A secular debate about abortion

[Hermit]

But my real point is that abortion is inevitable. You can argue whether it is right or wrong, sinful or otherwise. But it will always happen. Thus, rather than trying to push shit uphill, it is much better to recognise the reality, and make it available, with professional clinics.

I accept this, but add that the right set of policies in regard to the availability of contraception and sex education have the promise of reducing unwanted pregnancies to a bare minimum. One can agree that abortion should be legal, while still wanting to minimise its incidence as far as humanly possible.

That goes without saying. I think that's why Blind groper didn't say it.

Excellent post, Blind groper. Your point could even be extended to the use of heroin. http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 91060.html

[Coito ergo sum]

but if rights are not granted by the government, then they don't have to be enumerated. and, the enumeration of some rights does not disparage or limit the existence of other rights. Amendment 9.

Correct. But there also exists a hierarchy of rights where one right may be subordinate to another.

If you claim that such a hierarchy applies in this case, you'll have to make your case (other than that you personally feel that one right is more important than another).

Clearly that's what the Court enunciated in both Roe and Casey. At some point in gestation the importance of the mother's privacy right pales in comparison to the more fundamental right to life of the fetus.

Actually, it's a balancing of rights vs state power. The State can interfere with the right of the mother over her bodily autonomy in this case because the State's interest in protecting the life of the uterine resident has become compelling. Before viability, the interest is not compelling.

This clearly implies that after fetal viability, the mother's privacy right diminishes and the State's authority to protect human life grows until it subsumes the privacy implications. Thus, the states are free to regulate abortion within the framework set up by the Court.

the issue is the state's 'interest.' -- The state's interest becomes more "compelling" as the fetus develops. the state may legislate in the area of a fundamental right when it's legislation is substantially related to a compelling state interest. In the first trimester, R v W said the state's interest is not compelling.

And in Casey it discarded that test and replaced it with fetal viability.[/quote] It's roughly the same, as I noted above. That isn't the point -- the point is that the State's interest becomes compelling at a certain point.

But you have to also consider the state's interest in what? Specifically it's the State's interest in protecting developing human life. This obviously means that the right to life is more important than the right to medical privacy...in some situations.

Which one is more important is a function of the political process. You may have one opinion. Another person may have another. If the State feels it is more important to protect the fetus (when the State's interest is compelling) then that's more important. If the opposite, then the opposite.

Thus a hierarchy of rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose because my right to keep my nose intact and uninjured outweighs your right to swing your fist. Hierarchy.

My right to swing my fist at your nose depends on the facts and circumstances. sometimes, I have a right to break your nose.

Roe v Wade doesn't imply it -- it says it outright, when it sets forth its trimester test.

Roe no longer obtains in that regard, it's been overruled by PP v. Casey, which sets both a "fetal viability" test and lowers the bar from "compelling need" to "unreasonably obstructs."

Sure but that doesn't change what roe v wade said. It also didn't exactly change the applicable rule -- It was a 'plurality' opinion, not a majority. The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother".

but either way -- this illustrates my point exactly, which is that the right of privacy found in the federal constition is incorporated into the 14th amendment due process clause, and is therefore applicable to the States. The issue, then is whether the State can legislate in this area where the woman has a right of privacy. The answer is yes, if the State's interest is compelling enough to outweigh the mother's right to privacy in her bodily autonomy. For the reasons explained in PP v Casey, before viability, according to the plurality, the state's interest isn't compelling enough. after viability it is.[/quote]

I'm unsure why we're arguing this point, that's what I said.[/quote] If that's what you meant, then we are in agreement. It wasn't clear to me at all that you were saying that. But, apparently, you agree. So, good. What's the problem?

Chance of survival after 22 weeks (5.2 months) is 0 to 10%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

It works out about the same as Roe, because Roe called for unrestricted abortion through 3 months. then the next three months there could be restrictions and regulations, but not bans, and then after 6 months you could have bans. Since PP v Casey's plurality talked about viability, it is probable that viability would not be considered to exist until something past the 22 week mark - is having a 10% survival chance "viable?" I don't know, but even if it is, it's only 3 weeks shy of the Roe cutoff anyway.

Right. One point I'd like to amplify however is that "viability" is not a static point in time, it varies with both culture and medical science. Thus, viability in an area where advanced neonatal medical care is unavailable may be different from where such care is available, all of which could be figured in during a court hearing on whether an abortion will be allowed. Someday "fetal viability" may be very early in the pregnancy due to the availability of artificial wombs that can gestate a fetus from the zygote stage. At that point, abortion should disappear as an option, and should be replaced with medical removal of the fetus and implantation in an artificial womb, in order to respect the fetus' right to life versus the inconvenience of the mother.

Who cares about this court hearing you're talking about? Sure -- the legislature could possibly create a law requiring court hearings for abortions beyond a certain point, but they don't. I don't think one is necessary. It's sufficient to have possible criminal punishment if an abortion is done unlawfully.

And, you may want artificial wombs and such. It's certainly something that could be done, but it isn't required. I'm referring to whether abortion is allowed, not whether there are alternatives.

[Seth]

Kind of interesting how this debate has moved on to American law. That has never impressed me. The best and most pithy comment ever made about the law was that from Charles Dickens, in his book David Copperfield, when Mr. McCawber stated : "The law is an ass."

One of the reasons the law is an ass is that it is inevitably out of date. Society changes, and the law struggles to keep up. Laws are often decades out of date. You can see that in the current gay marriage debate. Gays have been 'out of the closet' and living as marriage partners for decades now, and the law is only just starting to catch up.

For this reason, when someone quotes the law, and uses that as an argument for why something is supposedly correct, it impresses me not at all.

One of the principles that strongly affects my own code of beliefs is simply that, if you cannot stop something, it is better to keep it legal. Gay marriage is a case in point. Gays will live as marriage partners, regardless of the law, so it is better to recognise that. Ditto for prostitution. Better to make it legal, and provide for sex workers rights and welfare. It has always been pointless trying to make smoking marijuana illegal for the same reason.

So how does this affect abortion?
Well, I remember a newspaper article which stated that New Zealand had its highest rate of abortion on a per capita basis in the 1930's. The reporter who stated that, got the data from police, not medical, records. Of course, abortion was illegal in the 1930's. But there was no contraceptive pill and people loved bonking then just as much as they do today. Inevitably a lot of unmarried women got pregnant. Back then this was a major disgrace. As a result, the back street abortionists got a lot of trade. Lots of women died or became infertile, due to the fact that those guys were not doctors and often blundered. Butchers more than doctors.

Eventually, the law caught up, and made proper abortions legal, and set up proper clinics, so that the women did not suffer.

But my real point is that abortion is inevitable. You can argue whether it is right or wrong, sinful or otherwise. But it will always happen. Thus, rather than trying to push shit uphill, it is much better to recognise the reality, and make it available, with professional clinics.

And the arguments against doing so are that a) it implies that the State is approving of irresponsible sexual behavior; b) it encourages irresponsible sexual behavior, particularly among teenagers; and c) it results in the killing of unborn children to a much greater extent than if abortion is illegal.

Abortion was largely illegal and much more rare than it is today prior to the development of The Pill in the 1960s. Soon after oral contraceptives were released on the market, the teenage pregnancy rate absolutely skyrocketed as teenagers were no longer inhibited in their sexual behavior by the risk of being stuck with raising a baby at 16 or 17. Girls kept their knees together and their panties on to a much greater extent before sex became relatively free of the obvious and natural consequences. That was bad enough, but then abortion was legalized and women started using it regularly not as a last resort, but as an alternative to contraception. And still the wave of irresponsible sexual behavior grew higher and higher.

The social cost of removing the natural consequences of any private action is that the action becomes much more prevalent. Some people feel that, particularly when it comes to children and teenagers and sex, that's a very bad thing for society because it destroys the bonds of family and leads to all the parties suffering economically and socially for an indiscretion that should have been avoided.

Others feel that society does not do well where sexual license is granted by the government, and that this leads to a decay in moral structure and societal viability.

And the fact is that these opinions cannot simply be ignored, particularly in any "democratic" society, and especially in any "collectivist" community where majority rule is the order of the day. If the majority of people therefore don't want abortion to be easily available for frivolous reasons, that's a social more that they have every right to enforce, don't they?

Or are you saying that when it comes to guns, it ought to be majority rule over minority rights, but when it comes to abortion it should be minority rights rule over majority opinion? If so, how do you explain the obvious conflict in that reasoning?

[Blind groper]

Seth.

Your last post makes you seem to be a terrible prude. What in Finagle's Name is wrong with sex before marriage? If a guy and a gal want to bonk each other silly, and end up bouncing off the ceiling, why is that wrong? The concept that sex before marriage is wrong is one of Christian fundamentalists. It should not be part of the moral code of more enlightened and rational people.

Sure, effective contraception should be used. They should use the contraceptive pill, or condoms, or some other effective method. I would personally like to see all young teenage girls offered a 5 year contraceptive implant every 5 years, till they no longer need it. Free of charge, courtesy of the taxpayer (though that suggestion will, no doubt, get me accused of being a Marxist.). Then they can bonk to their heart's content with no unwanted pregnancy.

However, it is also true that the law is an ass, meaning such measures are not offered. It is true that young guys and gals are frequently careless and let their hormones over-ride their common sense. End result is lots of unwanted pregnancies.

Those women with the inconvenient fetus will go out and have abortions, regardless of anything you, Seth, might want. The best we can do for them is make it easy and provide professional clinics that will do the job cleanly without harming the gal or making her infertile. From a totally pragmatic view, that is by far the best course of action.

That should also fall within the purview of any good libertarian, since we are maximising freedom of choice and action for the young people. Trying to stop people exploring their sexuality is truly fascist.

[Tero]

Guns and babies are not the Same, Seth. Guns are evil and babies are cute, if someone wants them. Plus babies are better consumers, guns just need a few bullets.

[Seth]

Seth.

Your last post makes you seem to be a terrible prude.

Only because you have a penchant for assuming that the author of an argument subscribes personally to that argument. Evidently you are having difficulty realizing that it's possible to entertain an idea without necessarily agreeing with it, and it's also possible to take a debatorial position that may be diametrically opposed to one's true personal beliefs for the purposes of playing "Devil's Advocate" to advance the debate.

What in Finagle's Name is wrong with sex before marriage?

Depends on who you ask.

If a guy and a gal want to bonk each other silly, and end up bouncing off the ceiling, why is that wrong?

Depends on who you ask. Are you in favor of teenage pregnancy? Given the fact that teenagers (or pre-teens for that matter, given that 50 percent of 12 year olds in the US are sexually active) are generally less responsible in their decisionmaking than adults (because their brains are not fully mature) and are likely to get STDs, pregnant, or otherwise be harmed by engaging in irresponsible and unwise sex, it seems reasonable to discuss constraints on personal sexual behavior that might harm the individual or society as a whole.

The concept that sex before marriage is wrong is one of Christian fundamentalists.

And Islamists, and most every other culture, religion or group that exists on earth today. I suspect there's a social reason for such social mores, not just a religious one.

It should not be part of the moral code of more enlightened and rational people.

Why not? Are you saying that there are never, ever any negative personal or societal consequences to pre-marital (or extra-marital) sexual promiscuity?

Sure, effective contraception should be used. They should use the contraceptive pill, or condoms, or some other effective method. I would personally like to see all young teenage girls offered a 5 year contraceptive implant every 5 years, till they no longer need it.

Interestingly, they can already obtain such contraceptives if they want to. Many of them don't want to for various reasons including the negative health effects of birth control like strokes, heart attacks and other physiological and psychological effects.

Free of charge, courtesy of the taxpayer (though that suggestion will, no doubt, get me accused of being a Marxist.).

\

Indeed. I sympathize with the idea of contraceptives being available, but I disagree that I should be required to pay for anyone else but my own consequenceless sexual pleasure. I'm afraid I draw the line at subsidizing teenage sex play with taxpayer money. If they want to play, they can pay themselves.

Then they can bonk to their heart's content with no unwanted pregnancy.

Except of course for the fact that EVERY form of contraception except abstinence has a known failure rate. For condoms it's about 15 percent. For the Pill, it's 1 to 3 percent.

However, it is also true that the law is an ass, meaning such measures are not offered. It is true that young guys and gals are frequently careless and let their hormones over-ride their common sense. End result is lots of unwanted pregnancies.

Indeed.

Those women with the inconvenient fetus will go out and have abortions, regardless of anything you, Seth, might want.

Perhaps. But when abortion was illegal and hard to obtain, there were far fewer such pregnancies because women weighed the risks of pregnancy and the difficulty of obtaining an abortion, as well as its danger, as a factor in deciding whether or not to have sex. I'm not sure that this particular factor in the calculus of sex is inappropriate.

The best we can do for them is make it easy and provide professional clinics that will do the job cleanly without harming the gal or making her infertile.

That merely facilitates sexual promiscuity and irresponsible sexual behavior. Now, I'd agree that if the woman had to go to court and have a full hearing, with the father present and allowed to have input, before an abortion is authorized, that might be acceptable.

From a totally pragmatic view, that is by far the best course of action.

Other people think that dissuading women from having promiscuous, irresponsible sex is the best course of action.

That should also fall within the purview of any good libertarian, since we are maximising freedom of choice and action for the young people.

Two points: First, I agree with maximizing the choices of adults, which is why I have no objection to privately-funded contraception for adults, which acts before there is another human being involved. Second, as a Libertarian I believe that a voluntary sex act resulting in pregnancy creates a contractual obligation on the part of both parents to care for the new life they created until it is able to care for itself. When a woman becomes pregnant two additional parties to the sex contract appear: the fetus and the State, and thus the rights (and powers) of each must be respected. If a woman and a man do not wish to bind themselves to such an obligation, then they should refrain from having sex or get sterilized. But if they voluntarily engage in a sex act, and the known, natural and ordinary result occurs; a child, then they have created a voluntary obligation to that child that they cannot dispense with simply by killing the child, because that violates the child's rights and it violates their freely-accepted contractual duties and obligations.

[/quote] Trying to stop people exploring their sexuality is truly fascist.[/quote]

I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm merely saying that if they choose to "explore their sexuality" they are to be held fully accountable for the consequences of doing so, one major consequence of which is the creation of a new, individual living human being, who has (or should have at some point in gestation) rights that must also be respected.

What I object to in re abortion is that it frees women (and ONLY women) from the consequences of sexual irresponsibility, which is more likely to make them irresponsible, and it kills another living human being. That seems incredibly selfish and evil to me.

[Seth]

Guns and babies are not the Same, Seth. Guns are evil and babies are cute, if someone wants them. Plus babies are better consumers, guns just need a few bullets.

Rationality failure there Tero. Guns cannot be "evil," they are inanimate lumps of metal and plastic and have neither intentions nor the ability to act. And if babies are so cute, why are more of them killed every year, by far, than there are people killed by firearms?

Forty Five MILLION "cute" babies since Roe v. Wade was ruled on. To some people that's what's evil, because it's done deliberately and intentionally by evil human beings.

[Blind groper]

But when abortion was illegal and hard to obtain, there were far fewer such pregnancies because women weighed the risks of pregnancy and the difficulty of obtaining an abortion, as well as its danger, as a factor in deciding whether or not to have sex.

I think you may be underestimating the frequency with which women had sex in the years before contraception was readily available. Pregnancies to unmarried women occurred often, and to a degree I suspect you totally underestimate. Abortions back then were carried out by illegal, untrained, backstreet abortionist butchers. They had no shortage of clientele. In addition, of course, a lot of forced marriages took place.

I do not believe either illegal abortions or forced marriages are desirable. Much better to have professionally run abortion clinics. Of course contraception is better still, but we have to live in the real world where such contraception is frequently not used.

That merely facilitates sexual promiscuity and irresponsible sexual behavior.

I have no problem with sexual promiscuity. Responsible sexual behavior, of course, would involve effective contraception, but as I will keep telling you, we must live in the real world where people make mistakes.

[JimC]

But my real point is that abortion is inevitable. You can argue whether it is right or wrong, sinful or otherwise. But it will always happen. Thus, rather than trying to push shit uphill, it is much better to recognise the reality, and make it available, with professional clinics.

I accept this, but add that the right set of policies in regard to the availability of contraception and sex education have the promise of reducing unwanted pregnancies to a bare minimum. One can agree that abortion should be legal, while still wanting to minimise its incidence as far as humanly possible.

That goes without saying. I think that's why Blind groper didn't say it.

Excellent post, Blind groper. Your point could even be extended to the use of heroin. http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 91060.html

Well, I think it needs to be said; for a start, it contrasts with the absurd position of the catholic church; by opposing contraception, they are making the likelihood of abortion greater.

Also, I want to emphasise my own view that abortion is not something to be accepted lightly. I suspect that the majority of women who have an abortion are traumatised to one degree or another. There seems to be a left/liberal/feminist position that an abortion is not ethically different to trimming one's toenails, and that (cost aside), it can be treated just as one more type of contraception.

[Blind groper]

To Jim

I agree that abortion has its downside, and causes a lot of emotional trauma to a lot of women. I agree that contraception is better. I suggested that offering all teenage gals a 5 year contraceptive implant, to be replaced free of charge every 5 years till they no longer want it, would be an approach.

Without something like that, abortion will continue to be a reality, whether done correctly by doctors in clinics, or fouled up by back street abortion butchers.

What is your proposal?

[JimC]

To Jim

I agree that abortion has its downside, and causes a lot of emotional trauma to a lot of women. I agree that contraception is better. I suggested that offering all teenage gals a 5 year contraceptive implant, to be replaced free of charge every 5 years till they no longer want it, would be an approach.

Without something like that, abortion will continue to be a reality, whether done correctly by doctors in clinics, or fouled up by back street abortion butchers.

What is your proposal?

Well, I agree in principle, although condoms have the added virtue of protecting (to a large degree) against sexually transmitted diseases, which are (or should be) a major issue for sexually active young people.

I'm pretty certain that the number of abortions today is already lower than it was earlier in the 20th century, due to more widespread contraceptive methods; I just want this to be taken as far as possible.

[Seth]

But when abortion was illegal and hard to obtain, there were far fewer such pregnancies because women weighed the risks of pregnancy and the difficulty of obtaining an abortion, as well as its danger, as a factor in deciding whether or not to have sex.

I think you may be underestimating the frequency with which women had sex in the years before contraception was readily available.

I doubt it.

Pregnancies to unmarried women occurred often, and to a degree I suspect you totally underestimate.

Actually, I don't, at all.

Abortions back then were carried out by illegal, untrained, backstreet abortionist butchers.

No, only "convenience" abortions were performed that way. Lawful abortions that were a medical necessity were available in many states.

They had no shortage of clientele.

Indeed. But so what? That merely supports my argument that promiscuous sex creates social harm and thus is an appropriate subject for government regulation.

In addition, of course, a lot of forced marriages took place.

Hm, I don't know of any instances in the United States where someone was "forced" to marry someone else. It's not like India or Iran where some geezer can take a 12 year old child as a wife without her consent. If you have evidence that this sort of thing is widespread in the US at any time since, let's say, 1900, I'd like to see it.

Of course what you actually mean is that societal and family opprobrium and pressure caused many promiscuous men and women to decide to do the right thing and marry so that the child would be properly supported and raised in a two-parent household, where his/her chances at success in life are many times higher than they are for single-parent households. In the end however, what "forced" the marriage was morals and ethics on the part of the parties involved, who decided that the best interests of the child demanded that they look to its security and upbringing rather than their own selfish hedonistic urges, which is not the case today in many places. Nowadays, women have sex and abortions with no moral compass at all just because they can.

I see nothing wrong with social pressure to do the right thing as a moderator of promiscuous sexual behavior. Being called a whore or a trollop or a loose woman by one's neighbors and being rejected by one's peers is a strong motivator towards responsible sexual behavior.

I do not believe either illegal abortions or forced marriages are desirable.

Then don't knock up your girlfriend.

Much better to have professionally run abortion clinics.

Much better to keep your John Thomas in your pants until you're ready to marry and raise a family.

Of course contraception is better still, but we have to live in the real world where such contraception is frequently not used.

That merely facilitates sexual promiscuity and irresponsible sexual behavior.

I have no problem with sexual promiscuity.

Other people do, particularly those who are unwillingly forced to pay for it through social program taxation that facilitates and encourages promiscuity.

Responsible sexual behavior, of course, would involve effective contraception, but as I will keep telling you, we must live in the real world where people make mistakes.

I don't have any problem living in a world where people make mistakes. I have an enormous problem with being forced to pay for the consequences of someone else's mistakes. They made the mistake, they should suffer and endure the consequences without demanding that everybody else bail them out of their poor decision making.

[Tero]

Guns and babies are not the Same, Seth. Guns are evil and babies are cute, if someone wants them. Plus babies are better consumers, guns just need a few bullets.

Rationality failure there Tero. Guns cannot be "evil," they are inanimate lumps of metal and plastic and have neither intentions nor the ability to act. And if babies are so cute, why are more of them killed every year, by far, than there are people killed by firearms?

Forty Five MILLION "cute" babies since Roe v. Wade was ruled on. To some people that's what's evil, because it's done deliberately and intentionally by evil human beings.

I'm pretty sure the 40 million moms, or 20 million twice?...knew what they were doing. Not all babies are destined to be loved. And you can't force women to be baby factories crsnking out 40 million babies.

[Seth]

Well, I think it needs to be said; for a start, it contrasts with the absurd position of the catholic church; by opposing contraception, they are making the likelihood of abortion greater.

Um...not exactly. Two things: First, the Catholic Church is a religious organization (a private one) and membership is entirely voluntary. It's a private club, and if you don't like the rules, then don't join the club. Second, the church opposes contraception and abortion because its rules and tenets value human life at all stages of development, and it believes that sexual intercourse is a sacred covenant between men, women and God that exists for the purpose of fulfilling the divine command to "be fruitful and multiply." The church believes that sex should be reserved for procreation and be done only within a sanctified marriage. However, within that framework, the church has no problem with a married couple sharing the pleasures of sex so long as they remain open to the possibility of a child being created.

Persons who claim to be Catholics who use contraceptives or abort a baby are not Catholics, they are apostate sinners and are rightfully ejected (excommunicated) from the church for disobeying it's rules. Nobody has a "right" to be a Catholic.

Also, I want to emphasise my own view that abortion is not something to be accepted lightly. I suspect that the majority of women who have an abortion are traumatised to one degree or another.

Indeed. Fairly often they suffer deep and enduring emotional trauma and no small number of them suffer severe psychological effects. That's something that Planned Parenthood quite deliberately conceals from its clients...so that they can get the abortion money.

There seems to be a left/liberal/feminist position that an abortion is not ethically different to trimming one's toenails, and that (cost aside), it can be treated just as one more type of contraception.

Correct. And many people find that mindset repugnant in the extreme. An opinion to which they are entitled, and which they are likewise entitled to communicate to their legislators when urging legislative action to reduce the carnage.

[Seth]

Guns and babies are not the Same, Seth. Guns are evil and babies are cute, if someone wants them. Plus babies are better consumers, guns just need a few bullets.

Rationality failure there Tero. Guns cannot be "evil," they are inanimate lumps of metal and plastic and have neither intentions nor the ability to act. And if babies are so cute, why are more of them killed every year, by far, than there are people killed by firearms?

Forty Five MILLION "cute" babies since Roe v. Wade was ruled on. To some people that's what's evil, because it's done deliberately and intentionally by evil human beings.

I'm pretty sure the 40 million moms, or 20 million twice?...knew what they were doing. Not all babies are destined to be loved. And you can't force women to be baby factories crsnking out 40 million babies.

Does that include all the ones who go insane or are severely psychologically (and physically) damaged by their abortions, or the ones who commit suicide after having an abortion? Did they know what they were doing? Does the pregnant 12 year old who was raped by her father who gets an illegal abortion from Planned Parenthood, which refuses to obey the law and report the sexual abuse, resulting in the girl being returned to her sex abusing father so he can fuck her again "know what she's doing?"

And nobody's forcing anyone to "crank out babies." They do it voluntarily. They have sex, they get pregnant. Nobody forced them (except for the raped 12 year olds and suchlike) to have sex, they did it because they erroneously thought that "contraceptives" are 100 percent effective...or they just don't care about the consequences because they are hedonistic, selfish, immature and irresponsible. To paraphrase: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.