A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

Edit: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

And Ortho-Evra hormone patches http://www.orthoevra.com/what-is-patch- ... -work.html (need to be remembered every seven days) and NuvaRing http://www.nuvaring.com/Consumer/aboutN ... /index.asp (needs to be remembered twice per 28 days). And sterilization, of course.

I have always considered myself very lucky, partly because I live in a country and region where it is easy to find and afford a competent gynecologist and get contraceptives from pharmacies, and partly because I have always managed to find a comfortable and reliable method, at least after some hassle.

Yet, if you look at that rather long list of methods above: I'm too old for combined pills (which worked beautifully before 35, except for the stress of forgetting) and hormone patches, which both have too much estrogen -> trombosis risk, docs won't prescribe them anymore, progestogen-only pills killed my libido so all progesteron-based methods are suspect, I have had a coil for a week or so - it tried to come out on its own volition (and hurt like hell while doing so - I had to get back to the doctor very fast, and she said I should not try any kind of coil again), I'm allergic to every spermicide we've tried and also to the "glue" of the hormone patches.

So hubby and me, we are down to the various rubbers (diaphragms, male and female condoms) without spermicides, NuvaRing, and sterilization. Unless something has been forgotten from the list above? I am so relieved that NuvaRing exists and that my current gynecologist predicted that barring any surprises I should be able to use them until I'm 50. Nearing that (which is fairly soon) - M and I need to once again do our homework and discuss, and very likely consult my gynecologist.

So also someone who is mature and responsible regarding contraception and in a stable, monogamous relationship with a level-headed and supportive partner and has full access to all thinkable information and medical expertise, may have a non-trivial amount of difficulty when searching for a fitting contraceptive method. And, as has been pointed out before, every method even when used correctly can fail (also sterilization). That, combined with that it is better for a child to be born wanted / welcome than not, and that an early enough abortion is far safer than a full-term pregnancy + birth are the main reasons why I think abortion on demand should be as widely and as easily available as possible.

Late term abortions of non-viable fetuses or to save the mother's life are also a no-brainer from where I look at it. To have someone be born just to die (likely painfully and slowly) is cruelty, which we would not subject animals to, so why humans? And an already existing, fully developed human being is worth more in my book than a fetus.

Just my 2 bits, of course. Your mileage will vary.

Sounds like you're being very responsible and thorough in your sexual behavior. Great! You're a fine example of how it ought to be done. Your situation is NOT the sort of irresponsible sexual behavior I'm referring to however. I can easily distinguish between someone who has considered and tried all the alternatives, is stuck with relatively primitive forms of contraception that have high failure rates, and may need to ethically resort to abortion, with the consultation and consent of your spouse, as the only viable alternative to a dangerous pregnancy, should all your reasonable efforts fail, and the woman who pays no attention to any of it, fucks like a bunny and uses abortion as a form of contraception because she doesn't want to be bothered to even attempt any sort of ethical behavior before resorting to the killing of a living human being.

And, it's necessary to mention that you elide the most effective form of birth control that exists: abstinence.

[Seth]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

Edit: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

As for female condoms, though, I'm reliably told that they do leave quite a bit to be desired in convenience and effectiveness, not to mention, cost. On the bright side, though - they can be sterilised and reused! ( )

The most effective form of contraception is to keep your knees firmly together... Had to be mentioned...

Aw, Seth, sex can be pretty freaking wonderful. What's so bad about having sex? Why are women who like sex so questionable in your book?

They aren't. I love sex. This discussion is not about the propriety of having sex, it's about a woman's responsibility for her reproductive organs when she chooses to have sex. The thread title is "a secular debate about abortion," and the decisions that lead up to needing or desiring an abortion are pertinent. With proper reproductive organ operation on everyone's part, abortions would never be necessary. The need for an abortion indicates that something went wrong in the decision making process.

I'm taking the position, for the purposes of this debate, that since women have attained legal reproductive freedom and plenary control of their reproductive organs, which I happen to believe is a very good thing, they have also attained absolute personal responsibility for the maintenance and operation of them, and that therefore men are absolved of liability for what goes on within the sovereign space inside a woman. With liberty comes responsibility.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that any of this reflects my personal beliefs about women, sex, abortion or anything else. This is an abstract philosophical debate, nothing more.

You have no stake in any of your arguments? Nothing of what you've said actually reflects your true beliefs regarding women, sex, abortion, or anything else?

Correct, as I point out in my welcome thread advisement of policy.

Perhaps that's true-- though it sounds more like a get-out-of-jail-free pre-emptive strike in case you write something truly reprehensible or idiotic.

I say reprehensible and idiotic things all the time, according to some people. That doesn't mean I hold everything I say as gospel truth. In fact, my practice here, as in other debate fora, is precisely the opposite. Nothing I say here may be reliably deemed to represent my actual personal beliefs or character.

I tend to think you already have, since you refuse to see the contradiction between writing that a woman has total control over her body, and writing that she has no right to use abortions as birth control if that decision is exerted entirely at her own discretion.

This contradiction persists, unresolved, despite the fact that at least four, maybe more, commenters have called you out on it.

So your debate is inherently flawed, and you can't even use the excuse that your own deeply-held moral beliefs have blinded you to the irrationality of your stance.

Nope. You have simply not accepted or understood the nature of my position. Here's a clue: It's an "either/or" argument.

[Ronja]

Seth - are you trying to argue from one coherent viewpoint inside this thread? 'Cause if you are, the exact components / characteristics of that viewpoint remain unclear. Please clarify.

-You have claimed that this is an abstract-only debate - is it (for you)?
-You have "hinted" that (this whole debate?) is some sort of either/or thing - is it (for you)?
-You have claimed that women have full sexual autonomy / freedom - is this also a part of your abstract debate scenario (because realistic this is not)?
-You have made statements that appear to value some types of (female?) sexual behavior positively and some other types of (female?) sexual behavior negatively - if you see this as an abstract debate scenario, what is the abstract (objective?) basis for such value statements?
-You have not acknowledged that society plays a very large role in what contraceptive methods are attainable for women and/or for men - is avoiding that reality a part of your abstract debate / scenario?

ATM your arguments don't make much sense to me.

[HomerJay]

the woman who pays no attention to any of it, fucks like a bunny and uses abortion as a form of contraception because she doesn't want to be bothered to even attempt any sort of ethical behavior before resorting to the killing of a living human being.

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then there is nothing wrong with this behaviour.

This whole argument is a big fail.

[lordpasternack]

An abortion still counts as a consequence they must face for whatever "carelessness" you wish to impute to them. And counts as taking responsibility for the situation, too. And beats the alternative in every way - of obligating such "careless" women into child-rearing (or at any rate pregnancy and childbirth) as some sort of twisted punishment for behaviour that just sticks in the craws of some self-righteous twats. As for the operation of one's genitals - I think it's mostly for the owners to make informed decisions about the right or wrong way to use them.

Sure it "counts." The question is whether it's a moral and ethical decision to make without consultation and agreement of the other parties involved.

Just out of interest - what, pray tell, should the female do where she didn't catch the contact details from the one-night-stand(s) she had, before they bolted in the morning? And what, even, if she behaves "irresponsibly" with the intention to get pregnant?

Should a classified ad be put in the local paper informing the public that female X is pregnant and considering aborting/giving birth - to whom it may concern? And would the latter be alright, since she at any rate isn't going to be bothering the fellow for Child Support, except maybe on the off-chance that she bumps into him again and notes his ID?

There is this one case of a female doing the latter that was in the press last year, actually: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/wo ... unter.html

Frankly, in my opinion, that is one woman who should be practically coerced into abortion, and precisely for her irresponsible behaviour, and her attitude towards becoming a parent! I could also point out a few places where she's going wrong in her mating strategy (sperm take over a day to travel through the reproductive tract, bitch - and ova are only viable for about a day...) - but I really wouldn't want to assist her! She's also, it goes without saying, placing herself and prospective infants at risk from HIV infection and other STIs - and could maybe take note that the two most common STIs - gonnorrhoea and chlamydia, can cause pelvic inflammatory disease in young females - potentially scarring the fallopian tubes, decreasing the chance of conception, and increasing the risk of ectopic pregnancies. Honestly - if she's really so insistent - it's not that hard to book a short holiday to some resort and have some wild holiday romance with one virile young guy who will do her all ways at least once a day, and most likely coincide with her fertile period. That would be safer, and likely more "effective", than what she's doing!

And what about the "ethical" merits of the use of the female's reproductive organs prior to conception should have any bearing on whether it is ethical to terminate the life of the embryo/foetus - if you consider it to be a "human being", and hence equal to, or approaching infanticide/homicide to terminate its life? And does "irresponsible" conduct ever override the female's right to bodily autonomy?

[.Morticia.]

the woman who pays no attention to any of it, fucks like a bunny and uses abortion as a form of contraception because she doesn't want to be bothered to even attempt any sort of ethical behavior before resorting to the killing of a living human being.

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then there is nothing wrong with this behaviour.

This whole argument is a big fail.

You win an internet.

[Warren Dew]

You have no stake in any of your arguments? Nothing of what you've said actually reflects your true beliefs regarding women, sex, abortion, or anything else?
Perhaps that's true-- though it sounds more like a get-out-of-jail-free pre-emptive strike in case you write something truly reprehensible or idiotic.

I tend to take Seth at face value. Of course, I rarely if ever consider anyone's writing "truly reprehensible" - that's reserved for actions. Usually accusations that ideas are "reprehensible" are substitutes for being open minded enough to consider the ideas logically - indeed it often seems like such accusations stem from fears, often unfounded, that the ideas are in fact correct.

In this particular case, perhaps Seth's opinions are still fluid, and he rightly trusts a robust discussion with multiple incompatible points of view to surface more of the relevant concerns than simply going with the most popular or most vocal opinions would.

Warren, your careful reading and efforts to ensure clarity in discussion are very much appreciated by this commenter.

Thanks. I will admit to the selfish motivation that it's easier for me to learn from a clear discussion than from a muddled one.

[Hermit]

Hello, Seth.

You may have missed this, or I might have missed your reply, or you just don't have one. Whatever is the case, I'll just put it to you again.

A zygote that will develop into a human is no more a human than a zygote that will develop into a chicken is a chicken.

Well, if it comes from a human egg and human sperm, it's not a chicken and will never be a chicken. It is human and will continue to be human for its entire life cycle, so your assertion is nonsense. The zygote contains human DNA. It does not contain chicken or rabbit DNA. It will always contain human DNA, and as it develops, under ordinary circumstances, it will become an adult human being. It will never develop to be a chicken, or a turtle. The primary definition for "being" is "the quality or state of having existence." A human zygote has achieved the quality or state of "being," and therefore it is a "human being" through the use of simple logic and a dictionary.

What you're basing your argument on is the notion that to be a "human being" the organism has to somehow be "complete" in order to qualify. A zygote, which is a single cell, in your inferred argument, is not a "human being" because it's single-celled. But you fail to state how many cells are required for the existence of a "human being." Two. Two hundred? Two hundred million?

What's your objective, scientifically robust metric for when a developing fetus becomes a "human being?" Not a "person" in the law, but a "human being."

There is no objective scientifically robust metric for anything involving moral judgments. I have said that before. I have also mentioned earlier, that this applies to your opinions no less so than mine, but you seem to be resolutely intent on ignoring that aspect. The only reason I can think of for your evasion is that you'll have to admit that I am right, and would therefore have to concede something. Going by the posts you have contributed at the RDF, I expect that will never happen. I expect you to simply keep ignoring points for which you cannot see a possible reply which is plausible and refute the assertion that something might be amiss with your stance.

I am, however, the eternal optimist at heart, and ask you for the third time: In light of your repeated (and correct) mention that my opinions lack objective standards, what makes you think that your ideas are based on a better foundation? If your ideas are better for reasons other than objective standards, on the other hand, why do you keep bothering to point out the lack of objective standards?

I'm arguing for objective standards. In sum, science should determine some specific point in gestation where the fetus reaches some particular, identifiable milestone of development, and the law should acknowledge that moment as the time when the fetus becomes a full "person" in the law and is entitled to protection in the womb.

My preference is for that stage of development when the fetus can experience pain. I suggest the metric used by embryologists for ceasing experimentation on embryos, which is the formation of the notochord, which takes place at about the 20th day of development, or that time thereafter that science can demonstrate, perhaps through MRI examinations of fetal response to external stimuli, that the fetus can experience pain. I find this to be a rational and moral point of demarcation for disallowing on-demand abortion.

Thanks for addressing the issue you raised at last, but your assertion of your view being based on objective standards lacks substance. It is no more objective than any other. As you said, you are expressing a personal preference.

"Objectively" speaking, one might define a full person as one who can survive on his/her own, whatever that entails. Being capable of experiencing pain as a criterion of full personhood seems rather arbitrary to me, especially if self-consciousness does not appear to be a corequisite.

[Ronja]

I agree with Seraph - Seth has not presented an objective standard, only a personal opinion / preference.

Furthermore, I do not believe one objective standard, which "everyone" or even a majority in a Western democracy will accept, can be reached. A requirement for knocking an older-than-X-days zygote/fetus out with painkillers before the abortion is carried out can be argued for, likely even successfully, but I really do not believe in one objective standard for when abortion is permissible. In practice there are too many if-then-else and but-in-this-case situations. A group of practical standards that are as-objective-as-reasonably-achievable, for various situations, maybe could be agreed on well enough - but as I see it, this group of standards has already been established, and codified in abortion law (which of course varies from one region to another, but that only testifies of society's influence on pregnancy, birth, and abortion related issues - and that influence is here to stay, AFAICU).

So I guess I still don't get Seth's point(s) / argument(s). I'm starting to wonder if there is anything there to get?

[Coito ergo sum]

Further to Ronja's point - there really is no objectively "fair" standard that is physically possible here - alternatively stated, there is absolutely no way for this matter to be settled "equally." At best, we can create a legal fiction to provide men with a virtual or metaphorical abortion right. But, even that does not make it fair.

I get Seth's point that if the woman has plenary power to abort after fertilization, and the man has no such right, then an "inequality" can be identified because a woman can abort (and rid herself of the pregnancy and all future obligations) after fertilization but the man has no such right or power (the man's decision point is at or before ejaculation, and the female gets additional decision points post fertilization.

So, Seth's proposal is to give men a virtual or metaphorical abortion in that the man may, post fertilzation, disclaim the pregnancy and absolve himself of all present and future obligations with respect to it.

However, an inequality still remains - Seth's scenario gives a man the right to metaphorically abort - meaning all responsibility is gone but the actuality of a pregnancy and most likely a born child remains. A woman can never, in Seth's scenario, have that right - i.e. - if we were really going for equality, wouldn't the pregnant woman also be able to metaphorically abort and carry the pregnancy to term, but disclaim all future obligations with respect to the child?

Seth's analysis is that the abortion serves that purpose for the woman, and that the only option for the man is the metaphorical abortion/fictional abortion, and that may be so - it may be the only thing a man can physically have, but it still means that he gets something a woman doesn't get. So, inequality is there no matter how we slice it.

I think that illustrates my main point, which is that the physical differences between men and women result in an inherent "inequality" meaning that no matter what the law is, there will be different decision points available to men and women. Even if we were to place all child-care obligations in the hands of the State and absolve everyone of all responsibility, there is still inherent inequality because women do the childbearing and men never do. We can't legislate that away. It just "is." It's never going to be equal.

[Coito ergo sum]

Indeed, Seth - having an abortion is being responsible and facing consequences. I choose not to trample the guy's genitals for a few minutes so he could face the consequences of his actions, too, though, in this instance…

As to sexual behaviour - it's frequency of sex, and fertility of those involved - not number of sexual partners - that'll heighten the risk of unwanted pregnancy. The sex could all be completely monogamous. It matters not a jot, anyway. But quit casting aspersions on the sexual habits of any/all women seeking abortions, and the nature of the behaviour that led to it.

I cast aspersions only on SOME women seeking abortions, specifically those women who were careless in their uterine operation and seek abortion as a matter of convenience to relieve them of the consequences of their carelessness.

And ONLY those women.

I acknowledge that there are many other perfectly legitimate reasons to seek an abortion, which is why I'm not categorically opposed to abortion.

Given that you have no personal knowledge of the overall sexual practices of any women, you're not in a position to speak in anything other than generalities. Sure, there probably are women who are careless in their uterine operation and seek abortion as a matter of convenience to relieve them of the consequences of their carelessness, but neither you nor I can possibly know who they are. You can't tell that merely by the fact that they have had an abortion or even multiple abortions, unless you know exactly how and why they got pregnant and why they obtained an abortion.

It's one thing to say that you object to careless pregnancies and abortion used to relieve women of carelessness, and it's another to pretend that you know which women these are. Since we really can't easily or objectively tell who the careless ho-bags are, and who the upright women who justifiably got abortions despite behaving responsibly, there is no way to create public policy on that factor.

Moreover, under what circumstances other than being raped or statutorily raped would you suggest that a woman has behaved "responsibly" rather than "carelessly" in seeking an abortion? Do women get a "one off" or "Mulligan" meaning if they're young-and-stupid once they can get an abortion, but if they make the same mistake twice they are careless? Or, is being "young-and-stupid" once also "uterine carelessness?" I think you need to be more specific as to what behavior a woman engages in that can result in an abortion being deemed "responsible," and what behavior makes it "uterine carelessness."

[Coito ergo sum]

An abortion still counts as a consequence they must face for whatever "carelessness" you wish to impute to them. And counts as taking responsibility for the situation, too. And beats the alternative in every way - of obligating such "careless" women into child-rearing (or at any rate pregnancy and childbirth) as some sort of twisted punishment for behaviour that just sticks in the craws of some self-righteous twats. As for the operation of one's genitals - I think it's mostly for the owners to make informed decisions about the right or wrong way to use them.

Or uninformed. Even if their decisionmaking is "uninformed," I don't see as it changes the fact that it's for the owners to decide about right and wrong use for them. I can't see why my use of my penis needs to be "informed" decisionmaking, nor do I accept anyone else's authority as the informative body. Likewise, your vagina is yours to do with as you please, and you have no obligation to inform yourself of what other people think you ought to know.

[lordpasternack]

You have stated, but in more paragraphs, what I already stated a few times in the thread, Coito.

As to a woman disclaiming herself from obligation of the result of her pregnancy carried to term - it's called either true surrogacy (where she carries HER OWN biological offspring explicitly for a third party), gestational carrying (where she carries fertilised donor eggs explicitly for a third party), or legal adoption. She also has the prerogative of leaving the newborn on a doorstep or in/by a hospital should she get desperate.

And in the future when there are all kinds of synthetic wombs and stuff - she may also be able to write off responsibility unilaterally from her end, with the product of pregnancy being brought to term outside of her body, along the wishes of someone else.

[lordpasternack]

An abortion still counts as a consequence they must face for whatever "carelessness" you wish to impute to them. And counts as taking responsibility for the situation, too. And beats the alternative in every way - of obligating such "careless" women into child-rearing (or at any rate pregnancy and childbirth) as some sort of twisted punishment for behaviour that just sticks in the craws of some self-righteous twats. As for the operation of one's genitals - I think it's mostly for the owners to make informed decisions about the right or wrong way to use them.

Or uninformed. Even if their decisionmaking is "uninformed," I don't see as it changes the fact that it's for the owners to decide about right and wrong use for them. I can't see why my use of my penis needs to be "informed" decisionmaking, nor do I accept anyone else's authority as the informative body. Likewise, your vagina is yours to do with as you please, and you have no obligation to inform yourself of what other people think you ought to know.

Okay - but I still think some sound, objective sex education is always a good idea. It's just not good for anyone when some in the sexually active population think that drinking a capful of bleach is some kind of post-exposure prophylaxis against HIV infection.

[Coito ergo sum]

An abortion still counts as a consequence they must face for whatever "carelessness" you wish to impute to them. And counts as taking responsibility for the situation, too. And beats the alternative in every way - of obligating such "careless" women into child-rearing (or at any rate pregnancy and childbirth) as some sort of twisted punishment for behaviour that just sticks in the craws of some self-righteous twats. As for the operation of one's genitals - I think it's mostly for the owners to make informed decisions about the right or wrong way to use them.

Sure it "counts." The question is whether it's a moral and ethical decision to make without consultation and agreement of the other parties involved.

Whether it's a moral decision is a wholly subjective question.

In my view, it's completely moral and ethical for a woman to have an abortion without consulting anyone else, generally speaking. If it was my wife getting pregnant, though, then I think that "morally" she ought to tell me and we ought to work on our future plans together, but that's because I think that things as mundane as, like, spending $100 or more of our money ought to be approved by both of us. We're a team, and if she got pregnant and thought so little of our relationship that she would just abort without regard for my views on it, I would feel slighted and deeply hurt, and I would wonder about her true feelings about me and the relationship. That being said, that wouldn't change the fact that as a matter of biology, it's her womb and I could never force her to bear the child and I could never force her to abort the child - nor would it ever be "moral" of me to try.

Yes - I'm an interested party. But, being an interested party doesn't always mean you get any real power in a decision. You know, like, say .... being a minority shareholder in a two-person corporation. You get a vote - or a say -- you can make your opinion known - about whether the corporation does X, Y or Z, but in the end the majority shareholder can do as he pleases without any restrictions. If the majority shareholder wants to "abort" the corporation, then the corporation will be aborted (dissolved), whether you, the minority shareholder, like it or not. You can't do a thing about it, and that's the way it is, legally. However, that doesn't mean the majority shareholder acted "morally" - maybe you were like two musketeers, and there was an expectation on your part that you'd fight harder to keep the corporation running - oh, well - sucks for you. Analogize that to the abortion issue - the woman's womb tips the scale making her the majority position in the venture - you have an interest, but you have no veto to overcome the woman's voting power.