Abortion

[miir]

Legally, a child is not an entity until it leaves the womb.
Your birth certificate does not list your conception date.
You do not receive tax breaks on unborn children.

Don't forget that you also cannot use the carpool lanes when pregnant! (could have sworn that story was linked here as well)

Haha, that's rich!

[Sueven]

I believe I was perhaps vague by describing it as "life." Perhaps I wasn't but I'll try to extrapolate regardless. When I refer to life, I don't mean life in the sense of a random living thing, single cell organism, slug, dog, etc... I suppose a more accurate statement would have been: The functional difference is when the (whatever) should be considered human and granted the basic protections allocated to other humans.

I don't think that there is some point where the fetus becomes "life" in the sense that it deserves the same rights that other humans have. I think it starts having rights at the moment of conception. I can think this, and still be pro-choice, because I don't believe that all humans have the same rights at all times, regardless of circumstance or context. I think a first trimester fetus has very few of the rights that, say, you or I have, and the force of those rights are weaker. In my opinion, people obtain rights at conception and have rights until death (and maybe even past death). However, those rights are not static. The types of rights that a person enjoys, and the strength of those rights, can vary depending on all sorts of factors. I have a vastly different set of rights now than I did when I was 10. If I made some lifestyle changes, my rights would be altered. If I became a father, my rights would be altered. And so on. I think a fetus has rights, but I don't think very much of those rights-- especially when weighed against the rights of the mother, which I think are stronger.

You may agree with me on the basic premise of rights not being fixed things, on rights being things that are dependent on context, but nevertheless disagree with me on abortion. You might say "I simply disagree with your assertion that the rights of a fetus are as weak as you say they are. I think the rights of a fetus are quite strong. You and I disagree about the impact of the context on the rights of the fetus." And you would be perfectly justified in saying so. Then we could go through all the typical arguments about rights. For instance, you could say "but the fetus has done nothing wrong! The main way that one loses rights is by harming the rights of others!" To which I could respond "but the fetus has little to no consciousness! How can you ascribe a full set of rights to something that can't even think yet?" There's an off chance that we'd be able to convince each other via this sort of argument. I know that, when I examine these arguments, I end up thinking that the fetus has a particularly weak set of rights. Others, based on their own priorities and values, may reach different conclusions. There is no correct answer. Any person's conclusion will be based on their own pre-existing assumptions, priorities, and values. There is also no social consensus on the correct answer, which is obvious based on the amount of debate that surrounds the question.

So ultimately this is why I find the rights debate meaningless-- because the debate has no determinate answer. In fact, the debate isn't even remotely close to reaching a consensus. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. This is why I prefer to frame the abortion question in terms of pragmatics rather than rights. I would say: "Given the fact that there is no answer to the question of abortion's morality that can be reached through ethics and rights discourse, we ought to determine our abortion policy based on the social consequences of that policy. And I believe that allowing abortion has positive social consequences." I would much rather argue about abortion in the context of consequentialism rather than rights. I'm certainly able to discuss it in the context of rights, but I will very rarely be able to get anywhere in such a discussion. All that I (or the person I'm discussing with) can do is bring to light new arguments that the other person might not be aware of, and allow that other person to weigh those arguments in his or her own internal ethical calculus. Most people who feel strongly about abortion are aware of most, if not all, of the stronger ethical arguments, so there's very little point to continuing to go over them.

Perhaps another separation would be an argument I heard considering the (whatever) as a parasitic lifeform. Because it was viewed as a parasite, the woman is simply removing a parasite from her body, and it is not considered human until birth. I can similarly understand the argument and where said people were coming from. Is this perhaps part of your reasoning as well?

This is an example of one of those rights arguments that different people will weigh differently depending on their pre-existing assumptions. It is one of the arguments that I find particularly powerful. I don't agree with the phrasing-- it's a fetus, I don't need to call it a 'parasite' to feel better about not caring much if it dies-- but I do think that the woman's rights in this instance are fairly strong, and this is largely because of the parasitic nature of the fetus and the effects on the woman of supporting it. So this does play a role in my ethical calculus-- but again, this ethical calculus isn't what I base my pro-choice position on. I'm not sure whether I think abortion is morally acceptable or not. It's a close question for me. My pro-choice position is based on the idea that legal abortion is good for society, not the idea that there's nothing wrong with having an abortion.

On the argument of abortion because of mental of physical defect in the child, should we also allow for parents to terminate the lives of the kids that have been born and suffer from the same symptoms? We could view it as mercy killing, assisted suicide, whatever. After all, they are lesser lifeforms... right?

This again is why I assume the point of the argument revolves around when we call it [human] life. If the point of the argument does not have to do with that, then you should also find it perfectly acceptable to off the mentally or physically handicapped. Shouldn't you?

No, they are not lesser lifeforms. I think that born people have stronger sets of rights than do unborn people, and the sets of rights that weigh against preserving the life of a born person are generally weaker than the sets of rights which weigh against preserving the life of an unborn person. So, in my ethical calculus, it would be morally wrong to kill handicapped people. Furthermore, this is the ethical conclusion reached by most/all of society. So, unlike abortion, there is an ethical consensus on this issue, and we can rest our policy on ethics instead of consequences. I'm sure that you could come up with a few outrageous hypotheticals in which the living person has a really really weak set of rights and there are very very strong interests behind killing him/her, and the ethical waters might be muddy and indeterminate in these cases. But these are only cases at the margins of the issue. The abortion issue is indeterminate at it's very core.

[Somali]

Good points and well stated Miir. And like I stated I clearly understand your point of view and the rationalizations you have for it. By restricting the definition of human life to the point after the child leaves the mothers womb makes your arguments logical. It also sounds like the is some resonance with the parasitic argument for you. Again I understand this way of thinking and it is clear to me why you feel the way you do.

As for the culling. This again was made to emphasize that I believe the basis of the disagreement is the question of when we consider (whatever) to be human life. I believe you agree with me on that matter. I am not here to argue my case that you are wrong and I am right or vice versa. My argument is the reason for the disagreement.

As for vasectomy or other forms of birth control, there are definitely those that feel that is wrong as well. For me there is a sharper delineation. With forms of preventative birth control the sperm and embryo have yet to collide and create [life]. I suppose someone could try to make the argument that birth control is poisoning the interaction, but that would be more a stretch for me and I'd need to see a lot more science around it to change my opinion on the subject. Basically though at the point in time when the sperm has penetrated the egg, merged and created a new life form is the beginnings of that life. Part of the reasoning that allows the use of birth control for me is that sperm and eggs have normal life cycles and they will die off. I cannot possibly allow for all my sperm to meet with unique eggs of their own, nor would I be able to afford it, nor do I want to see the population explosion such an event would create. Have you any idea how many sperm are created by the average male on a daily basis? (A huge amount of super-geniuses fueled by my gene pool may not be a bad thing though. Think of the technological advances we could accomplish. ) The life cycle for the (whatever) is different though. Without interference, it grows and leaves the womb to mature into an adult phase that we refer to as a person.

As for the legality. I believe that is part of said debate is it not? What should or should not be legal. With those additions come other implications. Some states have already begun to hold criminals accountable for interfering with unborn [children] when an assault has resulted in birth defect or miscarriage.

[Somali]

Sueven,

Actually I wouldn't have made any of the rights arguments, but I do have a better understanding of your view and again appreciate you explaining it in greater detail. I will make another comment however and you can choose to respond if you like or not.

The extension of different levels of rights based on age is a result of the assumed ability for those in different age groups to understand and assume the responsibility of the actions they have performed.

The extension of different levels of rights based upon the state of the being is something that I would consider to be different. A good argument from your perspective would be the patient on the hospital bed who has had severe trauma and his only method of survival is to be connected to a machine to keep his body functioning. In this instance where brain function has ceased and nothing can be done with current medical science. While it would be hard if I was personally faced with the decision, I understand revoking the right to live in this instance. In some ways, the fetus is like this in that, particularly in the first trimester. There are some people that contend that the fetus does have the capacity to think within the first trimester as well, and we can talk about that if you like, but it really wasn't the point of my original argument so I'll leave that alone unless you are interested. For me irrespective of the ability to think within that time, the difference is in the capacity. If you knew that even though the person on the hospital bed had no upper level brain function now, but knew there was a cure within the next 9 months, would you support killing the person in that scenario? The guy on the hospital bed is a tax on all of those around him. He serves no purpose and is dependent on others to live, but he could "be a real boy" in just 9 more months. What do you do? Do you still leave it up to the family to decide?

To your point though. Let me also ask about the social ramifications and how do you feel that abortion helps the society as a whole?
More specifically, if we eliminated abortion as a means of birth control, what do you feel the fallout would be?
In my mind we would see an increase in the number of back-alley abortions, this increase would spike to its height directly after laws were passed and then slowly decrease. The number of teenage births would also spike to new highs temporarily but decrease to slightly above current levels over time (per capita obviously). I also expect that the number of high school girls that failed to graduate high school would spike in a similar fashion to the previous two statements. Adoption rate would increase within the country and the propensity to adopt from foreign countries would decrease. Casual sex may drop by a hundredth of a %.

[Sueven]

As to the first half of your response: This is all additional rights discourse which I don't think can be answered in a way which is either right or wrong.

As to the second half:

To your point though. Let me also ask about the social ramifications and how do you feel that abortion helps the society as a whole?
More specifically, if we eliminated abortion as a means of birth control, what do you feel the fallout would be?

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'eliminating abortion as a means of birth control.' That could mean eliminating abortion entirely, as every abortion is a form of birth control, regardless of reasons. Alternately, it could mean keeping 'good' abortions (rape/incest/health or whatever reasons you deem acceptable) while outlawing 'bad' abortions (convenience or whatever reasons you deem unacceptable). I'm just going to answer why I think abortion is a good thing generally, and if my confusion as to what you mean by 'as a means of birth control' is important, then feel free to tell me what you mean and I'll respond.

In my mind we would see an increase in the number of back-alley abortions, this increase would spike to its height directly after laws were passed and then slowly decrease.

I agree that there would be a spike. I'm not so sure that there would be a decrease thereafter. There might be something of a decrease as people figure out ways to circumvent the laws and obtain their abortions in legal or quasi-legal fashion, or maybe as they became more aware of the risks of back-alley abortion. Nevertheless, even if there was a decrease after the spike, I think the quantity of dangerous/illegal abortions would be vastly, vastly higher than it is now.

The number of teenage births would also spike to new highs temporarily but decrease to slightly above current levels over time (per capita obviously).

Same as previous answer. I see no reason to believe that we would just return to (close to) our current equilibrium with time. I think teenage birthrates would increase and remain significantly above their current levels.

I also expect that the number of high school girls that failed to graduate high school would spike in a similar fashion to the previous two statements.

Same.

Adoption rate would increase within the country and the propensity to adopt from foreign countries would decrease.

Maybe/probably. I don't think total adoptions would change much. The barriers to adoption are generally not a lack of available children.

Casual sex may drop by a hundredth of a %.

If that.

Other consequences:

Abortion is often performed because a mother (or mother and father, or whoever) is unable to care for her child for one of a variety of reasons. She could lack the money to raise it. She could be a drug addict. She could be absurdly irresponsible. She could be homeless. And so on. Without abortion, these children would actually be born. This would mean a sizable increase in the number of children who are raised in poverty or other negative circumstances. This sucks for the children because it means that many of them will not be successful in escaping the lifestyle of their parents, and it sucks for society because an increase in the unproductive population has many negative consequences for society as a whole.

Privileged women also get abortions. However, my feeling is that abortions of convenience by rich women are far less common than abortions of necessity by destitute women. So, even if these women were having their children as well, we would still see a demographic shift toward more children being born into poverty and other negative situations.

Also, these privileged women are the ones who would likely be able to obtain an abortion anyway. They could afford to travel overseas to get an abortion. They might have social networks which give them access to a doctor willing to perform the abortion. They are likely to be better educated, more legally sophisticated, and have greater access to information regarding the possible methods of obtaining an abortion. These facts would skew the outcome even further, as poor women would be utterly unable to obtain abortions, while privileged women sometimes would be able to obtain them.

While there's not a whole lot of study going on in the area that I know of, there is some hard evidence that Roe v. Wade has created social goods. An argument has been made, most famously in Freakonomics, that abortion is partially responsible for the nationwide drop in violent crime in the 1990's.

Basically, legal abortion = a greater % of children being wanted, and a greater % of children having adequate resources to develop well. illegal abortion = a greater % of children being unwanted, and a greater % of children being without a reasonable opportunity to succeed. These differences lead to a host of outcomes in society-- positive outcomes being associated with the former and negative outcomes being associated with the latter.

[Fash]

Kudos to the both of you for such an eloquent debate. I wish I had the time to contribute.

Somali, I do apologize for my words.. don't quite know what's gotten into me lately.

Sueven, I agree almost entirely with what you've said.

[Winnow]

Legally, a child is not an entity until it leaves the womb.
Your birth certificate does not list your conception date.
You do not receive tax breaks on unborn children.

Don't forget that you also cannot use the carpool lanes when pregnant! (could have sworn that story was linked here as well)

And you don't have to buy two tickets for a show when pregnant!

[Somali]

As to the first half of your response: This is all additional rights discourse which I don't think can be answered in a way which is either right or wrong.

Fair enough.

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'eliminating abortion as a means of birth control.

I'm leaving that for debate as far as what constitutes abortion as a means of birth control. There are extenuating circumstances which could be debated to come to some sort of middle ground.

Maybe/probably. I don't think total adoptions would change much. The barriers to adoption are generally not a lack of available children.

I'd always heard that a significant issue with adoption in the states was a result of lack of children within the program. The result of that lack of children was additional barriers put in place. This is one of the reasons we see people adopting children from overseas.
http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/ ... /54/1.html

Basically, legal abortion = a greater % of children being wanted, and a greater % of children having adequate resources to develop well. illegal abortion = a greater % of children being unwanted, and a greater % of children being without a reasonable opportunity to succeed. These differences lead to a host of outcomes in society-- positive outcomes being associated with the former and negative outcomes being associated with the latter.

I don't think this gives enough room for adoption to offset the children being provided a home in which they are wanted. Understanding that adoption would likely place the children into higher income families given the statistics I will post below for the incomes of women performing abortions.


In all honesty I would have expected the numbers of middle class/upper class abortions to have been higher. The only data I found is fairly dated, but it does reflect similar numbers. Taken from http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html.

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

There are a few things I would like to understand better about these statistics. The web site comments that 20% are performed by teenagers, and 50%ish are performed by women under 25. I am curious to what degree the family incomes are skewed by high school and college students reporting their "family income" as near 0.

Since we are talking about the wellbeing of people associated with legallized abortions. I thought I would toss this out there as well. It is interseting, but take it with a grain of salt since it comes from a "pro-life" website. What isn't revealed is what constitutes "a higher %"

SPRINGFIELD, IL, Springfield, IL (Feb. 15, 2005) -- According to a spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, the APA's pro-choice position, first adopted in 1969, is based on a civil rights view, not on scientific proof of any mental health benefits arising from abortion.

The admission that ideology, not science, governs the APA's support for abortion came in response to a request by a Washington Times columnist for the organization's reaction to a new study linking abortion to mental illness. The study tracked 25 years worth of data on women born in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The researchers had expected that their data, drawn from one of the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal studies in the world, would definitively refute a recent series of studies linking abortion to higher rates of mental health problems. The Christchurch team, led by a self-professed "pro-choice atheist," Prof. David M. Fergusson, expected to find that any mental health problems occurring after abortion would be fully explainable by prior mental health problems, which some believe are more common among women who have abortions. Instead, the New Zealand research team found the opposite. Even after the researchers controlled for this and numerous other alternative explanations, abortion was clearly linked to elevated rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal behavior.

The findings so surprised Fergusson's research team that they began reviewing the studies cited by the APA in its claims that abortion is beneficial, or at least non-harmful, to women's mental health. The researchers concluded (1) that the APA's publications defending abortion are based on a small number of studies that had major methodological shortcomings (a view that echoes former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's complaint in 1987 that the research on abortion was too inadequate to draw any definitive conclusions), and (2) that the APA appeared to be consistently ignoring a body of studies published in the last seven years that have shown negative effects from abortion.

Full Article: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/060216A.html

[Somali]

Oh and Fash. I didn't take any real offense. This is flamevault anyway, or at least thats what we used to call it when I was here last. To be honest I've been surprised how timid most of the convo's have been given the subject matter. I assumed I'd be blasted a helluva lot harder than that for taking what I assumed would be a fairly unpopular opinion for the board. I've always been a sucker for debate though and I like hearing the other side of the story.

[miir]

Oh and Fash. I didn't take any real offense. This is flamevault anyway, or at least thats what we used to call it when I was here last. To be honest I've been surprised how timid most of the convo's have been given the subject matter. I assumed I'd be blasted a helluva lot harder than that for taking what I assumed would be a fairly unpopular opinion for the board. I've always been a sucker for debate though and I like hearing the other side of the story.

I'm happy that nobody has brought partisan politics into this thread.

[Sueven]

I'd always heard that a significant issue with adoption in the states was a result of lack of children within the program. The result of that lack of children was additional barriers put in place. This is one of the reasons we see people adopting children from overseas.

I'm sorry, I just meant that even if American babies aren't available, parents can adopt from overseas.

I don't think this gives enough room for adoption to offset the children being provided a home in which they are wanted. Understanding that adoption would likely place the children into higher income families given the statistics I will post below for the incomes of women performing abortions.

Fair point. I would think that the majority of women who otherwise would have chosen to have an abortion would keep the child if required to bear it. I might be wrong. I'd be interested in any data that might exist.

Since we are talking about the wellbeing of people associated with legallized abortions. I thought I would toss this out there as well. It is interseting, but take it with a grain of salt since it comes from a "pro-life" website. What isn't revealed is what constitutes "a higher %"

The study they're talking about sounds interesting. I wasn't able to find a copy of it without paying for it, sadly. Obviously, the magnitude of the difference found is important. But there's also a causation/correlation issue. I would think that bearing a child you would have chosen to abort (whether you eventually put it up for adoption or keep it) would likely be associated with poor mental health outcomes. The fact that these women ended up in a bad situation with an unwanted pregnancy may be the cause of the poor outcomes, not the fact that they chose to abort their pregnancies. Nevertheless, the possibility of abortions being harmful to the women who get them is worth keeping in mind, but I'm not convinced yet.

Also, justifying an abortion ban on the grounds of protecting women from themselves could be seen as veering away from pro-life territory into anti-woman territory. Again, I bet cigarette smoking is associated with plenty of bad outcomes.

[Canelek]

I'm for anything that kills babies, be it abortion, lead paint, or clowns.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I'm happy that nobody has brought partisan politics into this thread.

Not all of us are partisan. I just hate most liberals more than I hate most conservatives.

[Somali]

Sueven
I wouldn't actually argue a ban on abortion based solely on the mental health affects it had on the mother. That said, this seems to be one of the defenses that was used once upon a time for abortion. Abortion eliminates mental stress, etc... I merely found it as an interesting data point and a distant relative to the happy home scenario you provided for the children. I could have instead argued that an unhappy or mediocre home is better than being dead, but it didn't really seem fitting at the time.

Also, I believe you are correct that if we banned abortions and did not educate mothers to be that they had other options, they would keep the babies themselves or look for a back alley method. Adoption isn't often discussed and many people feel there is a stigma associated with it. Education about the adoption system and the availability of qualified local families would be needed to alleviate the problem. Sex ed might not be a bad place to discuss it if a ban was ever put in place. People simply need to understand the alternatives without the stigmas society normally attaches to them.

[Sueven]

A new study seems relevant to the discussion that Somali and I had here:

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_repo ... R_ID=48142

Executive Summary:

Abortion rates are similar in countries where the procedure is legal and in countries where it is not, and the number of abortions worldwide is declining due to increased access to contraception, according to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization and published Friday in the Lancet, the New York Times reports. The study also found that abortions were "safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely," according to the Times (Rosenthal, New York Times, 10/12).

I believe this study supports my consequentialist defense of abortion. If it's true that banning abortion does nothing to reduce abortion rates, while simultaneously drastically increasing the health risks of the procedure, then my argument is even stronger (although somewhat different) than my articulation of it indicates.

[Bagar-]

I am pro choice. That being said, I don't like people using it as a form of birth control either - it should be a last resort thing, and it should only be able to be done in the first month or two. That's my simplified answer until the argument starts roaring.

I actually agree. It should be a serious decision and not just a safety net for morons that can't manage to pop on a condom. A lot of the reasons that i'm pro-choice are because I detest the fact that "pro-life" people try to shove their idealology down other people's throats. Not that pro-choice people DON'T, but it seems that they mostly just want to have the ability to make their own decisions, rather than make other people's decisions for them, which is the general pro-life stance.

[Keverian FireCry]

I'm anti-this-entire-fucking-issue. It is so incredibly insubstantial. The only reason this issue exists is to give weak-minded, power-hungry politicians an easy way to take advantage of our universal moral/emotional leanings. Both sides abuse it equally.

Mainstream politards have turned it into this:

You are either:

"A BABY KILLER."

or

"YOU HATE WOMEN'S FREEDOMS."

This entire Goliath of an issue is merely a fraction of which should be considered part of the"issue" of individual responsibility. If we took it as that, then perhaps all of us Davids could overcome this bullshit and get back to what matters.

[Zaelath]

I'm anti-this-entire-fucking-issue.

Yeah, that. It's a complete non-issue here, politically.

[Somali]

Abortion rates are similar in countries where the procedure is legal and in countries where it is not

I believe this study supports my consequentialist defense of abortion. If it's true that banning abortion does nothing to reduce abortion rates, while simultaneously drastically increasing the health risks of the procedure, then my argument is even stronger (although somewhat different) than my articulation of it indicates.

I would be interested in seeing the raw data that created the statistical data to be honest. How do they "correct" for countries which have less access to contraception or less informed populace when it comes to birth control would be interesting as well. Data can be presented in whatever manner serves the presenter. I'm not saying the intended to lie with their statistics, but people can often accidentally manipulate the raw data to say what they feel should be the proper outcome. Additionally, data may be corrupted/obscured either intentionally or subconsciously during the information gathering process.

I find it fairly odd that there isn't a significant difference in the number of abortions in a country wherein abortions are legal vs one that they are permissible.

[Sueven]

They're good questions and I can't answer them. I'm sure the study is available, although it's likely that you'd have to pay for it. But I give it some benefit of the doubt because it's a pretty heavy duty study-- conducted by reputable organizations, published in one of the top medical journals in the world, rigorous peer review process and so on.

[Ashur]

I got off the fence long ago.

I'm of the "anti-life" camp. Pro Death penalty, Pro Abortion, Pro Euthanasia.

[Somali]

They're good questions and I can't answer them. I'm sure the study is available, although it's likely that you'd have to pay for it. But I give it some benefit of the doubt because it's a pretty heavy duty study-- conducted by reputable organizations, published in one of the top medical journals in the world, rigorous peer review process and so on.

I suppose its just my ego speaking, but I have a hard time believing data that is significantly different than my perception of reality when the actual numbers used to derive the data are hidden. If I have some free time I may see if I can find it, but I'm not so interested that I would pay for the data.

[Sueven]

Again, I haven't read the article, so I can't tell you you're wrong, but The Lancet tends to be more credible than Somali's Perceptions (or Sueven's Perceptions).

So just keep an open mind, even if you don't get a chance to read it!

[Somali]

It's not that I would refuse to accept the statistics so much as I would prefer to make the judgment based on all the data rather than the summary of it. While I might be slightly more rigid in this particular instance because of my feelings toward the given subject, I would like to think that understanding the numbers providing the data are something we should always seek to understand if we are capable of said comprehension.

In this instance there are simply so many variables that would have to be taken into consideration that I believe the interpretation of the data is subject to pollution via subconscious bias. I do not believe raw gathered data would be a reliable source of information to derive decisive comparisons for this type of study. As a result I would stipulate that they have made an attempt to offset values based on various cultural and political influencers as well as estimations for some of the data, particularly in areas where illegal abortions are not well tracked. Individuals reviewing said data and assigning estimates and offsets do not have to deliberately manipulate the data to fit their personal goals, but moreso that data can be skewed accidentally by the subconscious.

[Zaelath]

It's not that I would refuse to accept the statistics so much as I would prefer to make the judgment based on all the data rather than the summary of it. While I might be slightly more rigid in this particular instance because of my feelings toward the given subject, I would like to think that understanding the numbers providing the data are something we should always seek to understand if we are capable of said comprehension.

In this instance there are simply so many variables that would have to be taken into consideration that I believe the interpretation of the data is subject to pollution via subconscious bias. I do not believe raw gathered data would be a reliable source of information to derive decisive comparisons for this type of study. As a result I would stipulate that they have made an attempt to offset values based on various cultural and political influencers as well as estimations for some of the data, particularly in areas where illegal abortions are not well tracked. Individuals reviewing said data and assigning estimates and offsets do not have to deliberately manipulate the data to fit their personal goals, but moreso that data can be skewed accidentally by the subconscious.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that the WHO only have one bias; health. I'm also going to go ahead and assume that your zealotry wouldn't be swayed regardless of how the data were gathered. That's not to say that doesn't put you in the same boat as most of the population of the US who have been deliberately polarised by the various factions, i.e. you've been bombarded by so much advertising and proselytising that you're not interested in changing your mind.

This is why it's a moot debate and needs shelving with the hunting v's kissing baby kittens debate.

[Sueven]

I mean...

The study is there. The data is there. I'm sure their statistical methodology is laid out. I'm also sure that their statistical methodology has been peer-reviewed by a number of independent experts. I'm also sure that you lack the expertise to coherently criticize their methodology, even if you were willing to read it (I also lack that expertise).

All that aside, you refuse to give any weight to their results, because it conflicts with what you expect to be the case? Despite your refusal to read the study?

I mean...

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think there's much more to talk about here. I know that we were having a nice discussion earlier on this thread, but it's kind of hard to keep that going with someone who actively refuses to credit strong scientific evidence that conflicts with his intuition about the way the world is...

[Somali]

Let me start by stating I would prefer to believe that the study was correct. For someone who is against abortion, I would be overjoyed to know that people are predominantly making the "right" decision without having said decision forced upon them by the constructs of the law.

I simply expressed that I was skeptical about the information because it would be extremely difficult to properly weigh the variables that affect the statistical data.

As for bias, everyone has bias. Different social groups have bias, and my impression was that a majority of the scientific and intellectual community was pro-abortion. That of course is a feeling based upon experience and not statistical data, so I cannot speak to validity of that assumption, and I make an attempt to limit the bias it provides. I am however, still human.

Also, I didn't see any data posted in the article itself, only summarized views of the actual data. The links provided within the article all pointed to other summaries.

As for my ability to assess the data at hand and its accuracy, I'm not convinced I could not draw logical conclusions from reading the raw data, however I would prefer to see both the raw data and the assumptions they used to derive their assessment. I'm quite certain that visibility into both those components should make it easy enough for most people to draw some conclusions about the level of trust they would like to associate with a given source. If you happen to know where to retrieve said data, I would be more than happy to review it and provide feedback. Initial feedback would likely come rather quickly. the most important principles would be the review of how they have modified the data per region and justifications for said modifications. review of the actual collected numbers would take far more time, and I'm quite certain I would not be able to validate the gathered data itself given that I don't plan on making a whirlwind circuit of 100 countries, nor would I expend the time to contact the various organizations unless I was funded to do so. While this omission may provide the potential for deliberately altered information i feel the risk is minimal.

Just because you know a source has reported accurately in the past does not mean all subsequent reports are also valid. Blind trust leads often to errors in judgment.


As an aside, I'd considered the pro/con abortion argument itself dead. I'm not sure that argument will ever be properly resolved without "brainwashing" (either direction) the youth as part of a school program. This is more of a derail talking about data gathering isn't it? I suppose it ties back to the argument of whether legislation is needed/beneficial. /shrug

[Sueven]

It ties back into the idea of whether abortion is good for society or bad for society. It avoids the ethical aspects of the debate.

Here's your link:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... X/abstract

You're gonna have to pay for the full text if you really want to get into it. Sorry! It might be useful to read in order to figure out if the conclusions of the study have been mischaracterized in the media (possible). I doubt it would be useful to read in order to criticize their statistics, because I firmly believe that you don't have near the statistical sophistication to interpret them (and this is not an insult, I also do not have the statistical sophistical to interpret them). In order to be able to intelligently critique, you would most likely need an advanced degree in something like statistics or quantitative social science, or substantial experience working in those or related fields. Statistics are really damn tricky, and require real sophistication to understand intelligently.

I agree that you can't blindly trust what others say, and thus it's good to retain a measure of skepticism when using other's research as evidence. That said, a substantial study by respected researchers which has been rigorously reviewed and published in a top medical journal is a hell of a lot more authoritative than the intuition of some dude who argues about abortion on the internet. Skepticism is good, ignoring valid research because it's inconvenient for your position is not.

If you happen to know where to retrieve said data, I would be more than happy to review it and provide feedback. Initial feedback would likely come rather quickly. the most important principles would be the review of how they have modified the data per region and justifications for said modifications. review of the actual collected numbers would take far more time, and I'm quite certain I would not be able to validate the gathered data itself given that I don't plan on making a whirlwind circuit of 100 countries, nor would I expend the time to contact the various organizations unless I was funded to do so. While this omission may provide the potential for deliberately altered information i feel the risk is minimal.

Assume that someone funds you to undertake this process. Unless you have some sort of training that I don't know about, thinking that you'd be able to produce some substantial criticism that wasn't raised in the peer review process is laughable. There's a reason that science is typically performed by scientists (and yes, I understand that this is social science).

[Somali]

Yeah I clicked the links in the article. The one you posted was one of them. Unfortunately, its horribly vague when it comes to how they manipulated the data.

As for my intellectual capacity and ability to deal with information, I feel confident that I could understand the logic used to manipulate the data, hell I might even agree with it. If you believe I mean to draw conclusions in 24 hours based on the data that a team of people delivered over a much longer timeframe, I would agree that the possibility is likely nil. There are few things that I am incapable of understanding provided that I have access to the data and access to the methodologies used. Logic is not as difficult as you make it out to be. Perhaps it is a matter of what the expectations are. If your expectation is that I am saying I would be able to provide a better model within any "reasonable" timeframe, I expect that I would not. If I were not able to find flaw with their logic, I would however be much more accepting of it than I am when I am unable to understand their logic by virtue of omission.

Skepticism is good, ignoring valid research because it's inconvenient for your position is not.

it has nothing to do with convenience. My position is subject to change with regard to legislation. Let me reiterate. I would be happy to believe that the research was valid because it works toward an idea that most people are averse to abortion on ethical grounds alone and that the legality of the matter is of minimal influence. The thought that abortion rate is decreasing because people disagree with the concept is a beautiful thought. Hell I'll come right on board and say legislation of abortion is completely pointless if its true. I simply don't want to stand behind statistics that I don't properly understand. That said, I will not argue for (or against) legislation of abortion until I understand the statistics.
If I were to support legalizing abortion, it doesn't mean that I have to agree with abortion so I have no moral dilemma. I can disagree with abortion without agreeing to legislation and feel comfortable about it, I just want to understand why I would do so.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that the WHO only have one bias; health.

I would agree with you. Would you say that it was safer for a woman to have a regulated safe abortion or a back-alley abortion?


Edit:

That said, a substantial study by respected researchers which has been rigorously reviewed and published in a top medical journal is a hell of a lot more authoritative than the intuition of some dude who argues about abortion on the internet.

I thought I should reply to this as well. Anyone who trusts my intuition over data is a nutjob. I'm not saying that I am correct and they are wrong. Their data is enough for me to question my previous views on the subject, but without visibility into the actual study, it is not compelling enough for me to affirm their position. It merely takes me to a middle ground where I would not speak for or against it barring someone who has an absolute position on the matter and is a particular prick with their argument.

Edit2:
I'm looking at the "full text" now to see what it says rather than the abstract.

[Bubba Grizz]

Personally I am against Abortion. However, I am pro-choice. What this means is that while I would never want anyone to have an abortion I recognize the right of the woman to choose for herself. I would never force my views on this on anyone unless it is MY child that is being born or someone in my family. Ultimately though it is their choice and I won't try and take that away.

[Somali]

My initial response to the information in the study....
Fuck a duck they aren't very helpful.

As expected it seems they made an attempt to compensate for erroneous data gathering. Then again it always makes me feel warm and fuzzy when a study starts off by saying that the integrity of the data provided to source the study is largely erroneous and must be estimated to provide figures.
Also...
Their statistics still require a large amount of information gathering to be useful.They have not provided any cross reference of which countries have abortion policies, nor the limits of said policies.
Multipliers for abortion rates are only provided for a small sampling of countries. Most of the multipliers are hidden and their sources are not quoted.
No modification to the figures is performed based upon the religious acceptance of abortion as a procedure. While I understand that many people here are atheists, not all of the world is, and some of their religious either are more accepting or less accepting of abortion. Whether liked or not, this will affect the populations consideration of abortion irrespective of the legal implication.

If anyone else happens to be interested, but is too lazy to look for the "full text" link : http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... ltext#box1. Registration is free and they don't check the email you use to create the account

If you discount what affect religious beliefs may have to curb abortion rates in various regions, we still have to ask if best effort estimation is really "good enough" when talking about a study that will likely be used to justify policy decisions.

[Zaelath]

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that the WHO only have one bias; health.

I would agree with you. Would you say that it was safer for a woman to have a regulated safe abortion or a back-alley abortion?

Careful, your bias is showing. You want me to say "regulated safe abortion" as if there is any such thing, which means the WHO would gladly skew stats to say we should legalise abortion everywhere as that's the safer option.

This is a logical fallacy; legal abortions are not risk free, "back alley" abortions are not all performed with coat hangers and while the rate of complication is higher they don't kill every woman that has one.

If:

X = % of pregnancies that are terminated
Y = % of abortions that result in death/complications

Xr = % of pregnancies that are terminated (with regulation)
Xu = % of pregnancies that are terminated (unregulated)

Yr = % of abortions that result in death/complications (with regulation)
Yu = % of abortions that result in death/complications (unregulated)

Assuming Yr < Yu: (this is not a big assumption, but feel free to pointlessly attack it if you like)

Xr x Yr < Xu x Yu for all values of Xr <= Xu

In fact, the abortion rate in countries where it is legal would have to be much much higher for the overall death rate to be equal.

Given the data says Xr = Xu, then less women are dying where abortion is legal, which suggests to the WHO that legalisation is preferable from a health standpoint.

[VariaVespasa]

Um, did you just whip out all that equationeering to say EXACTLY THE SAME THING SOMALI SAID??? Somali- "legal abortions > unregulated abortions." Zaeleth- "No, you're wrong. Legal abortions > unregulated abortions."

Doofus.

Oh, you were just objecting to the word "safe" in "regulated safe abortion"? Then what the living fuck was the purpose of all that 733t algebra to show that regulated was better than unregulated, which is entirely and utterly irrelevant if its just the word "safe" youre objecting to? All you needed was "regulated isnt 100% safe fyi, although they are safER than unregulated." Not that he didnt include the word "safer" in his original statement either or anything.

Are you sure *your* personal biases arent clouding your reading comprehension or something? That sure doesnt look like a well-planned rebuttal to me.

I must pants you now.

[Zaelath]

Um, did you just whip out all that equationeering to say EXACTLY THE SAME THING SOMALI SAID??? Somali- "legal abortions > unregulated abortions." Zaeleth- "No, you're wrong. Legal abortions > unregulated abortions."

Umm no, he asked a question: "Would you say that it was safer for a woman to have a regulated safe abortion or a back-alley abortion?" in an effort to lay a l33t Somali tardtastic logic trap; i.e. that the WHO would be complicit in faking raw data on abortion rates because they favour "safe" abortion.

It also attempts to over-simplify the topic away from the point the report was dealing with.

Oh and yes, just to keep within the same spirit of your post; fuck off.

[Somali]

Umm no, he asked a question: "Would you say that it was safer for a woman to have a regulated safe abortion or a back-alley abortion?" in an effort to lay a l33t Somali tardtastic logic trap; i.e. that the WHO would be complicit in faking raw data on abortion rates because they favour "safe" abortion.

It also attempts to over-simplify the topic away from the point the report was dealing with.

You somewhat got the point I was making, but you drew conclusions that I specifically said I was not making.
here is the flow:
I made a statement that internal bias can skew the data at an unconscious level.

you made a statement:

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that the WHO only have one bias;

To which I asked the question:
What do you believe the WHO would consider healthier for a woman. A regulated abortion (Most of which should be safer) or a back alley abortion (most of which are likely less safe)

At this point you drew the correct conclusion. regulated = better for women's health.

Here is where I believe we diverge. You believe that i think they would intentionally screw with the data to push it in favor of legalizing abortion to benefit women's health. I would say that they have a bias toward protecting women's health and as a result run the risk of making subconscious alterations to the data that affect the outcome. These subconscious modifications most frequently happen at a few different points. The way surveys are conducted and/or written. The amount of degree to which multipliers are used to "correct" data. The sources of additional data (the regional experts in the case of the study).

I brought up the safe/unsafe side of the argument because the abstract itself seems to want to push most readers in that direction. "Abortion rates aren't affected by legislation, its roughly 50/50. Illegal abortions are unsafe and bad mkay. Look at how many unsafe abortions there are every year. It is Teh horribles. Please saves these peoples and make the world a safer place through legalized abortions."

As for the logic trap, would you say that I laid it with the question of health? Or was it earlier when I mentioned bias and you replied with the WHO being biased toward health? Just curious...


At this point I believe the more important component would be to break down which of the countries have abortion policy, understand said policy and they way that it could affect the raw data used in the survey. It would also be interesting understanding the multipliers assigned to each individual region and the reasoning established for those multipliers. This is key in debunking any perceived bias that could have been established with them.

Because there is still a large degree of data left as unknown magic manipulation, pursuing the country information is likely of minimal use. I'd still be interested in finding out more about it as I have free time, but its relatively low on my list. I'm still undecided about the role of abortion legislation. The fact that there is a study irrespective of the vagueness has at least inclined me to question the assumptions I have made previously, but there are too many questions I have about the study itself to be convinced that legislation has 0 effect on numbers of abortions.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Pro-Choice. I LOVE kids, and I cannot wait to have some of my own, but if a woman wants an abortion it is not anyone elses place to tell her that she can or cannot do that. I wish people would just stay the fuck out of other people's buisiness. I mean, thats all it would take and there would be no more stupid substance laws, or people pushing for this abortion law nonsense, or even many wars (though some wars are because of business between 2 groups so that wouldn't help much). Fucking humans.

[Somali]

I understand you point Ash. I'll reiterate my previous stance though. I believe the primary reason there is an argument about this is that they two groups have a fundamentally different view of what constitutes life. I believe that everyone who supports the pro-life movement believes that they are doing so because they consider the point at which sperm meets egg and creates the beginnings of new life is the beginning of what we call human. In doing so, they wish to provide similar rights to this unborn "human."

The pro-abortion crowd as I have learned is not always concerned about whether or not it is life or even has the propensity to feel, but that while the child is dependant upon the mother that only partial rights, if any should be applicable to them.

From pro-abortions standpoint, pro-lifers want to run their life. From Pro-life's standpoint they want to protect "babies" that can't speak up for themselves.

Until the two sides agree on what is considered human and what rights are allotted to it, there will never be a resolution to the debate. It is a philosophical debate and will likely always be one. Barring wholesale slaughter of one of the two sides of the debate, it will likely never end.

Asking someone to change their opinion on this matter is like asking them to change their opinion on God. Some people will consider it with enough evidence, but a large number will hold firm to their existing beliefs and never change their stance. That goes for both sides by the way, not just the religious "nutjobs."

[Nick]

Until the two sides agree on what is considered human and what rights are allotted to it, there will never be a resolution to the debate. It is a philosophical debate and will likely always be one.

Yes, for as long as pro choice people continue to not bother to read any philosophy. Or to respect the rights of people already actually existing on the planet who have a better grasp on whether a possible life is worth having.

The whole sanctity of life argument is ridiculous. It's a chemical reaction, life isn't always roses and kittens, get over it.

[Zaelath]

So if pro-lifers are going to call pro-choicers "pro-abortion" should we start calling you anti-choice or pro-servitude?

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Well, the US government should not have any hand in this one way or another. If they were to make abortion illegal on the grounds that its a human and has rights, then FUCK THEM. They don't seem to care about the thousands of innocents they harm or kill across the seas, and those people are capable of thinking and feeling pain. I mean its not like the fetus is a citizen of the U.S., you have to be BORN first.

[Somali]

Yes, for as long as pro choice people continue to not bother to read any philosophy. Or to respect the rights of people already actually existing on the planet who have a better grasp on whether a possible life is worth having.
The whole sanctity of life argument is ridiculous. It's a chemical reaction, life isn't always roses and kittens, get over it.

I assume you meant to say the "pro-lifers" didn't read any philosophical works?
As far equating it to a chemical reaction, I think that may be too simplistic. If you can reference any chemical reaction aside from birth in other animals wherein humans can create life, then I will concede your point. To my knowledge, we have yet to create life starting from the atomic level. We have only been able to do so by using components of living matter. If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to read about it. Sounds neat.
As for your other point, I concede that we have no way to know whether the "child" growing in the womb will be our next great leader or a mass murdering psychopath. This is true, but its one step from shoot first ask questions later. In any case the more likely answer is that it would be somewhere in the middle.

So if pro-lifers are going to call pro-choicers "pro-abortion" should we start calling you anti-choice or pro-servitude?

Sure if you want to. Though I'm not sure it is entirely accurate. In what way does the "pro-life" movement force servitude on the masses? I'm a parent, and I don't feel that my life is one of servitude. If the "parent" truly isn't ready to have a child, they can give the child to an adoption agency. Is it that you believe that the pro-life movement is looking to strip away all of your rights?

They don't seem to care about the thousands of innocents they harm or kill across the seas, and those people are capable of thinking and feeling pain. I mean its not like the fetus is a citizen of the U.S., you have to be BORN first.

Wow. Just... Wow. Comparing casualties of war to abortion. I'm not really sure what to say about that. Maybe that not everyone dismisses casualties of war as if they don't matter at all? Maybe that casualties of war are an unexpected/undesired side effect that are prevented where possible whereas abortion is something that people PLAN to do because they want to? Military personnel, particularly officers, harden themselves outwardly about the decisions they have to make and the people they affect. It would be impossible to do their jobs otherwise. It does not mean that none of them are inwardly tortured by the decisions they have made and the outcomes resulting from those decisions.
There have been various studies that have conflicting information about the degree of pain/understanding/etc... fetus have a various points along the pregnancy, so I won't argue that, we can just pick opposing studies and say the other persons data is invalid.
Past that, I already stated that the argument is around what is considered human and what should have rights. There are pros and cons to both arguments.
A Pro: Lets say you are married have tried for years to have a kid, but never could. Your wife finally gets pregnant and within the first trimester has a miscarriage after being assaulted by a criminal. He can face assault charges, or murder charges. Which would you prefer?
The Con: Its inconvenient not to be able to have an abortion.

[Zaelath]

So if pro-lifers are going to call pro-choicers "pro-abortion" should we start calling you anti-choice or pro-servitude?

Sure if you want to. Though I'm not sure it is entirely accurate. In what way does the "pro-life" movement force servitude on the masses? I'm a parent, and I don't feel that my life is one of servitude. If the "parent" truly isn't ready to have a child, they can give the child to an adoption agency. Is it that you believe that the pro-life movement is looking to strip away all of your rights?

It certainly makes more sense than "pro-life" when most of them are also pro-capital punishment, pro-war, etc.

As to servitude:

ser·vi·tude (sûr'vĭ-tōōd', -tyōōd') Pronunciation Key
n.
- A state of subjection to an owner or master.
- Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.

If you don't think being told, "yes, you must bring that baby to term" regardless of the circumstances, qualifies as servitude, then, once again, we're done.

[Somali]

It certainly makes more sense than "pro-life" when most of them are also pro-capital punishment, pro-war, etc.
As to servitude:
ser·vi·tude (sûr'vĭ-tōōd', -tyōōd') Pronunciation Key
n.
- A state of subjection to an owner or master.
- Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
If you don't think being told, "yes, you must bring that baby to term" regardless of the circumstances, qualifies as servitude, then, once again, we're done.

/shrug. I'll accept the pro-life thing. Personally I think there is a difference between putting a known criminal to death than putting an entity with a blank slate to death, but thats just me I guess. In order to argue the point, it would eventually come back to whether or not the fetus should be considered human and provided certain rights.

As for servitude:
If you want to argue that having to carry a child is servitude then I'd say any law we have is forcing you into is servitude. You should be used to it by now. This may again be a fundamental difference of opinions though. I would consider an end to haphazard abortion being for the "greater good" and I am willing to accept laws that enforce additional constraints on the people in the interest of the greater good for society.

Yes the child is a burden for the timeframe it must be carried to term if it was an unintended pregnancy. Of course it was. You banged Mr. X. Oopsies the condom broke and now you got a munchkin. Can't do the time, don't do the crime as the old saying went. Alternatively, you didn't use a condom at all. Maybe you should have considered it? Take some responsibility for your actions. The End. We seem to have an overwhelming absence of any sense of personal responsibility within the last few generations. People need to have some concept of the fact that what they do has consequences. Might it be a hard lesson to learn for some of them? Sure. Is it bad that they learn the lesson? We could debate that, but I think the ends may justify the means personally.

Now the argument of rape victims. I can see that. It is possible that the emotional stress of coming to term with the child of the man that raped you may indeed be too much for some women to handle. As always there are exceptions to every rule.
The same could be said of teenagers that really didn't know wtf they were doing. Psychological evaluations should be a part of abortion cases if they were ever made illegal for the general public. If the child had the potential to destroy the individuals state of mind, considerations would have to be made.