A secular debate about abortion

[hadespussercats]

There´s a lot I could say in response to JCEmmanuel and others, but I don´t have the time or the inclination at the moment. I will point out, though, the old ax that every egg and every sperm has the potential for becoming human life. Should we outlaw women having periods? Menses is murder? What about men´s nighttime emissions, etc. ? Reckless abandonment?

You'd have to outlaw not getting pregnant when pregnancy is possible. Heck if a man did not ejaculate into a woman each and every time he possibly could, he would inevitably be, through inaction, condemning thousands of spermatozoa to die. It would have to be a crime for a woman to say no to sex, because we never know when an egg is leaving the ovum, precisely.

Coito, I have to say, it's pretty awesome to see eye-to-eye with you once in a while.

Abstinence is murder!

[jcmmanuel]

-

You have a point.

[Rob]

In response to the interplay between LP and Sep(nice music link by the way!) I have to agree with Sep here. You can argue about individual cases, and human sentience all you want. On the individual level the agency of the mother is enough to say that she has the right to choose. Looking larger though, considering the explosion of the human population in the last 300 years. We are already on a path of using up limited resources, do you really think that if we outlawed abortion it would help our civilization at all?

In all seriousness, fuck emotions and the ability of a fetus to feel pain. I like being alive, I love it. I love the idea that eventually I will marry(when I am firmly established in a career) and have children that will continue to live on this world. I don't want them to have to experience a world of ever increasing poverty, which will a result from an ever increasing population size.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this brought up yet though:

Donohue, John J. and Levitt, Steven D., The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime (2000). Quarterly Journal of Economics. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=174508 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.174508

[TheGreatGatsby]

In all seriousness, fuck emotions and the ability of a fetus to feel pain.

Hmm, that's quite bold

[lordpasternack]

Yeah - I wouldn't agree with Rob, on fucking any knowledge we have about foetal cognitive faculties. However, even if they can feel pain, it doesn't necessary mean it's unethical to terminate their lives. We may find ways to do so, humanely.

Having said all this, though, it's important to note that the vast majority (around 90%) of abortions take place within the first trimester of pregnancy - when I doubt the foetus has any great deal of sentience or pain perception. And this relatively quick uptake of abortions is allowing for the time it takes from the pregnancy test to going through various procedures, to then actually going through with the deed. When you allow for the fact that women are going to be deemed four weeks' pregnant by the time their period fails to show (which they may not notice immediately), and then allow for the fact that some systems have waiting times of 2-3 weeks to actually get to the termination - you begin to appreciate how it is practically impossible to abort at under six weeks - even for the most on-the-ball woman who's had some sort of incident of failed contraception, plain impulse/error of judgment, or heaven forfend, rape.

Women aren't ditherers or indecisive fools who frequently hang on to pregnancies for weeks, only to have a sudden change of heart. Most of them positively want the procedure done ASAP, to the ethical ideal for everyone. It's just that weeks are swallowed up before a woman actually notices, and then there are procedures and waiting times by the time she does. It's not like she can take a pregnancy test and just waltz into some place and order an extra hot, double shot, tall skimmed hazelnut mocha with whipped cream and a termination of her pregnancy to go, please… And don't even get me started on the countries where healthcare is such that women have to pay a considerable amount or travel to other areas/countries to have an abortion done…

Also worth bearing in mind is that in the future, people might just develop functional synthetic wombs that allow embryos and foetuses to grow to viable maturity. This removes the agency of the woman the moment the life is outside her body and brings the ethical considerations to a new plain. It would be interesting to see how the feminists of that era would respond to that.

[locutus7]

Abortion decisions should be left up to older white males - the elders of a community - who can employ their spiritual wisdom in protecting life and continuing the cycle of young females for brides, and young males to hunt, fight, and protect helpless females. Oh, wait, we aren't in the stone age any more. Unless you live in an LDS community.

[dj357]

Given that murder is immoral due to its long-term and short-term effects upon society and our conception of the Golden Rule I think abortion in most cases is warranted and not an immoral act. We know that up to a certain point the sentience and capacity for sensation is extremely low. Furthermore, in most cases, the mother is the guardian of the foetus and as such until we pass the point of reasonable abortion or birth if the mother deems the foetus as unwanted it should not be an issue.

I wouldn't even argue that if I was that 'child' in that circumstance that I would rather not be born into a world that didn't want me and that I would remain eternally unaware of this in the end, I would instead argue that the responsibility we (all) have in these cases skyrockets once birth occurs and as such it is incumbent on us (all) to only pursue those births that are truly wanted and loved.

[jcmmanuel]

Looking larger though, considering the explosion of the human population in the last 300 years. We are already on a path of using up limited resources, do you really think that if we outlawed abortion it would help our civilization at all?

Yeah - limited resources as an argument. Adam Smith didn't even think of it. Are you the first breed of fundamentalist economists?

In all seriousness, fuck emotions and the ability of a fetus to feel pain.

I was glad to discover I'm not the only one to find this rude. It's extreme. I suddenly understand that even my 'opposites' here like lordpasternack are still heavenly angels compared to the nightmare of living in a world where all people would say fuck you to the pain of others, without first taking the time to consider what exactly we are talking about. Maybe we can say "fuck emotions an the ability of a nigger to feel pain" too, to put it dirty. There was a time people really thought black men were inferior, hardly human. And just THINKING so would be sufficient for some of us, isn't it? Because according to you, the answer to a request for debate is "fuck".

I like being alive, I love it. I love the idea that eventually I will marry(when I am firmly established in a career) and have children that will continue to live on this world. I don't want them to have to experience a world of ever increasing poverty, which will a result from an ever increasing population size.

Killing yourself is another good answer to this problem, just in case you never thought about it. It really helps: one soul less. And if killing yourself would hurt - WTF? Fuck your emotions and ability to feel pain. That simple.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this brought up yet though: Donohue, John J. and Levitt, Steven D., The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime (2000). Quarterly Journal of Economics. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=174508 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.174508

Yeah. Quote: "We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions."

And this is where we are being offered evidence that when science is been used as our 'decision-machine' which offer us relief from taking responsibility ourselves and do the human thinking as we should, we may end up just anywhere. Again: we don't need science either to find solutions for all our problems - if just we can say fuck to anyone who happens to be at the receiving end of our arbitrary choices.

Viva the "fuck the others" kinda world. Paradise was lost, now it's been found. Don't do the victim-counting either - waste of time and energy. Be happy and irresponsible.

[Seth]

If we reject all religious arguments against abortion, the only criterion we are left with is the personhood or consciousness of the fetus when determining whether or not abortion is justified.

I'm going to address this particular claim, because I believe it to be false.

There is an aspect of the decision that is related neither to the biological development of the fetus nor religious beliefs, and that is contract law.

Briefly, the contract law argument holds that so long as the sex act is consensual, both parties to the act ratify a contractual obligation through their consent. Because sexual activity between fertile males and females has the natural, expected and ordinary consequence of some probability of pregnancy for any given sex act, public policy can support enforcement of an implied contract between the two parties should pregnancy occur.

In addition, once a new human life has begun, which occurs at the instant that the male chromosomes and female chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus, thereby forming the zygote, which is universally acknowledged as the first cell of a new, unique living organism, in this case a human being, there is then a third party to the contract; the zygote, which ordinarily develops into an adult human being.

Because the zygote is "incompetent" and unable to articulate it's wishes or act to protect itself, a fourth party to the contract appears in the form of the State, acting as guardian ad litem on behalf of the sygote during its gestation.

This contract theory fulfills the legal principles of equity when it comes to protection of the legal interests of all parties, who are given due consideration by neutral authority (the court) in the event of disputes, such as the termination of the child.

Now, there will be instant objection that the woman has claimed absolute control of her reproductive system and must be allowed to exercise complete sovereignty over it, right up to the very moment of birth. However, this presumption is false because it presumes that a) there is only one party involved in decision making about the products of conception; and b) that there is no legal duty or obligation created when the woman consents to have semen injected into her womb by inviting a man to ejaculate inside her.

I believe that both premises are false.

Women have claimed, and achieved, sovereign control of their wombs. The law grants them the absolute right to determine when, how and whether a man injects semen insider her womb. Gone are the days when women could be forced to have sex or forced to bear children against their will. This is a good thing. They have the complete freedom to invite semen injection or refuse it.

But with freedom comes responsibility. Now that women have gained legal sovereignty over their wombs, they also have gained legal responsibility for operating their reproductive organs properly, and both legal and moral responsibility for what occurs inside their wombs, from the implantation of semen to the birth of a child. Because they have responsibility, they can be held legally accountable when they operate their reproductive organs in ways that create legal interests and rights in other parties to the actions.

That being the case, women can, through voluntary participation in the sex act, subordinate their absolute sovereignty over their wombs by ratifying a contract based on their actions. They can forfeit the absolute right to do whatever they want with the products of conception by entering into either explicit or implict contractual obligations that may bind them to specific performance, such as responsible gestation of the fetus through delivery, and may also bind them to consultation and approval of the other parties to the contract before actions detrimental to the rights of those other parties are taken.

Therefore, in summary, women who have consensual sex with a man assume and consent to the known risks of pregnancy, including the known risks of pregnancy even when using birth control, and absent the consent of the other parties to the contract formed by that consensual act to termination of a pregnancy, both the father and the State have a right to intervene in any decisions regarding the welfare of the zygote/fetus, including preventing termination of the pregnancy and compelling specific performance of gestation through birth.

[lordpasternack]

A human zygote is no more valuable than a zygote of any other species of multicellular eukaryote, Seth. Not even as valuable as an insect you might squish in the near future. No amount of sophistry or anal-retentive legalistic framing of the situation will change that.

And there's no escaping the fact that, all the way during pregnancy, the foetus is scarcely sentient and questionably a person… it may be completely ethically straightforward to terminate its life, and at any rate, its life is reasonably deemed less valuable than the mother's, and the mother's QUALITY of life...

[Seth]

A human zygote is no more valuable than a zygote of any other species of multicellular eukaryote, Seth. Not even as valuable as an insect you might squish in the near future. No amount of sophistry or anal-retentive legalistic framing of the situation will change that.

"Value" is an inherently subjective thing. Long ago, a giant wheel-like piece of rock was "valuable." Today, not so much, unless it's that actual ancient object, in which case it's quite valuable.

"Value" is something that human beings assign to objects, and societies also assign value to different things for different reasons.

Therefore, to say that "a human zygote is no more valuable than a zygote of any other species of multicellular eukaryote" is false, because the value of a human zygote is set by a number of different metrics, which include individual assignment of value and societal assignment of value.

As a result, society can certainly assign whatever value it chooses to a human zygote over any other zygote.

And there's no escaping the fact that, all the way during pregnancy, the foetus is scarcely sentient and questionably a person… it may be completely ethically straightforward to terminate its life, and at any rate, its life is reasonably deemed less valuable than the mother's, and the mother's QUALITY of life...

Again, this is not an objective determination, it's a subjective one, meaning that the balance between the quality of life of the mother and the continued existence of the fetus is subject to societal assignment of value. That is in fact how the situation rests in the US, and other countries as well. In all cases, the State assumes authority to announce when a fetus is to be respected as a human being. That being the case, the State can, and does, pick various points in the development of the zygote into a blastocyst, embryo, fetus, child, adolescent or adult at which to vest civil rights.

You say that it "is reasonably deemed less valuable than the mother's, and the mother's QUALITY of life." What is your objective, scientific basis for this determination?

You don't have one, because no such objective determination exists. You are merely stating a personal preference, and in case it has escaped your notice, your personal preferences are not necessarily acknowledged, recognized or defended by society or the law.

That being the case, my argument that contractual obligations can bind a woman to specific performance stands as valid.

[nellikin]

Sorry Seth, but the difference between a contract to fuck and a contract to have kids is huge. In anybody's eyes.

[Feck]

Therefore, in summary, women who have consensual sex with a man assume and consent to the known risks of pregnancy, including the known risks of pregnancy even when using birth control, and absent the consent of the other parties to the contract formed by that consensual act to termination of a pregnancy, both the father and the State have a right to intervene in any decisions regarding the welfare of the zygote/fetus, including preventing termination of the pregnancy and compelling specific performance of gestation through birth.

The only 'contractual' obligations I assume when sleeping with a woman are not to deliberately give me a retro virus and not to misrepresent it as rape later .

The value of a half copy of a man's DNA is virtually nothing ,biologically it is up to her body what happens to that information .

If I give a woman half the blue prints for a house and none of the materials needed to build it and no contract verbal or otherwise is entered into about her requirement to build it for me (say for example I drew a picture on the back and gave it her) , Can I or the state intervene to force her to build it ?

You make the assumption that the purpose of sex is making humans ,That there is a contractual obligation that a woman has to gestate a child that she under took by having sex even though and esp if contraception is used that is Clearly NOT an accepted or implied part of any contract .

[Hermit]

A human zygote is no more valuable than a zygote of any other species of multicellular eukaryote...

"Value" is an inherently subjective thing.

And there's no escaping the fact that, all the way during pregnancy, the foetus is scarcely sentient and questionably a person…

Again, this is not an objective determination...

That being the case, my argument that contractual obligations can bind a woman to specific performance stands as valid.

Orly? I suppose you can back the validity of the contractual obligations, as you define them here, by means of some objective standard? You know, the sort the lack of which apparently makes Lordpasternack's statements invalid in your eyes?

Methinks, at least one aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect has been amply illustrated here.

[Seth]

Sorry Seth, but the difference between a contract to fuck and a contract to have kids is huge. In anybody's eyes.

Well, nature is a bitch sometimes. When you fuck with a fertile member of the opposite sex, having a kid is a known risk. If you don't want to take that risk, don't fuck, or get sterilized.

I see no reason why society should not hold women accountable to at least as great a degree as they hold men accountable if the woman decides unilaterally to KEEP the child, which imposes on the man, who may have just been interested in a quick fuck, with an 18-24 year burden of parental support. If we treat both parties equally under the law, according to your implication, a man should be able to FORCE a woman to terminate a pregnancy if he doesn't want to support the kid.

So, if men can be forced to specific performance because they ignored the risks of pregnancy, then why should women be immune to the same burden, hm?

Care to address that particular sexist radical feminist hypocrisy?