A secular debate about abortion

[Pappa]

This is the thread I was referring to earlier. It's tangental to this one, but interesting too.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=322

[Sisifo]

I work in developping countries. Abortion has been and still is a fundamental (not the only one) pillar in the fight against poverty. In Vietnam any woman -or girl- can get an abortion from any clinic or hospital without need of even writing down her name. In India, that women can get abortions (often at the back of the husband), is also being a drastic change in the families' livehood all around the world.
That a poor family has one or two children instead of 5, 6 or 7, means access to medicines, some savings and maybe education. But certainly, a far better life for the family. IIRC, in the first "freakeconomics", it was issued as a main reason for the decrease of crimnality in NY: the reduction of overcrowded families in poor quarters.

That above is in a global view, the biggest cause of abortion worldwide. It can be transposed to developped countries, where I think I can see the same reasons to the abortions by teenagers who become pregnat for a mistake. Unwanted pregnancies, which is the other big abortion is the same issue, but in a richer context. A teenager who sees her college, university, marriage and all her life go to the drain and sees significantly increased the possibilities of struggling a life closer to poverty. Without that child she will live a more comfortable life, she will probably have a child again eventually, who at the same time would enjoy a childhood with better chances.

Socially speaking I think that the pro-choice policies, and the reduction of unwanted pregnancies, within or outside a relationship, helps to develop a society.

[Thea]

This essentially becomes an exercise in choosing between "evils"; there are no guarantees.

I disagree that abortion is evil ... or even "evil".

Since I didn't claim that abortion is evil, I'd have to ask to whom you're speaking. I will say (again) that no matter which way you slice it, being faced with a decision to have an abortion or not is serious business, and there is unmistakably a degree of suffering that will be involved regardless.

Evil/"evil" is a value laden term that imposes the moral judgement of the person who uses it onto the situation the person is applying it too. By doing so the person is assuming their value judgement is a given (which it isn't). I prefer to leave out emotive, value laden terms during discussions like this if at all possible.

Evil is not the same as "evil" insofar as my intention goes, but I don't intend to debate the fine distinction except to say I was making a play on the common saying in English having to do with the conundrum of "deciding between the lesser of two evils," which saying is commonly used whether or not one is ACTUALLY talking about Evil with a capital E (which itself is subject to personal and cultural interpretation, rendering it at best a distraction, I have to admit). Perhaps I should have said something about finding one's self "between a rock and a hard place." Stripping "value laden" terminology out as much as possible, what we have here is a species paradox, or an impasse, defined as such because the resolution of it requires significant cost regardless of the resolution chosen. My struggle here is to get folks to consider the possibility of how to avoid arriving quite so often at this impasse, by examining how the general social milieu or context in which we live might contribute to creating a path to this impasse, and then following the avenues that suggest themselves as a result of THAT examination down to a point where things once again become actionable without the cost (or with significantly reduced cost) attached.

As a side note, I'd say be careful about what you actually accomplish by leaving out emotive, value laden terms during discussions like this. I agree that being judgmental is a rotten thing to do to anyone, and seldom if ever serves a good purpose, never mind a discussion about the specific ethics of being judgmental. Yet if anyone seeks resolution to the issue of abortion, then absolutely must values be included in the discussion. It's all ABOUT values--they're pretty much unavoidable for us humans. That being said, it seems to me it is at least theoretically possible to find/create enough common ground to get along without oppressing each other. And THAT is what abortion is all about: it's one answer to a systemic dynamic of oppression in our culture. Whadda ya think of THEM apples, eh? The question I'm asking, having posited this dynamic, is for whom, and how does this dynamic take shape? Why not see if we can mitigate, if not eliminate, that situation, assuming it actually exists?

Someone asked about a circumstance in which a woman does not wish to put her body through a pregnancy, all else being equal. I'd say that's a toughy, because currently all else is NOT equal, which will likely have an a priori impact on why a woman would wish to terminate a pregnancy based solely on not wishing to go through the physical aspects of it.

And I know everybody hates this, but folks, accountability is in here somewhere. Finger pointing sucks and never solves problems. So, what do we do?

[jcmmanuel]

"Abortion? I think there should be more of it."

But this is how Europe decided to commit indigenous suicide - a phenomenon that cannot easily be reverted once you get significantly below 2 children per family on average. So Europe is now changing rapidly: less 'secularists' (I count myself among them), more religious people. Of course, I know there's an argument - and even the big family people find out, sooner or later, that life in a Western society is going to get expensive for a big family. But, by all means, that is economy, and the question remains if economy is a good dictator for us (you don't have to be a communist to have doubts about that).

But anyway, when all is said and done, those who think there should be more abortions are in a way eating their own dog food now: they become extinct in their own countries and others take over (in extremis - but I don't like the 'alarmistic' overtones of this - there's the observation that France will be a muslim country before 2050, for instance). Whatever there is to it, in some way one could say that justice may perhaps have a logic of its own - and a sense of irony. Or call it the way of evolution - but not just a 'simplistic' way to see it (e.g. "those who best breed will have the world"), you can look at it in a more sophisticated way too: if you go for abortion as if this is the most normal thing in the world, don't be surprised if you become extinct.

We always need wisdom. For some reason, mankind invented wisdom. We can hardly define it, but we know it exists. 'Calculating life' is tricky. I think we should have more serious dialog, more serious attempts to make sense of this - rather than asking for more abortions.

Evil/"evil" is a value laden term that imposes the moral judgement of the person who uses it onto the situation the person is applying it too.

Value-ladenness is not a proper argument. The word evil could be replaced by another word if desired so, but it must be meaningful, and avoiding religious connotations is difficult - the large majority of people are in some way religious (or, as many would call it, spiritual) and this is also true for atheists - they really have their value system as well. Religion is a realm where abuse of religion happens (this is applicable to most if not all domains of life - including science) but you still need words for things. If we sell woman in the sex trade today (not you and me, I presume - but thousands of usually 'secular' people are making money in this business - and we are not yet talking about selling children in this business), you will observe that many people don't have to much sores about the word 'evil' - they call it evil, whether they are religious or not. (I would understand if you object to the word 'sin' though - but not a word like evil).

Evil, by the way, doesn't necessarily come with the notion of 'absolute evil'. But if you want to give things a name, evil is a very common word for it.

[hadespussercats]

But this is how Europe decided to commit indigenous suicide - a phenomenon that cannot easily be reverted once you get significantly below 2 children per family on average. So Europe is now changing rapidly: less 'secularists' (I count myself among them), more religious people.

But anyway, when all is said and done, those who think there should be more abortions are in a way eating their own dog food now: they become extinct in their own countries and others take over

Or call it the way of evolution - but not just a 'simplistic' way to see it (e.g. "those who best breed will have the world"), you can look at it in a more sophisticated way too: if you go for abortion as if this is the most normal thing in the world, don't be surprised if you become extinct.

So atheists who support abortion rights should breed more, or risk being bred out of existence by religious believers?

That's a ridiculous policy, and amounts to replacing one ignorant system with another, almost identical system, masquerading under a different name.

Is this really what you mean?

[jcmmanuel]

Thea, from what I've seen abortions rarely bring "suffering".

Be aware that all abortion is violent. There is no abortion method that does not invoke the life being killed to struggle for survival. This is one of the reasons why many people, who ever observed abortion (no matter the method) by means of, for instance, ultrasonography, will usually feel quite shocked. It is, by all means, no pleasantry. It is a form of suffering, even if it is may be a hazy one to evaluate.

"genetically inheritable diseases are a problem abortion solves." ... "Why let a child live for four years in agony or with serious disfigurement?"

"Solves" seems to be a very arbitrarily used word here. No one can decide that a problem is 'solved' unless those directly involved (the mother; the child, being the subject of involed solution) are arguably being offered a satisfying resolution. The mother usually doesn't feel like the solution is a calculation about the child's body parts after all. How would we know whether these situations are "permissable"?

Disfigurements: ask those who are alive and grateful for their lives, maybe? How can you know? Is fear that leads to so-called 'rational' decisions, really rational? Is life without risks still life?

Now you could argue that a woman agreeing to have sex (or not) is the same as a woman consenting to give birth. I don't agree with that view, particularly in an era where contraception exists, but sometimes fails. And certainly in a society that wishes to encourage equality between the sexes, this view can't prevail

Interesting. But equality of value is not equality of capabilities. Women are created (by nature, if you want) as child-bearers. Yet, also, both partners involved remain responsible for the effects of what they do - pregnancy remains such an effect, in spite of sex being a pleasure. So this argument is a bit... weak?

I do agree however with your argument about the weight of the burden of responsibility *after* birth. But this is where a collective responsibility may come in (the "it takes a village to raise a child", ref. Thea).

"no one can make those kinds of decisions for anyone else".

I fully agree. And the fact that you are asking lots of questions here reminds me why I often call myself "agnostic (Christian)" - questions are the thing that brings about answers, and questions are also the thing that re-questions fixed answers. The perennial question of life requires us to think and rethink, day after day - this is the essence of our humanism, so to speak. Be it religious answers, non-religious ideas/concepts (ref. what hadespussercats said: these are not religious questions - but they are thorny) - they need us to think it through, and not just 'logically' but 'humanly'.

"What does abortion as a solution indicate about the nature of the problem it seeks to resolve?"

I would posit that "abortion as a solution" is contradictory to our own self. "Abortion as the outcome of how we behave" would be an assessment I can live with - even have some sense of peace with it, as long as it isn't being called a "solution". One could call prisons a "solution" - and I would have the same problem with that. Some things are inevitable, or necessary, but to make that a *finality* is giving up faith in our ability to do better.

[jcmmanuel]

So atheists who support abortion rights should breed more, or risk being bred out of existence by religious believers?

That's a ridiculous policy, and amounts to replacing one ignorant system with another, almost identical system, masquerading under a different name.

Is this really what you mean?

No, hadespussercats, not really. I was just highlighting the fact that calculating a solution of some kind is often far from the end of the story - there's a lot of things here that require more thinking than we may want to - and yet, we sometimes desire to simplify. What I mean is that the results of where we are today are not convincing. But I did not want to suggest that breeding more would solve it all.

In fact, its also in your own words here: "replacing one ignorant system with another". I think I support that fully (unless I misunderstood what you meant with that). I think what we are finding out today is our ignorance. See my other post too, above: abortion does not deserve the word "solution" I think. Yet, it may be unavoidable, for now. But to stop there, and go on with it at the scale we are doing now, really doesn't make me (or most people for that matter) feel like we are highly sophisticated people. I think we should be humble and accept that we have a problem that isn't been solved because we know all about physics, quantum theory, relativity theory and so on. Sometimes I wonder why we are solving the riddles of the universe but we still can't solve the fact that there are dozens of children starving each day while we are looking for the latest gadget for our iPhone. This is not to say that to buy an iPhone would be wrong - it's a matter of being honest to ourselves.

[hadespussercats]

jesuschristemmanuel wrote: Interesting. But equality of value is not equality of capabilities. Women are created (by nature, if you want) as child-bearers. Yet, also, both partners involved remain responsible for the effects of what they do - pregnancy remains such an effect, in spite of sex being a pleasure. So this argument is a bit... weak?

Women are created as child bearers? By nature, you say? Then why would any true woman not welcome pregnancy? Why would women have capabilities and desires that are not used or satisfied by the mother/child relationship?

I don't argue that women are born with wombs, which equip them in a way men aren't to carry and birth a child. But women are also born with brains and individual personalities, which may lead them to decide that they want to avoid having children, or that they only want children in circumstances in which they can support them emotionally, financially and socially.

I also fully admit that women, as the ones with wombs, are either burdened or blessed with the capabilities/risks that having a womb creates. This is precisely why the ultimate choice about what women want to undergo physically needs to remain in their hands. As I've pointed out earlier, men are also both burdened and blessed by that physical circumstance. Which is why men and women are both benefited by access to contraception, and a culture that encourages sexual education and openness, so sexual partners can make smart choices about sexual practices and conception together.

Saying that women should breed because we have the capability to do so, or because we have been "designed" to do so (by what, exactly?) is as weak an argument as saying that men should kill each other because they have the capability to do so, and brain structures and hormones that encourage aggression-- that men are "designed" to be violent.

How secular is this debate, anyway?

[jcmmanuel]

Women are created as child bearers? By nature, you say? Then why would any true woman not welcome pregnancy? Why would women have capabilities and desires that are not used or satisfied by the mother/child relationship?

I don't think I used child bearers as a stigma, or limitation. It is simply the observation of how nature works, as you suggested.

I don't argue that women are born with wombs, which equip them in a way men aren't to carry and birth a child. But women are also born with brains

Are you sure?

Okay that was just being silly. Again: I did by no means want to exclude this from the overall picture. And yes I know what pro-choice means, but still it is a choice, not an arbitrary happening and a child-in-the-making is involved. There are many thoughts at this level, but the least thing to admit is that we cannot ignore that we have an issue here and a huge debate, world-wide.

I also fully admit that women, as the ones with wombs, are either burdened or blessed with the capabilities/risks that having a womb creates. This is precisely why the ultimate choice about what women want to undergo physically needs to remain in their hands.

It is difficult to fully support the word "ultimate" in this formulation. Sure, women have a principal responsibility at this point. But we may, at the very least, have to admit that responsibility requires education, and education does not come equally to all people, and it doesn't come automatically. In the case of a pregnant teenager they may need, or simply want advice - so your expression "ultimate choice" is somehow negotiable, or vague. But saying this is not denying women a (big) say at this point. It's just that children don't happen in a vacuum. That's what it means to be a society.

"...men and women are both benefited by access to contraception, and a culture that encourages sexual education and openness, so sexual partners can make smart choices about sexual practices and conception together."

Yes - but also about having a child, or children. That is part of the potential blessing, and it happens to be "opposite" to abortion. That's simply how it is: there is an argument on both sides of the divide.

But I was not saying that "women should breed". In that respect, I think contraception may be improved in ways that may make abortion unnecessary in many cases. There are ways to fight. Fight for better solutions, I mean. Fight with reason. With faith (faith in life, I mean).

"...we have been "designed" to do so (by what, exactly?) is as weak an argument"

Not THAT weak. Nature has its ways, it's hard to argue against this design of nature. You may want to alter it, but then we are revising how it works. That may be fine, but still: nature is not our enemy - nature created us. It is also a matter of respect for nature. Not 'blind obedience', but respect. Dealing with it gracefully, if you want.

Regarding the "brain structures and hormones": we tend to learn about good use and bad use. To kill each other is an effect of anger, those emotions are seen as dangerous, a pitfall for mankind. But the desire to have sex is not seen as dangerous, but related to something nature wants us to do - and nature has linked the pleasure of it with the effect of (potential) pregnancy. This is normally not seen as something bad. I think most people see it as good - it is rational. The problem is not with pregnancy, but with unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Those are not natural phenomenon, but cultural or societal phenomenon, or even economic. I think it is good to understand the nature of the problem - it is not natural. Nature still deserves respect - that's why the debate is going on, hopefully among people who respect life and also respect choices (both of these).

"How secular is this debate, anyway?"

Very good question. I think the debate is humanistic in the first place. These humans happen to be religious in many cases, spiritual in most cases. Atheistic in other cases (which doesn't necessarily exclude spirituality). Secularism is about the separation of religion from politics, but not about excluding religion from public debate. Yet, religious ideas must also be expressed in a common Esperanto that all can understand, and every position requires a plausible argumentation, one that makes sense to the human mind.

[hadespussercats]

JCEmmanuel, there are many, many people in the world that see sex as shameful, not "good," or endorsed by "nature" as a design entity. In fact, I'm surprised that a christian is unfamiliar with the writings of Paul on this matter. This attitude towards sex, that it is shameful, or dirty (except in specific endorsed circumstances, such as within marriage, or for the purpose of conceiving children) is one of the many reasons that sex education isn't provided to people who need it. Many people are ignorant about how sex works, how to use contraceptives, etc., and many people don't have access to reliable contraception, because of these widespread views about the shamefulness of sex. Not surprisingly, this can and does lead to unwanted pregnancies.

When I talk about sex partners needing to make smart choices about conception, I'm referring to choosing whether or not they want to have a baby. What do you think "conception," as opposed to "contraception," means?

Furthermore, the following was your suggestion, not mine:

"I don't think I used child bearers as a stigma, or limitation. It is simply the observation of how nature works, as you suggested."

You talk about nature not being our enemy, that we don't need to fight against it. Since when does nature have intent?

"Regarding the "brain structures and hormones": we tend to learn about good use and bad use. To kill each other is an effect of anger, those emotions are seen as dangerous, a pitfall for mankind. But the desire to have sex is not seen as dangerous, but related to something nature wants us to do - and nature has linked the pleasure of it with the effect of (potential) pregnancy."

Nature wants us to get pregnant? But nature doesn't want us to kill each other? You sound muddled, and I think you need to spend some serious time contemplating the nature of agency. And I'd like to reiterate that there are plenty of people that see sex and sexuality as dangerous-- hence censorship, modesty laws, homophobia, misogyny, even marriage (from certain points of view.)

And sex IS dangerous, in many ways, which is why education about self-respect and smart sexual choices and STD's and effective contraception are so desperately needed around the globe.

And if a woman is pregnant, and doesn't want to have the baby, or is physically, financially, or socially at risk if she carries it to term, abortion does indeed present a solution to her problem. A last-ditch solution, to be sure, but in our world as it stands, a necessary one.

[Thea]

Thea, from what I've seen abortions rarely bring "suffering". It's the pregnancies that lead to the abortions that cause the suffering (at least on an emotional level), not the abortions themselves.

I think the emotional suffering surrounding a pragmatic decision about abortion is in large part due to the cultural fetishisation of pregnancy, motherhood (the 'maternal instinct'), babies (including the erroneous notion of "baby" in the initial stages of pregnancy) etc ... women are socially expected to feel guilt and suffering and remorse over this decision (and often for being in the position of unwanted pregnancy in the first place), so much of the psychology is culturally imposed.

I actually kinda think that the "cultural fetish" of pregnancy, motherhood, babies, etc., is a Very Good Thing for the ongoing survival of human beings, not to mention that if you're lucky enough to land in the right circumstances, these things just plain feel good (news flash: feeling [which none of us can avoid] good helps you survive, too). I think that rather than trying to excuse ourselves out of feeling bad about getting an abortion by trivializing a set of perfectly good, functional values, maybe we should try to look at the "cultural fetishes" that make an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy such a big deal to begin with.

"Cultural fetishisation" as you put it, is unavoidable, although I have talked about it in terms of an ontological inclination to "create meaning." So, I don't argue that you're wrong about the ultimate genesis of values, norms, traditions, epistemologies, belief systems, etc. What you're saying is we have a choice about what to believe, and none of those choices is inevitable in terms of any kind of absolute. But what I will argue is that, given that creating meaning is unavoidable, it would behoove us to make choices about what we mean that are actually good for us, rather than trying to retrofit bad choices in an effort to morph them into good choices without actually solving any of the underlying problems.

What the hell kinda people are we that our women are put in the position of having to abandon the values that are otherwise widely held throughout the community in which she exists in order to make a "pragmatic decision" about terminating a pregnancy? Does she get to have those values back once she has the abortion? Why is abortion pragmatic, eh? Really. And what are the long term consequences of making this kind of pragmatic choice on a social scale, never mind for an individual?

[Hermit]

I actually kinda think that the "cultural fetish" of pregnancy, motherhood, babies, etc., is a Very Good Thing for the ongoing survival of human beings...

I actually kinda think that the "cultural fetish" of pregnancy, motherhood, babies, etc constitutes a grave danger for the ongoing survival of human beings. Sustainability, anyone?

[charlou]

Meanwhilez ... Im listening to damn fine abo didging and twiddling my nips. *tongueflick*

I'll get back to this important topic later.

[lordpasternack]

Besides the question of the consciousness and sentience of the developing foetus, there is also the issue of the foetus using the mother's body for sustenance - which arguably it has no "right" to do against the mother's will, irrespective of whether or not you dignify it with personhood. See the Violinist Thought Experiment.

An issue that remains with that line of argument is that so many people conflate the right not to have your body used as life support with a right to purposely render said life dead. Going along the lines of the Violinist Thought Experiment, it would be tantamount to purposely going and cutting the medical care that the violinist was already receiving, because, besides not wanting to support their life, you actively want to terminate it - and for your own purposes, completely irrespective of the prognosis for the violinist on conventional medical treatment, or whatever new medical treatments that will be coming along soon.

Let's face it - most women don't abort because they have issues with their body being used to support the development of a baby, or even particularly because they don't like the idea of going through birth - but because they don't wish to become biological parents, point blank. It's primarily birth-control, a parenthood prevention measure - not a squeamishness about being "parisitised" or about the grave hazards of pregnancy and birth. The latter are just raised by feminists to legitimise the former, which they frankly shouldn't really need to do. The problem is that they use the latter to essentially mean the former so much that they do seem to think they amount to the same in their minds. And they just don't. If foetuses at whatever stage in pregnancy are to be granted some basic acknowledgement of sentience and personhood (which would be subject to evidence), then you may state a basic right to have the pregnancy removed from your body at any point during pregnancy all you wish, but it doesn't conflate to the automatic right to have that product of pregnancy euthanised, if it could be removed without killing it - but that's alright, because the only things that the feminists were bothered about was the use of the women's bodies, and their choice not to be used in this way, anyway, right?!

[Thea]

I actually kinda think that the "cultural fetish" of pregnancy, motherhood, babies, etc., is a Very Good Thing for the ongoing survival of human beings...

I actually kinda think that the "cultural fetish" of pregnancy, motherhood, babies, etc constitutes a grave danger for the ongoing survival of human beings. Sustainability, anyone?

---------------------
Nice propaganda tactic, there. The thing I can't help remembering is that each of the numbers that goes into that rather alarming-all-by-itself chart of yours represents a human being. They're not actually just numbers. Do you really think that undermining values that serve as ties between people is a good answer (particularly ties that DON'T have as their anchor point money, status, and power)? Or how about maybe we all put our heads together and figure out ways to solve the problem such that victimization, just in general, is minimized? Too, I don't see a chart that depicts the distribution of resources anywhere, nor the distribution of wealth, and nothing about who controls that wealth. And I find it altogether too ironic that we manage to foment a significant drop in infant mortality rates--at least in certain parts of the world--only to try to solve the consequences of it by attempting to justify abortion as common practice.

The ONLY way you're going to find a sustainable answer that actually works is by taking human beings into account as human beings--and that includes all that inconvenient, messy, value-laden sh*t. We all need to give a damn about each other to start with. And THEN we need to at least try to pull our heads out of our ethnocentric butts and try to imagine that maybe the way we are currently living our lives is actually contributing to the problem in some way OTHER than we tend to have feelings about our mothers and children.

Attempting to render love out of the equation as if it's some kind of pernicious anomaly already hasn't worked, and continues to fail to do so.