Abortion Rights MudPit

[Cope]

That's 36 years. 833 thousand murders a year. 2283 murders a day. If 2283 people were shot in the head across USA every day, what would you do?

Supposing that those killings were both avoidable and treated as lawful, demand that they be made unlawful.

[Prodromos]

I wasn't talking about "duties", I was talking about how policy plays out. Banning abortion has been tried, and it sucks as a policy. That's why nations tend to legalize it.

Duties are important because they're things we're obligated to do regardless of the consequences. One of our duties is to be just, and justice entails having just laws. Even if no one followed the laws against murder, we still have a duty to criminalize murder and to try to punish those who commit it. We can't look the other way and let someone be murdered without punishment just because we read a survey showing that countries where murder is legal have a lower murder rate than countries where it's illegal. That's not how justice works.

It's also untrue that abortion restrictions don't work. No one is arguing that abortion laws prevent all abortions (anymore than laws against bank robbery prevent all bank robbery), but there's a substantial body of research showing that the abortion rate is affected by abortion's legal status. For example:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-legalization/

A new report from Ireland’s Department of Health shows that the number of abortions performed in the country surged during the first full year after legalization.

This report indicates that 6,666 abortions took place in Ireland, and an additional 375 Irish women obtained abortions in England, for a total of 7,041 abortions in 2019. By comparison, in 2018, only 2,879 abortions were performed on Irish women, and the vast majority took place outside the country.

After abortion was legalized, then, the number of abortions in Ireland increased by nearly 150 percent.

The fact that abortion rates in Ireland increased sharply after legalization should come as no surprise to anyone involved in the pro-life movement. Legalizing abortion, of course, makes it much easier to access, and it reduces the stigma attached to it. Legalization also gives abortion rights greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public and creates a network of doctors who advertise for abortion and have a vested financial interest in keeping it legal. Also, legalization often shifts the public view of sexual mores, which could result in more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions.

Many supporters of legal abortion prefer to push the narrative that the incidence of abortion is unaffected by its legal status. For instance, they often circulate studies suggesting that the abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is legal and countries where abortion it is restricted, and these studies tend to receive positive coverage from mainstream media outlets. However, many of these studies are flawed, because most of the countries where abortion is illegal are located in Africa, South America, and the Middle East, places that tend to have higher poverty rates and a higher incidence of other social pathologies, which may increase the demand for abortion.

The best study analyzing the effects of legal limits on abortion was published by the Journal of Law and Economics in 2004, analyzing the way in which changes to abortion policy in Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism affected abortion rates. After the fall of Communism, some countries, such as Poland, enacted legal protections for the preborn. Other countries, such as Romania, legalized abortion. The study held constant a range of economic and demographic variables and found that modest abortion restrictions reduced abortion rates by 25 percent. Stronger limits had a much larger effect. The fact that the incidence of abortion increased sharply in Ireland over the past year adds to the body of research showing that legalizing abortion increases abortion rates and that pro-life laws save lives.

[conon394]

This report indicates that 6,666 abortions took place in Ireland, and an additional 375 Irish women obtained abortions in England, for a total of 7,041 abortions in 2019. By comparison, in 2018, only 2,879 abortions were performed on Irish women, and the vast majority took place outside the country.

Nice hand waving but what that study shows is women with money could get an abortion if they could pay in (primarily Great Britain). Gaping here is that for example the cited data ignores the thousands of effectively illegal self administered abortions that happened in Ireland before the laws were changed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...MC6237647/#R10

Note these are well documented ones via a reputable entity source - how many 'back street' ones (*)

Pre law demand was in fact higher but even that process is still one is likely one that penalized poor/under educated women. So is there really a surge I doubt it rather we just have women now having access to their national health care system in a timely and normal manor. So the reported rate now corresponds to the actual rate.

*
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.ne...OHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

[The spartan]

Doing the right thing is hard.

Yes, that's why conservatives are so outraged and concerned with the homelessness and other poverty problems and forcing the nation to deal with it, consequences be damned! Give me a break with the hypocritical "holier than thou" priorities; crap policy is crap policy and you know it.

I get the same from leftists who want to "get rid of guns" without any thought to how policy works. It doesn't fly for them as it doesn't fly for you.

Duties are important because they're things we're obligated to do regardless of the consequences.

Oh man, if only this were an original justification and not something everyone trying to justify something has said. Ever heard the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?

It's also untrue that abortion restrictions don't work. No one is arguing that abortion laws prevent all abortions (anymore than laws against bank robbery prevent all bank robbery), but there's a substantial body of research showing that the abortion rate is affected by abortion's legal status.

Sure, in the same way the 18th Amendment did reduce alcohol consumption in the US. Then we made a whole new amendment (21st) to specifically repeal the 18th because it was such a crap policy. This isn't anything new. Ireland removed their ban in recent years because of how miserable the policy was, and they are like, the most Catholic of nations.

Not to mention, I directly reject the idea that the large majority of people who want to ban abortion are trying to effectively reduce abortion rates. If they were, you would expect support for policies like sex education and increased contraception access, policies that effectively reduce abortion rates, but they don't. Those policies would even be far easier to achieve for the amount of abortions they would reduce, but my guess is that other priorities are at play.

[Gromovnik]

I get the same from leftist who want to "get rid of guns" without any thought to how policy works. It doesn't fly for them as it doesn't fly for you.

Those sound like libs to me, just disregard that stuff. Arming the proletariat is a conditio sine qua non.

[Gromovnik]

I'll pass on the lesson from Bolshevism on righteousness; the hundred million murdered by communist regimes in the 20th century eclipses even the systematic destruction wrought by induced abortion in America.

Sounds awesome. Anyway, our next plan is to arm the downtrodden in your Murica. Black people with guns, Cope. Latinos with guns, Cope. It's happening. And it makes my pp hard. Now let's hear it. Cry some more.

[Prodromos]

@Conon:

The total number of legal and illegal abortions committed by Irish women in 2018 still doesn't approach the figure for 2019.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...show-1.3924628

There appears to have been an increase in abortions following legalization, which makes sense since legalization lowers the financial and other costs of committing an abortion. As the authors of your article point out:

Our findings demonstrate that while women in Ireland do obtain abortions despite restrictive laws, the pathways available to them involve significant burdens. Travel is costly and emotionally challenging, and self-managed medication abortion carries legal risk. Moreover, current law prohibits either option from integrating seamlessly into a continuous care pathway. Women feel unable to rely on healthcare professionals in Ireland for pre- or post-abortion care for fear of negative reactions or being reported to the authorities, and because the information that healthcare professionals can provide is so limited. The law also perpetuates shame and stigma, isolating women at a time when many need support.

...

Finally, our findings suggest that the discourse on abortion in Ireland is unduly influenced by religious beliefs and moral conservatism. These observations reflect prior work examining how religious and moral norms have shaped the legal frameworks governing current abortion policy in Ireland, despite significant social and cultural shifts.29 Moreover, our findings show that the stigma engendered by the illegal status of abortion shapes every aspect of women’s experiences of unwanted pregnancy. As both policymakers and the public consider reforming Ireland’s abortion law, our findings provide important evidence of the extremely negative impact of the current law on the quality and safety of women’s healthcare and on the social experience of abortion in Ireland.

It's unlikely that the cumulative weight of all these factors has zero effect on the abortion rate, as if the people of Ireland are wholly unaffected by their nation's laws and social mores.

In any case, the total number of abortions committed is irrelevant to the debate since the purpose of criminalizing abortion is not to reduce the total number of abortions (although that's a positive side effect), but to protect each individual baby's right to life. It's a matter of justice, not utilitarianism.

Sure, in the same way the 18th Amendment did reduce alcohol consumption in the US. Then we made a whole new amendment (21st) to specifically repeal the 18th because it was such a crap policy. This isn't anything new. Ireland removed their ban in recent years because of how miserable the policy was, and they are like, the most Catholic of nations.

The difference, of course, is that buying, selling and consuming alcohol doesn't violate anyone's rights, so the government has no justification for banning it even though many people use it for immoral purpose. On the other hand, the deliberate killing of an innocent human being violates that person's right to life, so criminalizing murder is the proper thing to do regardless of popular opinion.

[The spartan]

The difference, of course, is that buying, selling and consuming alcohol doesn't violate anyone's rights, so the government has no justification for banning it even though many people use it for immoral purpose.

Uh, the Temperance movement would have heavily disagreed with you; they very much said that access to alcohol directly led to a multitude of problems for those who didn't consume alcohol themselves. Whether it was crime, domestic abuse, loss of income (hungry kids), or death of the family breadwinner; access to alcohol was deemed evil enough to actually pass a constitutional amendment banning it. Just because you don't see it that way retrospectively doesn't mean that the Temperance movement didn't believe it. And I would actually agree with them that reducing alcohol consumption was probably a good thing to strive towards for society, but the ban was such a disastrous policy decision that it led to our only amendment (the 21st) that directly repealed another amendment. They should have gone about other ways of achieving their goal rather than go for a ban; it simply didn't work well.

On the other hand, the deliberate killing of an innocent human being violates that person's right to life, so criminalizing murder is the proper thing to do regardless of popular opinion.

Well, to be clear, I would imagine that you actually do support the 'deliberate killing of an innocent human' in certain contexts (as Cope does), so I don't really get the grandstanding. It's not as black-and-white as you imply it to be.

And of course murder is criminalized, that's why we have the word 'murder' in the first place. Your defining abortion as murder is begging the question; you set up your premise to meet your conclusion.

[Cope]

Well, to be clear, I would imagine that you actually do support the 'deliberate killing of an innocent human' in certain contexts (as Cope does), so I don't really get the grandstanding. It's not as black-and-white as you imply it to be.

And of course murder is criminalized, that's why we have the word 'murder' in the first place. Your defining abortion as murder is begging the question; you set up your premise to meet your conclusion.

The deliberate killing of an innocent person can only be justified only out of necessity (e.g to protect other lives). Hitherto it has yet to be conceded by some that zygotes even count as human beings, despite it being irrefutable.

[Himster]

Hitherto it has yet to be conceded by some that zygotes even count as human beings, despite it being irrefutable.

When something is both "unacceptable" and "irrefutable," its primary descriptor is: unacceptable.
To achieve widespread acceptance of your premise, it seems that you'd have to travel back in time and ensure all of your potential interlocutors were enrolled in strict schools of some Abrahamic derivation, from an early age, with little to no access to contradictory information, and ensure that all of those same opinions were reinforced by the state and parents.

Anything short of that... you're stuck at an impasse.

You can play around with definitions, or your own ideas about what should count as what, if you want to piss into the wind. Traditions don't define language or even mores. They're living things that change with the times and time is not cyclical.
Some of the language, mores and definitions displayed in this thread are from so long ago, so alien to the modern world, so incomprehensible to the typical living human: they might as well never have been.

[Cope]

When something is both "unacceptable" and "irrefutable," its primary descriptor is: unacceptable.
To achieve widespread acceptance of your premise, it seems that you'd have to travel back in time and ensure all of your potential interlocutors were enrolled in strict schools of some Abrahamic derivation, from an early age, with little to no access to contradictory information, and ensure that all of those same opinions were reinforced by the state and parents.

Anything short of that... you're stuck at an impasse.

You can play around with definitions, or your own ideas about what should count as what, if you want to piss into the wind. Traditions don't define language or even mores. They're living things that change with the times and time is not cyclical.
Some of the language, mores and definitions displayed in this thread are from so long ago, so alien to the modern world, so incomprehensible to the typical living human: they might as well never have been.

Spare me the diatribe. Zygotes are genetically distinct, individual organisms of the species homo sapiens (i.e. human beings). Acknowledging this fact requires no deference to religion.

[enoch]

Prehumans so to speak. Hence the precision in the definition. Zygotes are not Homo Sapiens. Fact.

[Prodromos]

Uh, the Temperance movement would have heavily disagreed with you; they very much said that access to alcohol directly led to a multitude of problems for those who didn't consume alcohol themselves. Whether it was crime, domestic abuse, loss of income (hungry kids), or death of the family breadwinner; access to alcohol was deemed evil enough to actually pass a constitutional amendment banning it. Just because you don't see it that way retrospectively doesn't mean that the Temperance movement didn't believe it. And I would actually agree with them that reducing alcohol consumption was probably a good thing to strive towards for society, but the ban was such a disastrous policy decision that it led to our only amendment (the 21st) that directly repealed another amendment. They should have gone about other ways of achieving their goal rather than go for a ban; it simply didn't work well.

Yes, and they would have been wrong to do so. Alcoholism was a major problem in those days and it still is in some way, but I fail to see how that justifies the use of government force in stamping it out. There's nothing about the distribution or consumption of alcohol that necessarily violates someone's rights, so it's not the government's problem. The government should instead limit itself to protecting the people's rights, including the right to boycott alcohol manufacturers and distributors and the right to voluntarily educate or shun people who misuse alcohol. That would be a far more moral and possibly even more effective way of reducing alcohol consumption than force.

That's not the case when it comes to abortion. Since each and every [elective] abortion necessarily involves the deliberate killing of an innocent child and violating its right to life, the government has an obligation to punish each and every abortion.

Remember that the point behind criminalizing abortion is that it's a matter of justice. Justice is giving someone what they deserve, and every individual unborn child deserves the protection of the law. That's why every abortion has to be made illegal even if criminalization won't completely eliminate or even reduce abortion (although it will).

Well, to be clear, I would imagine that you actually do support the 'deliberate killing of an innocent human' in certain contexts (as Cope does), so I don't really get the grandstanding. It's not as black-and-white as you imply it to be.

No, I don't. I don't support doing anything without just cause; if I did, that would just mean that I'm wrong, not that it's acceptable to do something without just cause.

And of course murder is criminalized, that's why we have the word 'murder' in the first place. Your defining abortion as murder is begging the question; you set up your premise to meet your conclusion.

Murder is the killing of an innocent human being without just cause, and no one can seriously dispute that an unborn child is both innocent and a human being. Almost one million unborn children are killed every year with the full consent of the law, almost all of whom are killed for purely elective reasons, so it's hard to argue that murder is illegal in America. Perhaps the murder of certain classes of human beings is illegal, but not all.

[The spartan]

Yes, and they would have been wrong to do so. Alcoholism was a major problem in those days and it still is in some way, but I fail to see how that justifies the use of government force in stamping it out. There's nothing about the distribution or consumption of alcohol that necessarily violates someone's rights, so it's not the government's problem. The government should instead limit itself to protecting the people's rights, including the right to boycott alcohol manufacturers and distributors and the right to voluntarily educate or shun people who misuse alcohol. That would be a far more moral and possibly even more effective way of reducing alcohol consumption than force.

I think you are missing my point; I am not interested in why you think someone else's pet project is wrong and yours is right. That's what everyone, including the Temperance movement, would say. I would dismiss your pet project in the same way you are dismissing the Temperance movement no matter how much grandstanding occurs. What I was saying was that abortion bans are a bad policy, having them makes society worse. This is why practically every 1st world nation has legalized access to abortion, why Ireland repealed their abortion ban, and why the only nations that hold on to abortion bans are poorer and more religiously fundamentalist. If you want to reduce abortion rates, you should probably go after more achievable/less destructive policies that you are conveniently overlooking before bans. It makes your position appear disingenuous.

That's not the case when it comes to abortion. Since each and every [elective] abortion necessarily involves the deliberate killing of an innocent child and violating its right to life, the government has an obligation to punish each and every abortion.

Remember that the point behind criminalizing abortion is that it's a matter of justice. Justice is giving someone what they deserve, and every individual unborn child deserves the protection of the law. That's why every abortion has to be made illegal even if criminalization won't completely eliminate or even reduce abortion (although it will).

Creepy. I feel morally obligated to resist such a thing happening.

No, I don't. I don't support doing anything without just cause; if I did, that would just mean that I'm wrong, not that it's acceptable to do something without just cause.

Aye, and that's the rub; you think your cause is just and others are unjust without realizing other people feel the same about their causes. And trust me, you definitely support killing innocent lives in certain circumstances, you would just understand those circumstances as being 'just'.

Murder is the killing of an innocent human being without just cause, and no one can seriously dispute that an unborn child is both innocent and a human being. Almost one million unborn children are killed every year with the full consent of the law, almost all of whom are killed for purely elective reasons, so it's hard to argue that murder is illegal in America. Perhaps the murder of certain classes of human beings is illegal, but not all.

Yeah, I never really followed this line of reasoning well; for me, moral consideration is given to persons, not "human beings". A completely braindead human body is just as much of a human as you and I are but I would argue is worthy of less moral consideration because they are no longer a person. You can even use simple thought experiments to understand how silly it is to keep morals based around "human beings":

Lets say that tomorrow aliens landed on Earth and looked almost exactly like us, communicate with us, appear to be as intelligent as we are, and yes, can even be converted to Christianity. You would agree that such people are worthy of moral consideration despite being 0% human, yes? Having homo sapiens DNA means little to me in terms of ethics, we have much better parameters to go by.

The deliberate killing of an innocent person can only be justified only out of necessity (e.g to protect other lives). Hitherto it has yet to be conceded by some that zygotes even count as human beings, despite it being irrefutable.

You have still lost me on the whole IVF thing; you seem to support killing innocent human beings for the sake of generating more viable (unnecessary) pregnancies. That seems less like "protecting" extant lives and more about maximizing pregnancies. And you are the one who seem to hold zygotes as categorically different than humans in society, given that you are willing to sacrifice multitudes of them for increased fertility rates while it doesn't seem like you would support killing random people in society if it produced the same result (or would you?).

[Cope]

I think you are missing my point; I am not interested in why you think someone else's pet project is wrong and yours is right. that's what everyone, including the Temperance movement, would say. I would dismiss your pet project in the same way you are dismissing the Temperance movement no matter how much grandstanding occurs. What I was saying was that abortion bans are a bad policy, having them makes society worse. This is why practically every 1st world nation has legalized access to abortion, why Ireland repealed their abortion ban, and why the only nations that hold on to abortion bans are poorer and more religiously fundamentalist. If you want to reduce abortion rates, you should probably go after more achievable/less destructive policies that you are conveniently overlooking before bans. It makes your position appear disingenuous.

Creepy. I feel morally obligated to resist such a thing happening.

Aye, and that's the rub; you think your cause is just and others are unjust without realizing other people feel the same about their causes. And trust me, you definitely support killing innocent lives in certain circumstances, you would just understand those circumstances as being 'just'.

To the extent that this reasoning can be applied to every moral argument, it serves no purpose. It’s perfectly clear that people believe themselves justified; the point of this conversation is for people to support their beliefs with reason (so far no "pro-choice" advocated has offered much).

The claim that “practically every 1^st world nation has legalized access to abortion” is an appeal to popularity. When some from of slavery was practiced by “practically every nation” on earth, that didn’t make it right, even if it was considered “good policy”.

Yeah, I never really followed this line of reasoning well; for me, moral consideration is given to persons, not "human beings".

A favourite argument of those who support post-natal killings.

A completely braindead human body is just as much of a human as you are I but I would argue is worthy of less moral consideration because they are no longer a person. You can even use simple thought experiments to understand how silly it is to keep morals based around "human beings"

The total cessation of brain activity (a “completely braindead human body”) marks the point of death. Doctors are not permitted to kill a person living in a permanent vegetative state, only allow them to die. Induced abortions, by contrast, involve an active intervention to destroy the embryo.

Lets say that tomorrow aliens landed on Earth and looked almost exactly like us, communicate with us, appear to be as intelligent as we are, and yes, can even be converted to Christianity. You would agree that such people are worthy of moral consideration despite being 0% human, yes? Having homo sapiens DNA means little to me in terms of ethics, we have much better parameters to go by.

The imminent expectation that the embryo will gain the characteristics of “personhood” (whatever that is held to mean) overcomes the view that the embryo’s immediate status renders them disposable.

You have still lost me on the whole IVF thing; you seem to support killing innocent human beings for the sake of generating more viable (unnecessary) pregnancies. That seems less like "protecting" extant lives and more about maximizing pregnancies. And you are the one who seem to hold zygotes as categorically different than humans in society, given that you are willing to sacrifice multitudes of them for increased fertility rates while it doesn't seem like you would support killing random people in society if it produced the same result (or would you?).

Relentlessly feigning confusion in order to frustrate the conversation is the height of bad faith.

[The spartan]

To the extent that this reasoning can be applied to every moral argument, it serves no purpose. It’s perfectly clear that people believe themselves justified; the point of this conversation is for people to support their beliefs with reason (so far no "pro-choice" advocated has offered much).

You understand what sub-forum we are in right now, yes? Perhaps take your preferred framing to the appropriate sub-forum.

The claim that “practically every 1^st world nation has legalized access to abortion” is an appeal to popularity. When some from of slavery was practiced by “practically every nation” on earth, that didn’t make it right, even if it was considered “good policy”.

I get it, I too would be uncomfortable with comparing the the rights and practices of current nations that have legalized and regulated abortion with those who do flat bans. I am not appealing to a popularity, I am comparing and contrasting. I didn't say "look at all these people who practice X", I said "compare those that practice X with those that practice Y". Your slavery red herring is just weird.

A favourite argument of those who support post-natal killings.

And those with functioning brainstems. Have fun killing all the aliens who are people but not human, I guess.

The total cessation of brain activity (a “completely braindead human body”) marks the point of death. Doctors are not permitted to kill a person living in a permanent vegetative state, only allow them to die. Induced abortions, by contrast, involve an active intervention to destroy the embryo.

Wait, so are you saying that moral consideration is (at least somewhat) dependent on brain function or just being a distinct living (human) organism?

The imminent expectation that the embryo will gain the characteristics of “personhood” (whatever that is held to mean) overcomes the view that the embryo’s immediate status renders them disposable.

What? Potential persons and former persons are held to a different moral consideration than extant persons. And why not engage with the hypothetical? Do alien people get moral consideration or are they disregarded as non-humans?

Relentlessly feigning confusion in order to frustrate the conversation is the height of bad faith.

Classic. If only you would link me to a thread where you claimed to give answers you didn't really give, again. But please, do go on about how your reason for killing innocents is special and unique.