No more circumcision in SF?

[sirkickyass]

Is the protection of the weak and innocent not enough of a positive social effect to counterbalance the possible negative social effects that may result?

That's a policy discussion. At some point we're talking about a body count and diminished years of qualify life. I think you're assuming the outcome of that analysis. How that would shake out is a debatable issue that we never get to, and pro-lifers have historically (and one might say ironically) repeatedly delivered death threats to those who try to do that work. (See for example what happened to Steven Levitt when he published his econometrics paper regarding the linkages between abortion and crime)

I think he was talking about the evolutionary/biological intended consequence, not necessarily the couple's intended consequence.

Now now, let's not go anthropomorphizing evolution and biology.

 

[colton]

Rape exceptions are intellectually bankrupt and are only repeated pro forma by pro-lifers because they know it's politically unacceptable to take their position to its logical conclusion.

Wow, it's been a long time since any of my arguments have been called intellectually bankrupt! I must not be posting enough. ;-)

But I don't see them as intellectually bankrupt at all. If the life of a fetus isn't quite at the level as the life of a baby, that doesn't mean it has no value. But there are other factors involved, such as the emotional trauma that the mother will undergo in bearing the child of her rapist. So it's not that I'm saying that all fetuses are not created equally, it's that I'm saying in the case of rape the two "bads" must be weighed against each other. Conceivably there are some circumstances where the "badness" of the emotional trauma will outweigh the "badness" of taking the life of the fetus... or at least I'm not willing to say that such will never be the case.

When the fetus is produced via consensual sex, there are obviously possible "badnesses" which should also be weighed... say, the bringing of a baby into a poverty-stricken home, for example. But to me, those do not rise to the "badness" of killing the fetus.

I hope that was clear enough.

For a number of reasons, I believe in a viability analysis modified by what I call "functional viability" to account for greater abilities to deliver premature births although at significantly higher risks of disability or chronic complications.

If I understood that correctly, in plain English you're saying that the amount of regulation on abortions should be roughly proportional to how far along the pregnancy is?

 

[sirkickyass]

It doesn't. It justifies the destruction of the life. In the same way a person is justified for killing another person in self defense.

That totally screws up the personal responsibility argument. The fetus didn't choose to rape or to be the product of rape. It made no choice justifying its own destruction.

That's the exact opposite of the self-defense justification and tantamount to arguing that the actions of one person can justify the killing of another.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think he was talking about the evolutionary/biological intended consequence, not necessarily the couple's intended consequence.

I think he meant the natural consequences of the act.

This.

But I don't blame kicky for not making that distinction. He was too busy telling Colton not to get caught up on six words to keep himself from getting caught up on this one word.

 

[sirkickyass]

But I don't see them as intellectually bankrupt at all. If the life of a fetus isn't quite at the level as the life of a baby, that doesn't mean it has no value. But there are other factors involved, such as the emotional trauma that the mother will undergo in bearing the child of her rapist.

Does that mean that we should conduct psych evaluations of rape victims to determine how much emotional trauma the mother will undergo? Fragile people get to abort and resilient women have to go to term?

When the fetus is produced via consensual sex, there are obviously possible "badnesses" which should also be weighed... say, the bringing of a baby into a poverty-stricken home, for example. But to me, those do not rise to the "badness" of killing the fetus.

That's a narrower version of my point #2. The rub is that you're limiting the effect to the effect on the potential child itself rather than broader social impacts caused by the policy choice. If the legalization of abortion was correctly attributed to significant decreases in crime, disease, and infrastructure stress, according that zero weight is, to put it kindly, somewhat foolish.

If I understood that correctly, in plain English you're saying that the amount of regulation on abortions should be roughly proportional to how far along the pregnancy is?

That's a fair summary, although I would dispute the word "proportional" because it implies a clean sliding scale which I don't think I would defend due to the existence of well-established viability benchmarks.

Sorry for being wordy but I am trying to be very exact and differentiate between my thoughts and the classic trimester analysis and avoid the charge that I'm for aborting pregnancies at 8 months and 29 days.

 

[sirkickyass]

Maybe you're not specifically referring to LogGrad's viewpoint

I wasn't.

Clearly I was caught up on a specific word of yours LG.

 

[colton]

Does that mean that we should conduct psych evaluations of rape victims to determine how much emotional trauma the mother will undergo? Fragile people get to abort and resilient women have to go to term?

No, I'm quite comfortable allowing the woman to be the judge of that herself.

That's a narrower version of my point #2. The rub is that you're limiting the effect to the effect on the potential child itself rather than broader social impacts caused by the policy choice. If the legalization of abortion was correctly attributed to significant decreases in crime, disease, and infrastructure stress, according that zero weight is, to put it kindly, somewhat foolish.

I don't think you responded to my redhead analogy above. Foolish or not, I don't think decreases in crime, etc., are significant enough to justify killing the innocent fetuses. Especially not when simpler methods -- such as not having sex unless you are prepared for the possibility of a baby! -- can be used to accomplish the same results.

By the way, I'm not understanding if you are claiming that the legalization of abortion produces significant decreases in crime, etc., or if you are saying that IF it does, we should consider it. If you are in fact claiming that, then my response is that a better analysis would be how do areas with stricter controls on abortions compare against areas with looser controls, because that's really what we are debating. For example, I would be very surprised if Utah didn't have fairly strict abortion controls. And yet I doubt that Utah has all of those societal problems you are (may be) claiming exist when abortion is illegal.

 

[colton]

Kicky: as another example, what if it were proven that legalizing gay marriage produced negative societal impacts. More crime, disease, and so forth. Would you still be in favor of it? Or would you think that the good that is done by allowing gay citizens to have that civil right (as I believe is your viewpoint) outweighs the negative societal impacts?

 

[LogGrad98]

In that post LG writes, "afterward just figure they can kill the baby because it is so inconvenient that their choice to have sex actually had the intended consequence of the act." My point is that in the vast majority of sexual encounters that IS NOT "the intended consequence of the act."

I think he was talking about the evolutionary/biological intended consequence, not necessarily the couple's intended consequence.

I think he meant the natural consequences of the act.

This.

But I don't blame kicky for not making that distinction. He was too busy telling Colton not to get caught up on six words to keep himself from getting caught up on this one word.

Clearly I was caught up on a specific word of yours LG.

Clearly.

 

[sirkickyass]

No, I'm quite comfortable allowing the woman to be the judge of that herself.

I think you've just created a situation where rape is going to be alleged a lot.

I don't think you responded to my redhead analogy above.

I think I responded to the general point about balancing harms. Dissecting the analogy itself wouldn't add anything.

Foolish or not, I don't think decreases in crime, etc., are significant enough to justify killing the innocent fetuses.

Is this a position based upon knowable factors or a decision based on a normative belief?

i.e. If legalizing abortion would result in the cure of all disease and the prevention of all crime would you support legalizing it? If the answer is yes (as it is for me) then we're just playing with the correct numbers (I'd still accept 25% of each for example and probably lower than that) before you've balanced harms.

If the answer is no, then you've camped out in a place that is purely moral and therefore unassailable.

Especially not when simpler methods -- such as not having sex unless you are prepared for the possibility of a baby! -- can be used to accomplish the same results.

Abstinence is unrealistic for the population at large. Sorry it's true.

By the way, I'm not understanding if you are claiming that the legalization of abortion produces significant decreases in crime, etc., or if you are saying that IF it does, we should consider it. If you are in fact claiming that, then my response is that a better analysis would be how do areas with stricter controls on abortions compare against areas with looser controls, because that's really what we are debating.

That's the famous Levitt abortion/crime paper comparing Pre-Roe and Post-Roe America.

I'm agnostic as to the actual results because I don't think we've done enough research on the issue and there's one acknowledged data error in Levitt's set in particular, but I think the risk is very significant due to that and other research that it would be foolish to ignore it.

Keep in mind this is a combination package as well, since I believe illegalization doesn't actually stop abortion and causes more harm to mothers while restricting safe abortions to only the wealthy.

Kicky: as another example, what if it were proven that legalizing gay marriage produced negative societal impacts. More crime, disease, and so forth. Would you still be in favor of it? Or would you think that the good that is done by allowing gay citizens to have that civil right (as I believe is your viewpoint) outweighs the negative societal impacts?

There's some level at which I would assert "greater good" in favor of abrogating civil rights. If it turned out that gay marriage caused an outbreak of canceraids that decimated 10% of the population then I'd be an idiot to say we should keep on marrying them.

Obviously, though, we're not there.

Clearly.

You mean when he asked me to say where you specifically stated it I tried, even after specifically stating I wasn't responding uniquely to you (which you omit)? THE SCANDAL! THE HORROR!

This is a worthless sideshow. Stop wasting my time.

 

[colton]

Especially not when simpler methods -- such as not having sex unless you are prepared for the possibility of a baby! -- can be used to accomplish the same results.

Abstinence is unrealistic for the population at large. Sorry it's true.

Abstinence is not quite what I was getting at there, sorry if I was unclear. Responsibility is what I was going for. I was getting at the simple fact that every time you have sex there's the possibility of a baby.(*) So if you're going to have sex, you had better be prepared.

(*) This is clearly true for men, even now. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant but then decides she doesn't want to have an abortion, then the man is going to have a baby whether he wants one or not.

 

[Gameface]

(*) This is clearly true for men, even now. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant but then decides she doesn't want to have an abortion, then the man is going to have a baby whether he wants one or not.

This is my biggest conflict with abortion. It creates a gigantic inequity between men and women. Currently, if a woman becomes pregnant she has a full range of options. First, she can decide if she wants to be a parent or not. Second she can decide if she wants to have the baby or not. In all cases she is also making the decision for the man who got her pregnant and that man has absolutely no say in the decision being made. So a man who engages in the exact same behavior as the female has zero control and zero choice over the future of the fetus. If he wants to be a father and wants the child more than anything else in the world it has no impact whatsoever on her right to get an abortion. If he doesn't feel prepared or financially able to have a child it doesn't matter at all, if she has the child he becomes, in the least, a financial father. In most cases the woman can also decide if the man can have any involvement with the child, which remains completely separate from his financial responsibilities.

I have pretty much always supported abortion rights. I don't, however, have a way to eliminate the contradiction it creates in regard to the rights of a male genetic contributor vs a female genetic contributor/incubator. The no abortion route is pretty much contradiction free. Each person has to take responsibility for their actions and cannot make arbitrary decisions about the other person's parental status against that person's will. If they both willingly engaged in sexual activity that produced a pregnancy they both have to fully face the responsibility of that action. There is equality.

It's a hard leap to make for me as I also see the inequality that childbearing in and of itself creates, leading to reduced professional and financial opportunities for women in general. The thing about that, though, is this is not an artificial inequality that was created by evil men, it's a natural inequality that is simply part of our biology. I'm just not ready to oppose abortion.

 

[LogGrad98]

You mean when he asked me to say where you specifically stated it I tried, even after specifically stating I wasn't responding uniquely to you (which you omit)? THE SCANDAL! THE HORROR!

This is a worthless sideshow. Stop wasting my time.

Whoa you sure put me in my place. I bow before your superior grasp of semantics and I apologize for interrupting your intellectual pontificating.

By the way your choice to respond is just that, your choice. You are therefore wasting your own time.

 

[LogGrad98]

Thought this was worth posting in this thread since it went down this road:

Reasons why women choose abortion (note: multiple answers were possible):

74% felt "having a baby would dramatically change my life" (which includes interrupting education, interfering with job and career, and/or concern over other children or dependents)
73% felt they "can't afford a baby now" (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)
48% "don't want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem"
38% "have completed [their] childbearing"
32% were "not ready for a(nother) child"
25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"
22% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child"
14% felt their "husband or partner wants me to have an abortion"
13% said there were "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus"
12% said there were "physical problems with my health"
6% felt their "parents want me to have an abortion"
1% said they were "a victim of rape"
<0.5% "became pregnant as a result of incest"

https://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

I don't know about everyone else but the #1 reason listed there fits in what I view as a "recreational abortion". That is it will interrupt their life so the choice is abortion. If you are not in a position in your life to support a child, then don't engage in the act that creates children, or take steps that will mitigate that risk. Another one I find interesting is "38% "have completed [their] childbearing". If you are done having children take steps to make sure you won't have any more children. We finished our family and I had a vasectomy. No more kids.

Of course this doesn't get into the issues of why they were pregnant to begin with, other than rape being at the very bottom. It also does not give a ton of detail on the particular circumstances of each case, such as how many resulted from a failure of birth control. But it is still interesting to see the basic reasons.

 

[Scat]

Reasons why women choose abortion (note: multiple answers were possible):

74% felt "having a baby would dramatically change my life" (which includes interrupting education, interfering with job and career, and/or concern over other children or dependents)
73% felt they "can't afford a baby now" (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)
48% "don't want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem"
38% "have completed [their] childbearing"
32% were "not ready for a(nother) child"
25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"
22% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child"
14% felt their "husband or partner wants me to have an abortion"
13% said there were "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus"
12% said there were "physical problems with my health"
6% felt their "parents want me to have an abortion"
1% said they were "a victim of rape"
<0.5% "became pregnant as a result of incest"

Wow! I wish someone would have posted this earlier in the thread.

 

[sirkickyass]

I don't know about everyone else but the #1 reason listed there fits in what I view as a "recreational abortion".

Do you also believe that #2 is "recreational abortion" (a term that should be retired immediately FYI, since no one gets an abortion for recreation), because frankly it's obvious that it's a nearly total overlap with #1.

 

[LogGrad98]

Actually looking at the list the top 3 or 4 fit that description pretty much imo. And since I view them as unnecessary abortions, to me "recreational abortion" fits. They used sex purely for recreation without thought to the consequences so they get an abortion. (of course, as I said when I posted the list, it does not tell whether or how many were failed birth control of some other kind, that might make a difference as has been brought up before) If it makes people uncomfortable to use that term maybe it is a good term to use, at least actually make people think about the consequences.

[edit]

I guess these are kind of under that umbrella:

74% felt "having a baby would dramatically change my life" (which includes interrupting education, interfering with job and career, and/or concern over other children or dependents)
73% felt they "can't afford a baby now" (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)
48% "don't want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem"
38% "have completed [their] childbearing"
32% were "not ready for a(nother) child"
25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"
22% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child"

I mean you can go down the list and to all of these you can say "then don't have sex" or "then use birth control" or "then give the baby up for adoption". As pro-choice advocates say, there is a clear choice in this. How funny that they balk so strongly at the "then don't have sex" or "then use birth control" choices.

Just to touch on the abstinence discussion. I think to say that abstinence is unrealistic is just sad. It is true, I am not denying that, but it is wholly throwing personal accountability out the window. It is an excuse like any other. "How can I be expected not to have sex?" Really? What are we, dogs in heat? This should be viewed as a viable choice, but really it is a vicious cycle. Society tells me it is unrealistic so I am not really accountable to make that choice. It is made for me already. It isn't even viewed as a choice anymore. Abstinence is viewed as a dirty word. I mean, everyone has sex, how can I not? It is no big deal, since it is unrealistic to say no since that is what I am told.

 

[One Brow]

That's a horrible analogy. A child doesn't just wander into a womb. The mother had SOMETHING to do with it, don't you think? (Again, let's say like LoganGrad did that cases such as rape are a different situation.)

Yes, she left the door unlocked, whether accidentally or deliberately. If you leave a door unlocked, youare making it more accessible to intruders.

If you want to make it more than that, you need to say the woman has more knowledge of some offspring that does not yet exist than of vargrants that actually exist, but she does not know personally.

 

[One Brow]

How in the hell did this thread turn into an abortion debate?

The Thriller decided it would be good to throw it in.

 

[One Brow]

What's your view--does a fetus deserve any protections?

I think every fetus has a right to live outside of its mother's womb. So, I would support legislation calling for live removals of viable fetuses. That right does not extend to being able to continue to use the womb against the mother's will. Thats a right no other type of person has in the United States.