

[Greenday]

And we can't forget people who do use birth control and condoms, and still somehow result in a pregnancy.

Let's say a girl who is in college uses birth control exactly as she is supposed to, and she has sex with a guy who uses a condom. She gets pregnant, despite doing everything in her power not to. Once that baby is born, college is pretty much over for her. So now, instead of finishing college, getting her degree, and getting a job in the field she desires, which could be very high paying, she's forced to have the kid(s) and she's going to be stuck going for a job she most likely won't like and most likely won't pay nearly as well as she would have if she finished college. And that's just her life. What about the guy she was with? He's a father now. It's his responsibility to help care for the kid(s). I know I couldn't afford to stay in college AND support a kid. Kids sure as hell aren't cheap. That's two lives, now completely messed up permanently, for the sake of one life. How fair is that?

[Amethyst Hunter]

In the case of rape, or indeed in any unanticipated pregnancy, abortion shouldn't be an issue because the morning-after pill is commercially available.


But not always easy to obtain - and that goes for *regular* birth control as well, thanks to the anti-choice crowd that wants to and continues to attempt to deny women ALL access to contraception in addition to abortion services. This is especially more likely to happen if one lives in a rural area where there may be only one pharmacy in all of 60 or more miles within that person's home.

Look up Pharmacists For Life. This is an anti-choice organization dedicated to denying women access to birth control (most notably, the Pill) because they wrongly equate it with abortion (which, as any legitimate doctor will tell you, is false). They make no exceptions for those women who may not be sexually active but who do take BC to regulate conditions like PCOS or irregular menstrual cycles (such as myself).

I have NO sympathy whatsoever for ANY medical 'professional' who goes into medicine knowing full well they intend to deny patients access to critical information and medications/services based on their own personal (and unproven) beliefs. If they have such a problem with those things, they don't belong in that particular field. Period. Those who refuse to do their jobs knowing what those jobs require of them should be fired on the spot, no sympathy.

The woman who forgets to take this pill would have to carry an unwanted baby to term, but that is why adoption is here


And that sentence just reduces a woman to nothing more than an incubator against her will.

The adoption system is broken in part because of all the BS red tape involved; hence why so many prospective adopting people head overseas. The foster homes and orphanages in this country (USA) are filled to the brim with some pretty sad and horrifying stories - I'm sure that those who work in childcare services and related fields could attest to that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adoption and if I was talking to a woman who found herself with an unwanted pregnancy that expressed hesitancy in making any decision regarding what to do about it, I'd ask that woman how she felt about adoption and help her find the related services she needed if she chose that route. But going back to the first half of the sentence, it still boils down to claiming a woman's body as property and overriding her choice as a free human being. That I do not and will never agree with. If a woman is going to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term in order to give it up for adoption, it has to be *her* decision, no one else's. Otherwise it means jack squat, because that woman will have been reduced to the role of subservient property. One is free to criticize another's choices all they want; they do not have the right to force or coerce another into acting as the first person believes they should.

This is, incidentally, also one of the reasons why there is such a strong anti-sterilization mentality and why it's so hard (mostly for women) to get sterilized: it's automatically assumed that all women want children and any female who goes against this grain is perceived to be somehow 'deficient'. A man who knows his own mind and who makes his own decisions is viewed as confident, smart and independent; a woman who behaves in the same way is judged as "a bitch" or "inconsiderate" or "a fool who doesn't know her own mind" who needs "to be taught a lesson/her place."

There is, after all, a reason why there's a joke about abortions being sacrament and abortion clinics as frequent as McDonald's if men had the ability to become pregnant.

you're not entitled to kill potential people just because fate screwed you over.


By that logic, then every single sperm and egg is by default a POTENTIAL PERSON - even though they aren't yet united. It's biologically impossible to fertilize and carry every single resulting one of those DNA bits to term, and humans simply weren't meant to do that.

Frankly, given the state of the world, I'm FAR more concerned with the people who are ALREADY HERE and existing, as opposed to a hypothetical or microscopic embryo that may or may not make it to term (miscarriage = abortion by nature's proxy). And I deeply resent anybody who would tell me that 1) my life is theologically worth less than a "potential person" that doesn't even exist or has been born yet, and 2) in the event of rape, hey, tough shit, the hell a victim went through and will have to endure *for the rest of her life* means nothing compared to making sure that a clump of cells gets a chance to grow into a fully developed baby that in all likelihood may permit the rapist to further wreak hell on the victim's life should that scumbag decide to turn around and claim father's rights (or worse, in some countries, *marry* the victim) just for sheer spite (and make no mistake, there ARE scum who would do exactly that).

I am not, nor do I have plans to be, sexually active. But I guarandamntee you that in the event of rape, I would be off to the nearest clinic in the blink of an eye, and failing that, I WOULD risk my life to get rid of any resulting pregnancy.

That's why many, many pro-choice people, including me, get so angry whenever these arguments are brought up. Why should OUR right to life be trumped by what is technically a parasite that cannot yet survive on its own outside the womb? (The whole partial-birth abortion is a misnomer and misleading: those types of abortions are very rarely performed and when they are, it's almost always because something went horribly wrong in the pregnancy and the fetus would not survive - this is a favorite red herring of the anti-choice groups)

One more thing. I don't remember the site I found it on a few years ago, but there was an interesting discussion regarding biblical doctrine and abortion. It was theorized that personhood (as is typically agreed upon by the current longstanding standard) is not conferred *until someone is physically born* (there was a verse about life being breathed into a body or a body taking its first worldly breath quoted). And though I'm the first to admit that I'm no biblical scholar by a long shot, I do believe I remember hearing that Jesus Christ Himself never said a *single* word specifically regarding abortion (or other certain hot topics) in the entire New Testament (and if you're using Christianity as your goalpost, then logically it follows that Christ's word is the final say on any matter of importance).

Ergo, if you're going by religion, one might logically infer that such sensitive decisions were best left to the people involved to sort it out with their God. Many pro-choice people (including myself) do believe in God. However, there are those of us who also believe that God, being God, knows each person as no one else can, and would understand each person's circumstances and why they chose to act however they did - and that includes abortion.

[tendomentis]

Well, this thread has been going on a while, and I am intrigued by points raised on both sides of the debate, but somewhere along the line this little bit of trivia gets either completely forgotton or subtlely occluded:

Intercourse, while utterly pleasurable, exists to continue the species by way of pregnancy. Like braces, eye-glasses, hearing-aids, prosthetic limbs, and the like, medical technology has afforded humanity an ability to "cheat" nature wherein we can siphon off the natural chemical reactions that accompany sexual intercourse that produce that natural euphoria (widely believed to have evolved in our ancestors to encourage the continuation of the species) without the "consequences". But, it is in all essence, a "hack".

And like any good modder will tell you, when you tweak or hack your machine you lose all rights to complain if it fails to work in the manner you want it to. You forfeit that right when you operate "outside the original system specs".

Obviously, one can't compare apples to pears (or kiwi's for that matter), but the same underlying principle holds true regardless of the context. While cheaters never prosper, neither can they complain when their cheating fails.

And, all "ethics" and "morality" aside, when approached from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, contraception is for all intents and purposes, cheating the system.

Now people will go back and forth on this issue to no end, but I just thought it was worth highlighting this little bit of often overlooked knowledge.

[Amethyst Hunter]

And, all "ethics" and "morality" aside, when approached from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, contraception is for all intents and purposes, cheating the system.



BC may 'tinker' with the internal system, but I would argue that this is, in general, overwhelmingly for the better rather than the worse for most females. Yes, there are some women who can't take things like the Pill, because every patient is different and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with certain health situations. For those of us who do use the Pill (and not always just for the intention of preventing unwanted pregnancy), it's a godsend.

Tinkering is not in itself a bad thing - if we didn't have such, we'd never have all the advances made in areas like mental illness, or physical limitations, or other topics. It's the intent behind the tinkering that can make the difference as to whether or not something turns out to be a 'good' or 'bad' thing.

For instance, I would support cloning of human organs, so that patients who need organ transplants could get one that much faster and stand a better chance of survival. (Currently it can take a while to get specific organs; patients have died waiting for necessary transplants) I would NOT, however, support cloning an entire human being, because it would not be the exact same person. Only the physical would be replicated; it would not be the same personality inhabiting the body, no matter how much tinkering was done to get as close a match as possible. (This includes animals as well; with the possible exception of cloning extinct or endangered species, the animal's personality wouldn't be the same as the original's.)

Ergo, I see nothing wrong with tinkering with one's reproductive system when the aim is twofold: 1) to prevent more unwanted children from being born (many of which are likely to land in an abusive environment, which I would argue is a far worse fate than that of never being conceived at all), and 2) to regulate an often problematic inconvenience that we now know isn't strictly necessary (i.e., having a period every single month for the entirety of one's life until menopause - which is a whole 'nother can of worms - sets in and dries the sucker up; constant periods can actually *increase* the risk of certain cancers, and the only reason women pre-Pill had fewer periods in their lifetimes was because they had little choice but to spend a good deal of those lives being stuck pregnant).

Incidentally, the 'tinkering' bit is used in the circular logic anti-choice crowds employ in attempting to deny women access to contraception: "It's against God's natural law to use contraception because you're messing with His creation!" If you go by the religion route, it's important to note that when God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply", He was talking to what were literally the only two human beings on the entire planet at that specific time. It was not meant to be a command for every single person on this planet. (There is also the possibility that being 'fruitful' can also refer to other instances like using one's talents in a constructive way)

[tendomentis]

Tinkering is not in itself a bad thing - if we didn't have such, we'd never have all the advances made in areas like mental illness, or physical limitations, or other topics. It's the intent behind the tinkering that can make the difference as to whether or not something turns out to be a 'good' or 'bad' thing.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say that tinkering is bad. I spend more time on the overclock.net forums than I do here, and I've OC'd and tweaked the $h!t out of my machine at home (damn near necessary if you want to play Crysis on any settings other than "slideshow of death"), so I completely agree with tweaking/hacking/cheating the system whenever possible.

My comment was addressing that when one circumvents the system, one is no longer entitled to complain about the consequences. In a perfect world, when a human (either gender) has intercourse, they should be willing to accept the biologically natural consequences of that action and if technology exists to allow circumvention of said natural consequences, that human could hardly complain when that "work-around" fails to work as effectively as advertised.

I know, it's not a perfect world, and that's why we have Walgreens :)

If you look at my earlier posts, you would find that I am heavily dead set against over-population and pro-population control, so I'm not against birth control at all, just against people acting like entitlement-brats, however unintentional it may be.

When it comes to abortion, I always try to think how it must or would look to a more evolved race observing our actions. They would observe us courting each other, then engaging in the natural act of procreation while implementing methods to prevent procreation. So, from that standpoint, I'm against abortion as much as I am against people intentionally trying to trip themselves as they walk around. It just seems counter-intuitive. I feel a small sense of shame for our species in general when I imagine the confusion of this hypothetical "more evolved" race while they wonder why if some humans don't wish to procreate why those humans would engage in the act of procreation to begin with. I'm not against it on any religious, moral, or ethical grounds.

[Boozy]

Procreation is in itself a biological urge for many people. But from an evolutionary standpoint, the urge to engage in the act of sexual intercourse is far more ingrained.

For over a million years, our ancestors did not say to themselves, "Gee, I'd like to have a baby so that I may pass along my genes." Instead, the instinct to have intercourse was the overriding impulse. Nature then took its course, babies would be born, and our genes would pass themselves along.

Developed nations have reached the point where it isn't necessary to have more than a few children to pass along our genes; most children survive beyond childhood in the West, and most go on to have children themselves.

But our bodies have not caught up. Our genes are still telling us to fuck like rabbits. Our genes want us to have lots and lots of sex so they can have lots and lots of copies of themselves.

Sex, as a result, is one of our strongest natural urges. I don't feel that any reaction to abortion or contraception issues that involves abstinence is particularly feasible, nor do I feel that it is particularly healthy.

[tendomentis]

I didn't say we should all be celibate, but perhaps I'm just not communicating my point very well (my bad).

Just because something is a "natural urge" doesn't make it conducive to an evolving society. Technically, the urge to kill a possible sexual competitor is in our genes as well, but somehow we keep that urge relatively suppressed. Eatiing is also a "natural urge", and giving that urge free reign leads to OVER-eating and poor health.

The point I'm trying (and clearly failing) to make is that I think more self control is needed over our "natural urges" in general.

Here's a valid example: people have a hard time resisting the urge to scratch or pick at their own healing wounds despite the fact that they would heal faster if they left them alone. It's the result of some function in our genes that clearly served a purpose at one point (and may still), but yielding to that urge at the wrong time yields negative results. The same could be said for sexual activity. But while humanity in general has evolved the insight to know that picking at your scabs is detrimental to the healing process (as well as simply disgusting), we haven't as a species developed the natural insight into voluntarily restraining our mating instincts (I say "as a species" because smaller groups of humans HAVE figured this out but not our species as a whole or even in majority). Instead of developing self control over THIS natural urge, we developed imperfect work-arounds.

[Greenday]

I'm just missing the point of why we shouldn't be able to have sex for fun. Everything doesn't exist for solely one purpose. Most things in life have many purposes. Why should sex ONLY be for one purpose alone, and that purpose be reproduction?

[tendomentis]

I'm just missing the point of why we shouldn't be able to have sex for fun. Everything doesn't exist for solely one purpose. Most things in life have many purposes. Why should sex ONLY be for one purpose alone, and that purpose be reproduction?

And small children ask why they can't stay up late or have another piece of candy or play with fireworks or play ball in the house. From their perspectives, what they want would genuinely be fun, but the people that know better (generally their parents) can restrain them from acting on their impulses until they develop their own impulse control.

There's a time and place for candy, fireworks, staying up late, and playing ball, but it isn't all the time and it's almost never always whenever a person wants it. The same is true with sexual activity, but most people upon reaching "adult-hood" slow or even stop the development of their own impulse control.

As a child I liked M&M's, and wanted them any chance I could get them. As an adult, I have the ability to fill an entire room in my house with M&M's if I gave in to that childhood impulse, but I don't. This doesn't mean I don't eat M&M's anymore, but the impulse to eat M&M's doesn't over-ride my control of that impulse.

So, I'm not saying sexual activity shouldn't be fun. Our biology is geared so that we enjoy it, but over-indulgence leads to negative effects (like unwanted pregnancies, rapid propogation of STD's, etc). Increased self-control over these impulses wouldn't eradicate such negative effects in their entirety, but it would diminish them.

[Seshat]

Actually, the desire to have intercourse is more of a bonding thing than a procreation thing. Yes, the purpose of that desire is procreation, but the desire is a social bonding tool.

Having sex satisfies a biological imperative, bonds the tribe together, and bonds the partners together. It also has a small chance of producing a child, many months later.

If the sole evolutionary purpose of sex was procreation, we'd be a species that goes 'into heat', not a species where determining whether a woman is fertile requires sensitive thermometers and mucous testing equipment.

I feel a small sense of shame for our species in general when I imagine the confusion of this hypothetical "more evolved" race while they wonder why if some humans don't wish to procreate why those humans would engage in the act of procreation to begin with.

Because intercourse is not solely for procreation, it has other purposes as well.

The point I'm trying (and clearly failing) to make is that I think more self control is needed over our "natural urges" in general.

And I say to you (a paraphrase of) what I said to someone else earlier in this forum: why should your opinions rule my behaviour? For that matter, why should my opinions rule your behaviour?

Oh, to some degree we need social conventions and rules. Rules for things like property ownership, assault, and such are part of keeping the tribe together. But I don't see any reason why your opinions should affect whether or not my husband and I have sex, nor how frequently. Nor do I see a reason why my opinions should affect whether you're celibate or not.

Asceticism is a valid philosophical position, but it's not my philosophical position. I'm for moderation, not asceticism.

[tendomentis]

And I say to you (a paraphrase of) what I said to someone else earlier in this forum: why should your opinions rule my behaviour? For that matter, why should my opinions rule your behaviour?

Oh, to some degree we need social conventions and rules. Rules for things like property ownership, assault, and such are part of keeping the tribe together. But I don't see any reason why your opinions should affect whether or not my husband and I have sex, nor how frequently. Nor do I see a reason why my opinions should affect whether you're celibate or not.

The oft-cited, false, and so called "omni-logical" point of view; that a particular viewpoint/opinion is as valid as all others. Unfortunately, to even hold to the omni-logical view, you have to break it simply by stating that your opinion that someone else's opinion shouldn't rule your behaviour is superior to a viewpoint that says otherwise. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. Subtle yes, but still profound.

From a strictly evolutionary point of view, the opinion of one (or the few) must dictate the actions of the many. If humanity had evolved giving all viewpoints equal validity, we would never have evolved into the pseudo-civilized species that we are presently (we likely would have died off en masse). Your "allowance" for social conventions is just more proof of that. Somewhere along the line, a minority of a group decided that killing off sexual competitors was "wrong" and enforced that viewpoint on a larger group of (likely) unwilling "lesser evolved" proto-humans. This change yielded positive results. That's called progress. Not all forced changes yield positive results, but in the course of our species' evolution we determine the best route to take through trial and error.

The majority of our species presently doesn't wish to use greater impulse control over our natural urge to procreate or engage in the act of procreation (which is what sexual activity is, despite your opinion that it is a social bonding function). The primary result of sexual intercourse is the expellation of sperm into a female for the purpose of reproduction. A secondary effect is the release of oxytocin which creates the "bonding effect" with the mating pair, but the largest release of oxytocin only occurs AFTER climax, thereby creating a biological incentive to complete the procreative act. One comes before the other (no pun intended, really).

Overuse of the procreative act for PURELY pleasurable reasons (and not procreation and pleasure) yields negative results as clearly demonstrated in our current society. In the end, as always, it will take a minority enforcing a new standard of increased impulse control to continue progress of our species, and in 10,000 years our descendants will look back at us with the same incredulity that we look at our ancestors who regarded killing off sexual competitors as perfectly natural.

That's evolution for ya'.

[AFPheonix]

No, actually Seshat is right on the money in that sex is used not just for procreation in our species. There's a reason why human females have a hidden estrus. If we were meant to have sex only for procreation, females would be more like dogs or other animals with a very obvious estrus cycle to indicate to males when the chance of conception is highest.
In our case, it is hypothesized that females developed the hidden estrus to help keep males coming back to her with food gifts in exchange for sex, especially since our young require a lot of resources for a long time.

I do appreciate where you're coming from, and I am pro-choice in order to accommodate opinions like yours. If you do not wish to have an abortion or use contraception, be my guest. If you choose to take advantage of a valid surgical procedure or partake of a valid drug regimen, well, that's all right by me, too.

[tendomentis]

No where am I saying that sex is ONLY for procreation, just as food isn't ONLY for nutrition. Eating food that tastes good releases endorphines that help act as a natural stress relief, but that effect is secondary to the primary objective which is nutrition.

The same condition exists for sex. The endorphines and oxytocin that are released during sex serve a purpose of their own, but it is secondary to the primary objective which is procreation. When we put more emphasis and importance on the secondary objective, it creates negative results.

In none of my posts have I said sex is ONLY for procreation, but our species is still so led by our biological urges that the majority can't see through their desire for sex to see the inefficiency of it when used for pleasure ONLY (just as using it for procreation ONLY isn't efficient either).

There isn't any harm in self regulation of our sex drive to use sexual activity for procreation and pleasure at the same time, just a general lack of desire to self regulate to that degree. Hopefully our species will evolve an ability to self regulate this natural urge like the others already under self regulation, but I don't expect it anywhere even close to within my lifetime.

When it comes down to it, the over-indulgence in sexual activity without any or a minimum of impulse control is a vestigial evolutionary trait of our species not unlike other more primatalogical traits that we share with bonobos. Most of our more recent evolutionary progress as a species came about from using our intellect to overcome our more animalistic urges, and this trait will be no different in the end.

I think I should be clear that I'm not brining any moral, ethical, or so called religious viewpoints into my statements. My point of view is based solely on what anthropological studies I've done.

[Greenday]

Ok, what if a boyfriend and a girlfriend, who plan to one day have babies, just not in the near future, have sex every now and then, but the girlfriend gets pregnant. The timing is horrible, because they are both young and in college, and can't afford a child at the time. The emotional trauma could be endless for them, especially for the woman, to carry the baby to term, and then give it away. Having an abortion would cause a lot less trauma for the parents, and the parents would be able to wait until they could actually support a child before having one.

[tendomentis]

Ok, what if a boyfriend and a girlfriend, who plan to one day have babies, just not in the near future, have sex every now and then, but the girlfriend gets pregnant. The timing is horrible, because they are both young and in college, and can't afford a child at the time. The emotional trauma could be endless for them, especially for the woman, to carry the baby to term, and then give it away. Having an abortion would cause a lot less trauma for the parents, and the parents would be able to wait until they could actually support a child before having one.

The problem could have been avoided entirely had they used a little more impulse control. The best solution targets the source of the problem, not the consequences, and as long as an "easy out" exists, no human would have an incentive to develop better control.

In the same way that an infant will never learn to walk if the mother carries it ALL the time, humanity won't be able to develop internal controls to target this problem if an artificial "get out of jail free card" exists. Our species won't evolve so long as we depend on technological crutches to get us out of trouble. Technology should be there to assist, not supplant our natural evolution.

So, in the case you present, the solution would be for the woman to carry the baby to a natural term (be it in a result of a viable birth or not). In the event of a viable birth, the parents would have the option to keep the child or to give it up for adoption. This is the risk they took when they engaged in a procreative act, and if they are adult enough to engage in sexual intercourse, they should also be adult enough to deal with the NATURAL results (this goes all the way back to my original post on cheaters not being eligible to complain). They may have hardship because of their decision and the ensuing results, but it also serves to teach that couple and others who might be in a similar situation (or just prior to beginning a sexual relationship) to re-evaluate sex and treat it with a little more respect.

That isn't meant to sound cold, I myself have been in this position before.

[Seshat]

The oft-cited, false, and so called "omni-logical" point of view; that a particular viewpoint/opinion is as valid as all others. Unfortunately, to even hold to the omni-logical view, you have to break it simply by stating that your opinion that someone else's opinion shouldn't rule your behaviour is superior to a viewpoint that says otherwise. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple. Subtle yes, but still profound.

I see your point, but I don't think I'm hypocritical in my view. I feel that you're perfectly entitled to hold the view that your opinion should influence my behaviour, or in the more general case, you're entitled to hold any view contrary to my own, including the view that one person's views should rule another's behaviour.

I simply choose to disagree with that view.

As for your view that asceticism is the next stage of human evolution: I disagree with you. Since we have such a fundamental disagreement, I doubt we'll manage to agree on the abortion issue.

I accept and understand (I believe) your ascetic views. I simply disagree with them. As I stated earlier, I think moderation is more appropriate for humanity than asceticism.


As a side note: the endorphin rush for the male occurs after ejaculation, yes. But the ejaculation can be anywhere: not just in a position to fertilise a woman. The endorphin rush for the female occurs at any random point, not after fertilisation, nor after the release of an egg. So in my opinion, your point about the timing of the endorphin rush is negated.

[Greenday]

The problem could have been avoided entirely had they used a little more impulse control. The best solution targets the source of the problem, not the consequences, and as long as an "easy out" exists, no human would have an incentive to develop better control.

This is the risk they took when they engaged in a procreative act, and if they are adult enough to engage in sexual intercourse, they should also be adult enough to deal with the NATURAL results (this goes all the way back to my original post on cheaters not being eligible to complain). They may have hardship because of their decision and the ensuing results, but it also serves to teach that couple and others who might be in a similar situation (or just prior to beginning a sexual relationship) to re-evaluate sex and treat it with a little more respect.

So a little impulse control means absolutely NO sex unless it's to make a kid? Cause if you are having sex more often than not, getting pregnant shouldn't be too big a surprise. But when it's an every now and then thing, it'd definitely be a huge surprise. Heck, if a couple can keep it down to an every now and then thing, I'd call that a crapload of restraint.

Yea, I definitely would call abortion a way of dealing with those natural results. Wearing condoms, taking birth control correctly, is a very respectful way to treat sex. And ruining people's lives is definitely a HORRIBLE way to teach people a lesson.

[tendomentis]

So a little impulse control means absolutely NO sex unless it's to make a kid? Cause if you are having sex more often than not, getting pregnant shouldn't be too big a surprise. But when it's an every now and then thing, it'd definitely be a huge surprise. Heck, if a couple can keep it down to an every now and then thing, I'd call that a crapload of restraint.

Yea, I definitely would call abortion a way of dealing with those natural results. Wearing condoms, taking birth control correctly, is a very respectful way to treat sex. And ruining people's lives is definitely a HORRIBLE way to teach people a lesson.

Ruining people's lives? The couple in question chose to engage in sexual activity knowing full well what could happen. If you consider a child "ruining lives", then the couple in question ruined their own lives.

Oh, and going from mass murder off hundreds of people a month to say only one or two a year still doesn't negate the negative results of the action itself, so your concept of keeping it to just "now and then" isn't valid.

Abortion is a way of dealing with the results, yes, but not a way of diminishing the root cause (which should be the focus). A good knowledge of the undo function in a word processing application is no replacement for good typing skills to begin with (I trust you see the analogy).

[tendomentis]

I see your point, but I don't think I'm hypocritical in my view. I feel that you're perfectly entitled to hold the view that your opinion should influence my behaviour, or in the more general case, you're entitled to hold any view contrary to my own, including the view that one person's views should rule another's behaviour.

I simply choose to disagree with that view.

As for your view that asceticism is the next stage of human evolution: I disagree with you. Since we have such a fundamental disagreement, I doubt we'll manage to agree on the abortion issue.

I accept and understand (I believe) your ascetic views. I simply disagree with them. As I stated earlier, I think moderation is more appropriate for humanity than asceticism.


As a side note: the endorphin rush for the male occurs after ejaculation, yes. But the ejaculation can be anywhere: not just in a position to fertilise a woman. The endorphin rush for the female occurs at any random point, not after fertilisation, nor after the release of an egg. So in my opinion, your point about the timing of the endorphin rush is negated.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find someone with a hypocritical view who thinks their own view is hypocritical.

I am not advocating asceticism, which is complete abstinence from "worldly pleasures". I'm all for the pleasure in sex, but not the removal of the procreative act from the process. One naturally accompanies the other.

I'm a cheerleader for self-control, specifically applied to human sexual behaviour.

Your "side note" indicates that you haven't properly researched the science involved. Both the male and female release endorphines during intercourse, but both the man and woman secrete the largest dosage (which temporarily overwhelms the nervous system and creates that "high" feeling) of endorphines at the moment of climax. The difference is that the male has a refractory period immediately following before he can climax again, while the female could experience another almost immediately after the first. The secretion of oxytocin is more important to the emotional makeup of the sexual activity than the endorphines though as it creates the "bonding" that takes place between the male and female. I never said that the woman experiences the largest dosage at fertilization (so not sure why you thought I did), but at the moment of climax, all the muscles inside the female genitalia contract in such a way to give the highest possible change of the movement of the male's sperm into the female's reproductive system.

As I said in an earlier post, my view of abortion is simple. It's the same view I would have of people intentionally tripping themselves as they walk around. It's counter-intuitive and a completely lopsided manner to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

So far, the only counter-arguement to this particular viewpoint are statements questioning why sex can't be had "just for fun", which can't by default be argued from a strictly objective point of view as an overwhelming majority of human adults desire sex, so a position arguing FOR an over-indulgence in sexual activity is automatically biased.

[Greenday]

So far, the only counter-arguement to this particular viewpoint are statements questioning why sex can't be had "just for fun", which can't by default be argued from a strictly objective point of view as an overwhelming majority of human adults desire sex, so a position arguing FOR an over-indulgence in sexual activity is automatically biased.

It's because you view of over-indulgence is at an extreme. You consider over-indulgence to be any sex that isn't aiming for a kid. My definition of over-indulgence is hooking up with random people, or prostitution. I don't see it as over-indulgence if two people going out have sex sometimes as compared to one person going out, looking to get laid with someone new every weekend.

[tendomentis]

It's because you view of over-indulgence is at an extreme. You consider over-indulgence to be any sex that isn't aiming for a kid. My definition of over-indulgence is hooking up with random people, or prostitution. I don't see it as over-indulgence if two people going out have sex sometimes as compared to one person going out, looking to get laid with someone new every weekend.

No, I should be clear. I don't think a couple should only have sex when they decide they want to have a child, but they should be willing to accept a pregnancy as a result of their actions too, and if they're unwilling to take that natural POSSIBLE responsibility as a result of their actions, then they should refrain at the time and demonstrate impulse control. Anything else, yes I could see as an over-indulgence.

An occasional over-indulgence is still an over-indulgence. A little cocaine usage now and then is still unhealthy. The "perfect amount" of sex would be what a responsible couple would have when they respect it for the life-creating act that it is. That is the naturally defined "perfect amount" of sex as defined by our genome.

[Seshat]

I am not advocating asceticism, which is complete abstinence from "worldly pleasures". I'm all for the pleasure in sex, but not the removal of the procreative act from the process. One naturally accompanies the other.

I'm a cheerleader for self-control, specifically applied to human sexual behaviour.


Should I say, then, that your view is far closer to the ascetic than mine? Would you be happy with that phrasing instead?

Unless I (and apparently Greenday and Phoenix) am greatly misunderstanding you, you seem to be advocating celibacy except when children are desired, or at least would be happily accepted.


Your "side note" indicates that you haven't properly researched the science involved.

Incorrect. You said:

A secondary effect is the release of oxytocin which creates the "bonding effect" with the mating pair, but the largest release of oxytocin only occurs AFTER climax, thereby creating a biological incentive to complete the procreative act.

I agree that the largest release occurs after climax. I attempted (and apparently failed) to point out that climax has little or no relationship with procreation. Male climax occurs equally easily in a hand, in a non-genital orifice, or in a latex sex toy. Female climax bears even less relationship with the procreative act.

I refute your assertion that the release of oxytocin 'creates a biological incentive to complete the procreative act'. I refute your assertion that this is proven by the fact that the release occurs after climax. Climax has little to do with procreation, other than being a necessary (in the male) precondition for it. Climax in the female is completely unnecessary for procreation.

I concede to your knowledge of the biochemistry involved. Just not your knowledge of the sexuality involved.


As I said in an earlier post, my view of abortion is simple. It's the same view I would have of people intentionally tripping themselves as they walk around. It's counter-intuitive and a completely lopsided manner to address the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

Agreed. I would far prefer high quality, readily available contraceptives.


So far, the only counter-arguement to this particular viewpoint are statements questioning why sex can't be had "just for fun", which can't by default be argued from a strictly objective point of view as an overwhelming majority of human adults desire sex, so a position arguing FOR an over-indulgence in sexual activity is automatically biased.

Then you have completely missed my point. My point is not a question, and fun is a very minor aspect of it.

To restate my point: sex is a bonding experience, that assists in holding the tribe together. (The same can be stated for clan, family, or any other appropriate social unit.)

The bonding effect of sex is hypothesised to be the reason that human females do not have an easily detectable estrus.

If sex was primarily for procreation, I would presume that human females would have evolved (if you believe in that) or been created (if that's your belief) with easily detectable estrus. Nature (or God) is obviously quite capable of providing estrus markers.

If you're into evolution, then the fact that we evolved from creatures that do have detectable estrus shows that the lack of it is clearly an evolutionary advantage. So for humans, sex clearly has some sort of purpose that has nothing to do with procreation.

[tendomentis]

Seshat, it's getting late where I am, so rather than quote your entire post and address the points in contention, I'll try to be more succint than usual in my response.

You would be hard pressed to find a doctor in the field of human sexual behaviour who agreed with your point of view that the massage release of endorphines and oxytocin at climax does NOT create a biological incentive in human bio-chemistry to engage in sexual activity. You would also be hard pressed to find a sex therapist who agreed that a significant majority of human adults (particularly male adults) derive as much satisfaction from ejaculation in a hand (for example) as they do inside the woman they are engaged in sexual activity with. The bulk of my knowledge is in the bio-chemical processes that take place during human mating, but to that end I have done some study on the emotional responses that occur as well (since emotions can eventually be broken down into the bio-chemical processes that produce them, I thought it a prudent course of study).

The bonding effect produced between mates is a result of the oxytocin released during sex (and during breast-feeding as well creating the mother-child bond). Again, this release of oxytocin occurs AFTER climax, and as such is a by-product of sexual activity, not the primary purpose.

I apologize if my thoughts are becoming incoherent. I'm trying to get my thoughts out in as intelligible manner as possible, but this person needs sleep now. :)

[AFPheonix]

When it comes down to it, the over-indulgence in sexual activity without any or a minimum of impulse control is a vestigial evolutionary trait of our species not unlike other more primatalogical traits that we share with bonobos. Most of our more recent evolutionary progress as a species came about from using our intellect to overcome our more animalistic urges, and this trait will be no different in the end.



However, Bonobos monkeys use genital manipulation as a way to help cement clan relationships, much like we use sex.
I do understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you to a point. Sex is a powerful act and people need to be careful with it. However, I think it is a bad idea to close the door on a legitimate medical procedure like abortion is. Yes, I'd like to see it used less often and interestingly enough, the rate at which teenagers these days get pregnant and have abortions is falling, I'm assuming due to better information dissemination through radio, internet, books, and peers.
While bearing a child to term and either keeping it or giving it up for adoption certainly is an option for most couples, it isn't a good one for others, either due to socio-economics or health. I am unwilling to deny a legitimate procedure to people in that group.

[tendomentis]

However, Bonobos monkeys use genital manipulation as a way to help cement clan relationships, much like we use sex.
I do understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you to a point. Sex is a powerful act and people need to be careful with it. However, I think it is a bad idea to close the door on a legitimate medical procedure like abortion is. Yes, I'd like to see it used less often and interestingly enough, the rate at which teenagers these days get pregnant and have abortions is falling, I'm assuming due to better information dissemination through radio, internet, books, and peers.
While bearing a child to term and either keeping it or giving it up for adoption certainly is an option for most couples, it isn't a good one for others, either due to socio-economics or health. I am unwilling to deny a legitimate procedure to people in that group.

That's a slippery slope, AFPheonix. Breast augmentation is also a "legitimate" medical proceedure, and in some countries (backwards though they may be), female circumcision is still considered a "legitimate" medical proceedure, enough so in fact that immigrants who adhere to such practices will "vacation" in their homeland just to have the proceedure done on their daughters. To them, the operation is completely legitimate.

And like I said, the presence of a "get out of jail free card" will prevent our species from evolving a natural solution to unwanted pregnancies. Shortcuts are useful in the short-term, but harmful to our species in the long-run.

[Seshat]

You would be hard pressed to find a doctor in the field of human sexual behaviour who agreed with your point of view that the massage release of endorphines and oxytocin at climax does NOT create a biological incentive in human bio-chemistry to engage in sexual activity.

Again, apparently I have failed to communicate my point to you. I never disputed that the euphoria of climax creates a biological incentive to engage in sex.

My only point of disagreement with you is in the purpose of sex. You claim it to be primarily procreative, I claim it to be both a procreative and bonding experience, and that the bonding occurs far more frequently than the procreation.

You would also be hard pressed to find a sex therapist who agreed that a significant majority of human adults (particularly male adults) derive as much satisfaction from ejaculation in a hand (for example) as they do inside the woman they are engaged in sexual activity with.

In that, we shall simply have to agree to disagree. I have met many people who would disagree with your point there. Probably more who would disagree than would agree: provided that they were engaged in sexual activity with the partner of their (mutual) choice.


The bonding effect produced between mates is a result of the oxytocin released during sex (and during breast-feeding as well creating the mother-child bond). Again, this release of oxytocin occurs AFTER climax, and as such is a by-product of sexual activity, not the primary purpose.

If things which occur after climax are a by-product, then fertilisation (can be up to three days later), implantation (can be up to five days later, IIRC) and childbirth (approximately nine months later) are all by-products of sexual activity.


You seem to be arguing against what you think I'm saying, not what I'm intending to say. Either I'm being unclear, or you need to read my posts when you're more fully awake.

[Boozy]

If things which occur after climax are a by-product, then fertilisation (can be up to three days later), implantation (can be up to five days later, IIRC)

Implantation rarely occurs before day 6 after fertilization. 90% implant between days 8 to 12.
:)

[tendomentis]

Implantation rarely occurs before day 6 after fertilization. 90% implant between days 8 to 12.
:)

You're both kinda missing the point, which is that fetilization occurs after climax (at least for the male). The fertilzation couldn't naturally take place WITHOUT the climax (again, at least for the male). Whether it starts 30 seconds or two weeks later, the climax is necessary for natural fertilization process to begin.

I understand the position where someone would want to justify sexual activity for more than just procreation, but the arguements for it come off as just too much "becasue I want to" justifications. If one can distance themselves from their biological pre-disposition to desire sex, you can see it for what it is (a biological function primarily for procreation), otherwise you are just being led by the nose by this specific natural impulse.

[Boozy]

You're both kinda missing the point...

Nah, I was not coming down on either side of this. I was just stating a fact.

I actually feel this thread has drifted to the point where abortion is no longer being discussed in any real sense.

This is more about "What is the purpose of sexual intercourse?" For example, let's say I agree with you about sex being primarily for procreation (and I'm not saying I do). That doesn't intuitively lead me to the conclusion that abortion is wrong or unnatural.

I'm generally pro-choice, but I find certain pro-life arguments to be quite persuasive. Just not this one.

[tendomentis]

Nah, I was not coming down on either side of this. I was just stating a fact.

I actually feel this thread has drifted to the point where abortion is no longer being discussed in any real sense.

This is more about "What is the purpose of sexual intercourse?" For example, let's say I agree with you about sex being primarily for procreation (and I'm not saying I do). That doesn't intuitively lead me to the conclusion that abortion is wrong or unnatural.

I'm generally pro-choice, but I find certain pro-life arguments to be quite persuasive. Just not this one.

It's easy to think that the point drifted. All I was trying to do is redirect attention to the source of the resulting concept in question (that being abortion). If the source of the conflict could be resolved, then the issue of abortion would be moot altogether.

We don't sit around debating "how to deal with the millions of tons of radioactive fallout from our world-wide nuclear conflict" because we've managed to prevent the source of that problem altogether, rendering said discussion moot. The same COULD be true in this situation if enough people could see past their cultural "brainwashing" (largely the result of westernized media than anything else, I don't really fault the individual) and address the root cause behind unwanted pregnancies, rapid propogation of STD's, and abortion.

So while some will prefer to continue endless back and forth debate of a symptom of a larger condition, I prefer to focus on and address the cause of the symptom.

To each their own I suppose.

[AFPheonix]

That's a slippery slope, AFPheonix. Breast augmentation is also a "legitimate" medical proceedure, and in some countries (backwards though they may be), female circumcision is still considered a "legitimate" medical proceedure, enough so in fact that immigrants who adhere to such practices will "vacation" in their homeland just to have the proceedure done on their daughters. To them, the operation is completely legitimate.

And like I said, the presence of a "get out of jail free card" will prevent our species from evolving a natural solution to unwanted pregnancies. Shortcuts are useful in the short-term, but harmful to our species in the long-run.

However, breast augmentation and genital mutilation are not at all like abortion, in that they do not prevent potential ill effects for the mother like abortion can. I know quite a few women who chose to abort because their bodies would not survive the process of carrying a child to term, or because the child would not have survived after birth, despite coming to full term pregnancy.
I know others who chose to carry their children to term, knowing full well that their baby would die soon after birth. Is that not potentially more cruel than stopping the pregnancy before the child had even developed a nervous system?
I applaud all of these women's choices, because it was precisely that. THEIR CHOICE. Their families, their bodies, their decision to make.

Breast augmentation is solely for cosmetic effect. It does have a bonus for women with small breasts in that by pushing the breast tissue further out, it makes diagnosis of cancers easier through traditional mammograms.
Genital mutilation does nothing therapeutically for anyone. It is merely a way for a male-dominated society to impose its will on women as second-class citizens. However, that's a tangle for another day and another thread.

In any case, your assertion that the existence of abortion will prevent other birth-control methods from coming about is flawed. Abortion has been with us since ancient times. Yet, it's presence has not prevented the creation of hormonal and mechanical birth control. Also, new inventions for the prevention of conception come out all the time. I deal with them daily in my job in a pharmacy.

[Boozy]

In any case, your assertion that the existence of abortion will prevent other birth-control methods from coming about is flawed...it's presence has not prevented the creation of hormonal and mechanical birth control.

Exactly. No woman prefers having an abortion over not getting pregnant in the first place.

The majority of women do not take the decision to terminate lightly, nor would they dream of using abortion as a primary means of birth control.

The two women I know who had abortions describe it as a heart-wrenching and difficult decision. They were by no means cavalier about it, nor did they see it as a "get out of jail free card."

[Seshat]

I understand the position where someone would want to justify sexual activity for more than just procreation, but the arguements for it come off as just too much "becasue I want to" justifications.

That's okay. I see you as attempting to justify 'because I don't want to, and I don't want anyone else to either'.

If one can distance themselves from their biological pre-disposition to desire sex, you can see it for what it is (a biological function primarily for procreation), otherwise you are just being led by the nose by this specific natural impulse.

If one can distance themselves from their biological and/or cultural predisposition to prefer abstinence, one can see sex for what it is: a biological function with many purposes. Otherwise you're just being led by the nose by either your natural - but rare - biochemistry, or your cultural bias.

Frankly, tendomentis, I see you as just as much an apologist for abstinence as you see me as an apologist for sexual activity. And I don't think abstinence is a feasible position in the abortion debate. Oh, it's a valid one: but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. And possibly (probably, IMO) never.

[tendomentis]

However, breast augmentation and genital mutilation are not at all like abortion, in that they do not prevent potential ill effects for the mother like abortion can. I know quite a few women who chose to abort because their bodies would not survive the process of carrying a child to term, or because the child would not have survived after birth, despite coming to full term pregnancy.
I know others who chose to carry their children to term, knowing full well that their baby would die soon after birth. Is that not potentially more cruel than stopping the pregnancy before the child had even developed a nervous system?
I applaud all of these women's choices, because it was precisely that. THEIR CHOICE. Their families, their bodies, their decision to make.

Breast augmentation is solely for cosmetic effect. It does have a bonus for women with small breasts in that by pushing the breast tissue further out, it makes diagnosis of cancers easier through traditional mammograms.
Genital mutilation does nothing therapeutically for anyone. It is merely a way for a male-dominated society to impose its will on women as second-class citizens. However, that's a tangle for another day and another thread.

In any case, your assertion that the existence of abortion will prevent other birth-control methods from coming about is flawed. Abortion has been with us since ancient times. Yet, it's presence has not prevented the creation of hormonal and mechanical birth control. Also, new inventions for the prevention of conception come out all the time. I deal with them daily in my job in a pharmacy.

Please note, I didn't say that the availability of abortion prevents new birth control technologies from being developed, I said it prevents our species from developing a NATURAL solution to the problem through the process of evolution.

Say, for example, that in the not too distant future, a random mutation happens that causes the female population of an island nation near Indonesia to only become fertile 1 whole week out of the year, and all the women effected become fertile THE SAME WEEK. They could enjoy as much sex as they wanted without even having to use artificial birth control for the rest of the year and only choose to allow themselve to be impregnated that one week if they chose. That would be our species natural evolution creating a solution. But as long as we depend on artificial methods, our species won't be given the chance to change on it's own. This evolutionary superior trait would be meaningless in a society that was utterly dependant on artificial methods of obtaining the same results (but the artificial methods more often than not yield negative side effects like depression and higher risk of certain types of cancers), and in a society that obtains the same results artificially, there would be no biological incentive for the subset of our species that develops this trait to grow dominant (which would eventually lead to nearly every human female possessing this trait many generations down the road). New artificial birth control methods are constantly being developed, and over time those artificial methods are found to have undesirable side effects. Allowing our species to naturally develop a solution is best LONG TERM solution.

I'm not really against abortion or birth control (I can't be, as I'm against over-population and pro-population control), but my stance against our species depressing lack of imuplse control and reliance on technology to forestall our natural evolution puts me at odds with the prevailing opinion about reliance on artificial birth control methods and abortion.

So far, everyone comes back to me thinking I'm promoting abstinence and anti-abortion. I'm not promoting those issues as much as I'm promoting other concepts (like greater impulse control and allowing natural evolution to occur) WHICH LEAD TO results like less sex and no need for abortion. You are coming from a starting point that is mired in the symptoms, and I'm trying to approach this from a standpoint that addresses the root cause or causes.

That's important to remember as we debate this.

[tendomentis]

That's okay. I see you as attempting to justify 'because I don't want to, and I don't want anyone else to either'.



If one can distance themselves from their biological and/or cultural predisposition to prefer abstinence, one can see sex for what it is: a biological function with many purposes. Otherwise you're just being led by the nose by either your natural - but rare - biochemistry, or your cultural bias.

Frankly, tendomentis, I see you as just as much an apologist for abstinence as you see me as an apologist for sexual activity. And I don't think abstinence is a feasible position in the abortion debate. Oh, it's a valid one: but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. And possibly (probably, IMO) never.

You're making the assumption that I don't want sex simply because I'm arguing a view point that prioritizes impulse control over sexual activity.

That not only makes your assumption wrong, but makes your comment somewhat insulting at the same time.

Don't assume that just because I don't value sex more than I value the progressive evolution of our species as a whole or my own impulse control that there is something wrong with my bio-chemistry. That's simply rude, and has no bearing on this discussion. It's simply you making an incorrect assumption that "because he doesn't want sex like I want sex there must be something wrong or different about him". That's hardly professional or objective.

To put it delicately, "alchoholics know the consequences of over-drinking the best", and the same could be said about this situation. Recovering alchoholics still WANT to drink, but they value better impulse control over their natural desires.

Next time, don't make assumptions Seshat. It only served to make you look uninformed and unprofessional in this debate.

Let's try to keep this debate as professional and objective as possible without resorting to vague assumptions and subtle insults, shall we?

[AFPheonix]

Please note, I didn't say that the availability of abortion prevents new birth control technologies from being developed, I said it prevents our species from developing a NATURAL solution to the problem through the process of evolution.


I think that line of reasoning is a bit absurd, coming from the point of view as a humanist. What are we to do in the millions of years that pass waiting for some potential mutation to occur in great enough numbers that it is selected for? Allow women who will not survive child-bearing to die because their genes were not selected for?

What if we applied that argument to, say, cancer? Should we not treat our cancer patients in the hopes that one will show promise of some mutation that will prevent the spread of cancer cells?

Sorry, but one of our great evolutionary strengths as humans was the giant noggins we were given to innovate with. The tools we make and the new inventions we dream up will ultimately help us out out much more quickly and effectively than waiting for nature to take its course. Besides, who are we to say that Natural Selection would pick a more obvious heat cycle in human females over the current equipment we've got now?

[tendomentis]

I think that line of reasoning is a bit absurd, coming from the point of view as a humanist. What are we to do in the millions of years that pass waiting for some potential mutation to occur in great enough numbers that it is selected for? Allow women who will not survive child-bearing to die because their genes were not selected for?

What if we applied that argument to, say, cancer? Should we not treat our cancer patients in the hopes that one will show promise of some mutation that will prevent the spread of cancer cells?

Sorry, but one of our great evolutionary strengths as humans was the giant noggins we were given to innovate with. The tools we make and the new inventions we dream up will ultimately help us out out much more quickly and effectively than waiting for nature to take its course. Besides, who are we to say that Natural Selection would pick a more obvious heat cycle in human females over the current equipment we've got now?

So, your stance is "let's do it now by whatever means possible, long-term consequences and short-term side-effects be damned"?

To me, not only is that view short-sighted, but it is actually more cruel. Besides, I never said that women who would die in child-birth shouldn't have the option to abort. THAT I actually feel is not only justifiable, but is efficient. If the woman dies in child-birth, the infant statistically doesn't stand a much better chance. Better one should die than both.

My application of allowing natural evolution to determine a solution applies to situations where the pregnancy/child-birth is unwanted/inconvenient and natural evolution of our species is supplanted by unreliable artificial means merely as a tool of "convenience" to prevent the natural result of sexual activity.

[tendomentis]

Sorry, but one of our great evolutionary strengths as humans was the giant noggins we were given to innovate with. The tools we make and the new inventions we dream up will ultimately help us out out much more quickly and effectively than waiting for nature to take its course. Besides, who are we to say that Natural Selection would pick a more obvious heat cycle in human females over the current equipment we've got now?

On a side note, perhaps the greatest use of these "giant noggins" that we developed would be to have the cognitive ability to recognize areas of our physiology that need adaptation through natural selection and encourage it.

By using our intellect to fight against natural evolution and not work with it, we are fighting against the very thing that allows us to fight against it.

Pretty stupid for a species with "giant noggins".

[AFPheonix]

On a side note, perhaps the greatest use of these "giant noggins" that we developed would be to have the cognitive ability to recognize areas of our physiology that need adaptation through natural selection and encourage it.

By using our intellect to fight against natural evolution and not work with it, we are fighting against the very thing that allows us to fight against it.

Pretty stupid for a species with "giant noggins".

And yet, we fight against natural selection every day, in many ways. We use vaccines to prevent against disease, we use planes, boats, and cars and spread our genes, regardless of how fit they are, to every corner of the earth, we develop better fabrics to stay warm or cool in climates we were never meant to be in. Why are you choosing just this one issue to rail against?

[Seshat]

Next time, don't make assumptions Seshat. It only served to make you look uninformed and unprofessional in this debate.

I leave our relative posts to display to third parties which of us has made more assumptions about the other, and how each of us looks.


As for the evolutionary impulse control: I'm a genetically poor specimen. I have chosen not to have children for that reason. Also for others, but primarily for that reason. My husband is also a genetically poor specimen, and has made the same decision. For us, contraception and abortion, though artificial, are means for assisting appropriate human evolution. And yes, there have been times when I've fought with my impulse and fought with the 'but a baaaaaby...' feelings. But my intellect points out that it would be cruel to curse a child with my and my husbands' genetic deficiencies.

We human can use our large noggins and technology to further human evolution. I suppose I'm in favour of selective impulse control, and don't see a reason why sex-for-bonding should be restricted merely because sex has an additional function.

[tendomentis]

And yet, we fight against natural selection every day, in many ways. We use vaccines to prevent against disease, we use planes, boats, and cars and spread our genes, regardless of how fit they are, to every corner of the earth, we develop better fabrics to stay warm or cool in climates we were never meant to be in. Why are you choosing just this one issue to rail against?

Simple. I don't want to get TOO far off topic. Do I have issues with the other ways that humanity subverts our natural evolutionary progress?

Sure do.

But I'll rant on that in another thread at another time.

For now, this is the issue at hand.

[tendomentis]

We human can use our large noggins and technology to further human evolution. I suppose I'm in favour of selective impulse control, and don't see a reason why sex-for-bonding should be restricted merely because sex has an additional function.

I have no problem with human innovation and technology, just so long as it doesn't subvert our evolutionary progress. A whole slew of recent studies is showing that in going to such great technological lengths to keep our species disease free, we're reducing our long-term resistance to newer diseases and diseases that we have been previously immune to that have evolved around our immunities while we have been using artificial means to resist them.

Technological innovation at the expense of our natural evolution hurts our species in the long run, and humans are notorious for valuing the short-term over the long-term.