Joyce Arthur on her post from the Pro Choice Action Network made quite few relevant observations about the abortion debate. Here she frames the issue in terms of a woman’s rights and the prevalence of abortion.
“Anti-choicers insist that the key question in the abortion debate is whether a fetus is a person or not. If so, abortion is murder, they say, and therefore obviously immoral and illegal. That is not the key question at all, of course – anti-choicers are committing the “fetus focus fallacy.” The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus – it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be. On average, abortion rates do not differ substantially between countries where it’s legal and countries where it’s illegal.[2] Which reveals a more pertinent question: Do we provide women with safe legal abortions, or do we let them suffer and die from dangerous illegal abortions?
Some anti-choicers argue that even though women will have abortions regardless, that doesn’t mean we should make abortion legal, since we don’t legalize murder just because some people will commit murder anyway. This analogy fails because everyone in society agrees that murder is wrong and must be punished, but there is no such consensus on abortion. Second, very few people commit murder, but a majority of women will either have an abortion, or would have one if they experienced an unwanted pregnancy. As we learned from Prohibition (of alcohol), criminalizing behavior that large numbers of people engage in has disastrous consequences for public health and law and order.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
11 comments
June 27, 2009 at 10:07 pm
askingquestion
What was the abortion rate just prior to Roe v. Wade?
LikeLike
June 28, 2009 at 7:18 am
The Arbourist
Here is part of the table from the Wikipedia article on abortion. The graph is from the CDC and has the note that not all states participated in reporting.
1970 193,491
1971 485,816
1972 586,760
1973 615,831
1974 763,476
1975 854,853
1976 988,276
1977 1,079,430
The trend goes up for a number of years, but since 1997 the number of legal abortions in the US has been on a gradual decline.
LikeLike
July 3, 2009 at 7:04 pm
askingquestion
Should government prohibitions 1) require general consensus and 2) prohibit only behaviors done by a small minority?
LikeLike
July 4, 2009 at 8:54 am
The Arbourist
I would agree that government prohibitions do require a general consensus.
As far as restriction prohibitions to a small minority, governments make rules for both minority and majority status groups.
LikeLike
July 7, 2009 at 4:09 am
Neil
Congrats on the fallacies-per-paragraphs ratio.
Unanimity is not required to classify something as illegal. And of course, you are begging the question and saying that we can’t make abortion illegal because it is currently legal.
“Anti-choicers insist that the key question in the abortion debate is whether a fetus is a person or not. ”
Straw man argument. No, those who are anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings (really, you all should try finishing phrases sometimes) insist that the key question is whether the unborn are human beings. Only anti-science people deny that — http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony .
“practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus”
You have got to be kidding me. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you right things like that?
“it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women”
That justifies abortion, infanticide and more.
“Do we provide women with safe legal abortions, or do we let them suffer and die from dangerous illegal abortions?”
Abortions are never safe for the unborn females, including the nearly 100% of gender selection abortions done to destroy females (aka, the ultimate misogyny). They are pretty unsafe for the unborn males as well.
How many women died from abortions in the last year the CDC kept records? 39. That’s 39 too many, of course, but far less than the thousands and thousands trumpeted by the men who conned women into thinking that they needed to have the “right” to have their unborn children destroyed if they wanted to prove they were equal to men.
Bonus question for you: How come Planned Parenthood went from being pro-life to pro-abortion? http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/planned-parenthood-vs-planned-parenthood/ Was it science? No, those pesky ultrasounds and scientific discoveries advance the pro-life cause. Could it be the money?
LikeLike
July 8, 2009 at 12:37 am
The Arbourist
Neil, I’ve decided that I really do not like your tone. One of the key aspects of any debate is that of being charitable and civil.
Now really, in interests of veracity we both know this is not a debate; I will not change your mind, and you certainly will not change mine. That was evident in the previous thread in which you decided to contribute to. That being said I sometimes sense some snark in your posts along with your arguments.
I respectfully request you leave the snark at the door and stick to the arguments presented and refuted.
Thank you.
LikeLike
July 8, 2009 at 12:50 am
The Arbourist
“Unanimity is not required to classify something as illegal. And of course, you are begging the question and saying that we can’t make abortion illegal because it is currently legal.”
Nope, not saying that unanimity is required, just a consensus. Given the furor expressed in this modest venue I doubt we will have even a mild consensus anytime soon.
“Straw man argument. No, those who are anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings (really, you all should try finishing phrases sometimes) insist that the key question is whether the unborn are human beings. Only anti-science people deny that — http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony .”
I knew that link would pop up again. Now lets take another scientific view of when life begins. This is just the conclusion of the particular article, but it sheds light on what would seem to be a faulty assumption which you base much of your argumentation on. I intend to re-post and link to this particular thread in its entirety as it does much to cast into doubt the certainty of your scientific assertions.
snipped from http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/
“It is evident that the idea that life begins at conception is at odds with reality. Many human beings can result from a single conception, many conceptions can result in just one human being and theoretically human beings could develop without any conception event occurring at all. The idea that conception is a key point in the process of development is unfounded, as the potential to develop into a human being is not only possessed by sperm and eggs, but is completely logically fallacious in the first place. In addition, it doesn’t even appear that being a human being qualifies as having the intrinsic value required to convey moral status, as it is possible that non-human beings should have same intrinsic value attributed to ‘human life’. Neither can genetics rescue this argument, for a unique genetic composition is possessed by some non-human beings, and some human beings don’t have a unique genetic composition. Finally, the way most people act normally, and the way nature is, is very wasteful of zygotes, making the conclusions of this argument very difficult in practice.
It is not a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. The truth is that human life, in the sense of a person like you or I, emerges slowly from the genetic information and molecules that made up the sperm and eggs in your parents body, from the processes of controlled growth of the resulting embryo and foetus, using nutrients that nourished you in the womb. Science informs us that it is a continuous process. Those looking for a nice distinct point in time that can be used as the starting point of each person’s existence will be sorely disappointed if they look at the science. Philosophically, I’d argue that no intrinsic value of human beings exists, except for the value applied by a being to itself. Although this may be criticised for being overly restrictive (not attributing any intrinsic value to neonates), this criticism only works if we have a another significant reason to think neonates should have such value – I do not believe such a reason exists (see also the latter part of this post).”
LikeLike
July 8, 2009 at 6:02 am
Neil
I’m going to stick with the embryology textbooks on this one. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.
I’m also going to stick with basic logic: Your view is that two human beings combine to create “something” that isn’t a human being but it becomes a human being a later. I find that to be transparently false.
Sorry, I don’t have time to go through all those arguments and explain why they are flawed and would justify infanticide and partial-birth abortion as well, but I grabbed the last one as an example.
Deaths by natural causes inside the womb do not justify abortion any more than deaths by natural causes outside the womb justify murder.
I realize that is your philosophy and appreciate the opportunity to shine a light on it and its implications. When some human beings get to decide the worth of other human beings then lots of bad things happen. When the worth of a human being is recognized as being intrinsic things go much better.
I’m pretty sure you won’t change my mind because, among other things, you can’t demonstrate scientifically that the unborn aren’t human beings, and the logical conclusion of your arguments would support partial-birth abortion and even infanticide.
I also realize it is unlikely that you’ll change your mind, but it has happened before. People follow the facts where they lead and overcome their biases.
But it is definitely a debate. I am glad to have these arguments laid out for any middle-grounders. I’m very confident that the majority will realize how desperate and wrong the pro-legalized abortion arguments are (e.g., the “parasite” argument probably gets kudos from other pro-choicers but will push middle grounders the other way).
Snark aside, I’d be interested in your comments on the Planned Parenthood challenge. Stop on over if you are interested.
LikeLike
July 8, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Mystro
Neil, you don’t seem to know what logic is.
“I’m also going to stick with basic logic: Your view is that two human beings combine to create “something” that isn’t a human being but it becomes a human being a later. I find that to be transparently false.”
Logic is structured and indefinitely consistent. To refute an argument you must point out how it fails in structure or consistency. Putting the words “I find that to be transparently false” after the object of your attack doesn’t do that.
“Deaths by natural causes inside the womb do not justify abortion any more than deaths by natural causes outside the womb justify murder.”
No one used that as justification and I find it cowardly how you continually pull phrases out of context and attack the made up meanings you throw on them.
The bit about spontaneously aborted fetuses was to show how different it is than when actual people die out in the world, say, from cancer. Spontaneous abortion and cancer are both natural, but only one has multiple organizations and billions of dollars of research aimed at stopping it. If blastocysts were actually worth equal moral weight as people, spontaneous abortion would be a problem many times worse than cancer. All that effort and money spent on cancer research is a waste would be much better spent on reducing spontaneous abortions. But spontaneous abortion isn’t a major problem for the human race and cancer is. As such its a good thing that the research, money, time, and effort are focused on cancer cures, not spontaneous abortion cures.
See that? I pointed out an inconsistency resulting from a valid result of your premise. In logic, that means your original premise is unsound.
I also want you to note how I didn’t do any slippery-sloping and tie on any wild consequences from my imagination (i.e. your claim that self ownership would result in infanticide).
More on the way you bring up things out of context so you can put on any connotation you’d like. Stop harping on the use of the word ‘parasite’ unless you’re actually going to refute it. It was used in its strictly literal meaning
par·a·site (pār’ə-sīt’)
n.
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite
If you can somehow point out how a fetus doesn’t fit this description, do so. If you keep bringing it up as a lazy Ad Hominem attack, which is more likely, stop.
And finally, I’d like to point out that there is no such thing as ‘intrinsic worth’. Any worth that anything has, was given to it by people, as it is an abstract quality. Without people, the rest of the environment would just be and there would be no value judgments ever, of any kind, hence no ‘worth’.
LikeLike
July 9, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Neil
I’m actually quite good at logic, according to any test I’ve ever taken and unsolicited feedback from employers, acquaintences, etc. But thanks for the feedback.
A better response on your part would have been to explain how two human beings combine to create “something” that isn’t a human being but it becomes a human being a later.
I was using a form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum, where you disprove a position by showing that it leads to absurd conclusions.
Someone here offered the argument that “Finally, the way most people act normally, and the way nature is, is very wasteful of zygotes, making the conclusions of this argument very difficult in practice” to advance the legalized abortion cause. I just pointed out that whether nature is wasteful of zygotes is as irrelevant to whether the unborn are human beings deserving of protection as is the fact that nature is ultimately “wasteful” of everyone outside the womb is relevant to their worth.
Your argument fails as well because people do spend countless dollars on fertility issues.
Here’s another reductio ad absurdum: That statement would justify infanticide (or any other “-cide” for that matter), slavery, war, etc. That argument proves way too much.
Yes, they meet that definition in a hyper-literal sense, but it obviously ignores how it got there. The host did an act which is designed to create “parasite.”
Again, please keep the parasite arguments coming. I realize pro-legalized abortionists like that argument, but I like it even better when you use it. It brings the middle grounders to the pro-life side because they recognize it for what it is: A ridiculous demonization of innocent human beings to justify their deaths.
A friend offers a good counter to the parasite angle:
“By that line of reasoning, a woman would be totally justified in killing her baby a day before its due date. [or even outside the womb before the umbilical cord is cut]
That absurdity aside, their analysis fails (at least legally, if not morally). While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you. The classic example is a person who is drowning in the ocean. You, as a boater with a life preserver, are under no obligation to help them out of the water. If, however, you were the one who chucked her overboard, then watched her drown, you can bet that a jury would convict your immoral butt for murder, not for ruining her clothes by getting her wet.
Likewise, you are under no obligation to give a dying person a kidney to save his life, but, if you ripped his kidneys out of his body, you would be charged with murder if he died from those injuries. If the only way to avoid his death is to give him your kidneys, you can bet that your options are to fork over an organ or be charged with murder.
Just saying.”
And how many parasites change into something other than a parasite? Maybe there are some I’m not aware of. I don’t know of any that turn into human beings, or how a short trip down the birth canal can have such a radical change to their essence.
LikeLike
July 10, 2009 at 11:50 am
Mystro
Pardon me, yes, you seem to know a lot about logic, its your application that I meant to question.
“I was using a form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum, where you disprove a position by showing that it leads to absurd conclusions.”
First, reductio ad absurdum, if used properly, would not focus on a blatant misrepresentation of the position you’re trying to attack. That part of my previous post was pointing out why you were wrong with the equivocation and straw manning you started with. Saying you used a valid argument structure AFTER that doesn’t really matter.
Second, reductio ad absurdum requires you to flesh out the steps between the object of your attack and the absurd consequence you put forth.
“Here’s another reductio ad absurdum: That statement would justify infanticide (or any other “-cide” for that matter), slavery, war, etc. That argument proves way too much.”
How is pointing out that worth is a human construct going to result in infanticide, slavery and war? You can’t just tag on horrific ‘consequences’ to any premise you don’t like and call that logic. Connect the dots.
“Your argument fails as well because people do spend countless dollars on fertility issues.”
Your response to my own reductio ad absurdum is also characteristically lazy. Who is the money spent on fertility for? Is it for the millions of spontaneously aborted fetuses? Absolutely not. It is for the parents. THEY want something that THEY currently can’t have. The natural course of the fetus to be aborted is an impediment to THEIR happiness. People don’t go around wearing blastocyst-colored ribbons to raise awareness about the “lives” lost to spontaneous abortion, simply because there aren’t any. Spontaneous abortion is not the death of a person, it is an absorption and/or dispelling of a few cells.
“Yes, they meet that definition in a hyper-literal sense, but it obviously ignores how it got there….A ridiculous demonization of innocent human beings”
Come on. I even gave you a definition to work with. You still refuse (read “are unable”) to show how a fetus does not fit that definition. “How it got there” is not a defining feature for parasites. Look two posts up, the definition is still there.
Further, your ‘demonization’ comment kinda affirms my ad hominem hypothesis as to the true nature of your argument. As does the use of your made up word “hyper-literal”.
As to your friend, she’s as bad as you are at ad absurdum. No, it wouldn’t mean aborting the day before birth is ok. The mother still has the right to say “I don’t want to feed it anymore”, but the safer, smarter, better option in that case would be to have it induced, then put up for adoption. As to the baby still connected via the umbilical cord, it gives the mother the right to cut that cord. That’s it.
A similar misuse of ad absurdum would be like saying we should get rid of people’s right to defend themselves, cause that could be used to justify any brutal murder, as long as the murderer says “I perceived a threat from the person I killed.” Note how this example, like your arguments, has no intermediary steps and is therefore invalid.
You mentioned a few times that you can’t seem to wrap your head around the idea that cells change in arrangement, bundle size, and therefore nature. I suggest its time to take a biology class. Or just read the bit in Hamlet about how a king can become fish food. Or watch the part in the Lion King where Mufasa explains the circle of life. Backed with the knowledge therein, I present my response to your opening challenge:
“A better response on your part would have been to explain how two human beings combine to create “something” that isn’t a human being but it becomes a human being a later.”
Answer: Get pregnant
LikeLike