America transitions into Gilead

[Brainster]

It's based on historical data, which has already been explained.

Hand in hand with legal abortions go better sexual education and less stigma for the use of contraceptics. All of this has been shown to be related.

So if abortion is outlawed, the number of abortions will increase?

 

[Roboramma]

So if abortion is outlawed, the number of abortions will increase?

Yes, that's what the historical data seems to show.

Sometimes the world is counterintuitive. The correct response when shown such facts isn't to simply disbelieve them, though you might require more evidence than usual to accept them (extraordinary claims, etc.)

 

[GlennB]

...

As you put it, the abortion question is a tough nut. It's hard to find arguments whether for or against that have consistency when applied to other facets of life. There doesn't seem to be an absolute answer as to where the line should be drawn. The pain argument makes the most sense to me. From what I've read fetuses can feel pain sometime between 8-16 weeks after conception and so after that there would be restrictions on abortions except in special cases.

What does "feel pain" mean? Be conscious of, and distressed by, the pain? Or simply react to a negative stimulus in order to escape it? Organisms that don't even have a nervous system do the latter. If foetal nociceptors are 'firing' it doesn't necessarily mean that the foetus is conscious of the event or experiencing distress.

"By the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) nerve cells are beginning to form rudimentary connections between different areas of the brain. However, these connections are sparse and incapable of performing the same functions as an adult brain. So by 12 weeks, although the fetus is certainly starting to look like a little human, the neural circuits responsible for conscious awareness are yet to develop." link

 

[The Great Zaganza]

So if abortion is outlawed, the number of abortions will increase?

Yes, absolutely.
Because when sexual issues are stigmatized, people will be scared to ask for contraception for fear of being accused of seeking an abortion.

 

[phiwum]

Then perhaps if the question is unsettled, the government should not impose a particular view on everyone, and leave it to the conscience of the person who will have to live with the consequences.

I suppose that's what the right to privacy ruling of Roe v. Wade aimed at.

I won't argue against that view, at least for now. It's different than what got me into this discussion to begin with, which was that some folk expressed the opinion that pro-lifers are just obviously, undeniably wrong. It is common to add that they must be motivated by pure misogyny, but I don't recall that much in this thread. I find that appalling in the same way that pro-lifers arguing that their opponents don't give a damn about babies' lives.

 

[phiwum]

I'm trying hard to figure out how that could possibly be true; it seems to me like you are just using post hoc reasoning.

I think so too. There is, I imagine, a strong correlation between abortion rights and availability of contraception, sex education and the empowerment of women to make their sexual choices. It is not the legality of abortion which decreases the demand, but the progressive attitudes towards sex and women's rights that leads to both abortion rights and decreased demand.

Obviously, I don't have the data (or, frankly, the statistical know-how) to justify this opinion.

 

[phiwum]

I think he was saying that that one argument doesn't settle the issue, not that it isn't settled by other arguments.

No, I'll grant that I'm unaware of any argument which settles the issue.

 

[Roboramma]

No, I'll grant that I'm unaware of any argument which settles the issue.

Sure, but that's different from the claim that no such argument exists.

 

[phiwum]

It's based on historical data, which has already been explained.

Hand in hand with legal abortions go better sexual education and less stigma for the use of contraceptics. All of this has been shown to be related.

Historical data provides information about correlations. To go straight from the correlation to a claim about the cause of decreased demand is an example of post hoc reasoning.

ETA: I imagine that the situation is more complicated than I first said. Legal abortion probably does lead to more progressive attitudes and hence decrease in demand. But, more often than not, it is also the presence of progressive attitudes which leads to legal abortion in the first place.

 

[uke2se]

Historical data provides information about correlations. To go straight from the correlation to a claim about the cause of decreased demand is an example of post hoc reasoning.

ETA: I imagine that the situation is more complicated than I first said. Legal abortion probably does lead to more progressive attitudes and hence decrease in demand. But, more often than not, it is also the presence of progressive attitudes which leads to legal abortion in the first place.

Legal abortion, yes. Abortion, no. There's a massive difference.

 

[phiwum]

Sure, but that's different from the claim that no such argument exists.

Yes, it's different. I wouldn't have said there was no possible proof deciding Fermat's last theorem prior to Wiles's discovery of a proof. A long history of failing to settle an issue is not proof that it cannot be settled. It is evidence, I suppose, but certainly not proof.

 

[phiwum]

Legal abortion, yes. Abortion, no. There's a massive difference.

Yes, I get that.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Historical data provides information about correlations. To go straight from the correlation to a claim about the cause of decreased demand is an example of post hoc reasoning.

ETA: I imagine that the situation is more complicated than I first said. Legal abortion probably does lead to more progressive attitudes and hence decrease in demand. But, more often than not, it is also the presence of progressive attitudes which leads to legal abortion in the first place.

It's not really that complicated. We're not trying to track down carcinogens in industrial runoff or anything. The same special interests trying to outlaw abortion also push for abstinence-only sex education and moral codes that hinge on the appearance of chastity, neither of which work. So you end up with a lot more unwanted babies because no one is teaching kids how to properly avoid them, no one is there to help them, which means a lot more back alley abortions. Because even a dumbass kid who gets knocked up can be a responsible enough adult to see it's a bad idea to bring a child into a world that can't care for it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm trying hard to figure out how that could possibly be true; it seems to me like you are just using post hoc reasoning.

Except.... it did happen. It does happen. That's one of those pesky "facts."

"Legal abortions cause abortions rates to drop long term" isn't some hypothetical. It's happened multiple times.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So if abortion is outlawed, the number of abortions will increase?

Yes. If you disagree your argument is with reality, not anyone in this thread.

Our choices are "X number of safe, legal abortions" and "X+ numbers of unsafe, illegal abortions."

That's just the first of many places where all the "bUt WhAt aBOUt da liTTLe bAbiES!" nonsense gets thrown out the window.

If you care about fetuses as people, you're pro-abortion.

If you care about punishing women for being sluts because it makes the baby Jeebus cry, you're anti-abortion.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yes. If you disagree your argument is with reality, not anyone in this thread.

Our choices are "X number of safe, legal abortions" and "X+ numbers of unsafe, illegal abortions."

That's just the first of many places where all the "bUt WhAt aBOUt da liTTLe bAbiES!" nonsense gets thrown out the window.

If you care about fetuses as people, you're pro-abortion.

If you care about punishing women for being sluts because it makes the baby Jeebus cry, you're anti-abortion.

There's an important wrinkle you're overlooking: that of ethical deniability. For many people, it matters less that a bad thing is happening than if they feel responsible for that bad thing happening. Outlawing abortion may result in more abortions, but that's acceptable because at least they aren't condoning the abortion by making it legal. Nevermind that's not how society works, and they really are still responsible for the situation, the important thing is they feel their hands are clean. See where I'm coming from?

It's the same reason methadone clinics get so much pushback: despite being the most effective method of reducing hard drug addiction by providing addicts a reliable route to cleaning themselves up, they're still technically giving drugs to drug addicts and people don't approve of that, damn the consequences.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's an important wrinkle you're overlooking: that of ethical deniability. For many people, it matters less that a bad thing is happening than if they feel responsible for that bad thing happening. Outlawing abortion may result in more abortions, but that's acceptable because at least they aren't condoning the abortion by making it legal. Nevermind that's not how society works, and they really are still responsible for the situation, the important thing is they feel their hands are clean. See where I'm coming from?

It's the same reason methadone clinics get so much pushback: despite being the most effective method of reducing hard drug addiction by providing addicts a reliable route to cleaning themselves up, they're still technically giving drugs to drug addicts and people don't approve of that, damn the consequences.

Yeah but in most discussions the side that makes this an issue can just... get over it by being honest about what their actual issue is.

A methadone clinic makes sense if you want to reduce the number of hard drug addicts. It does not make sense if you feel there is some moral imperative to punish people for becoming addicted to hard drugs.

Same thing with abortion. Just admit "We think women should be punished for being sexually active outside of very narrowly defined sexual gender roles." Then at least your stance is internally consistent.

The paradox you bring up is valid, but it only exists because one side is being transparently dishonest with what their actual issue is because the actual issue they have it too distasteful to promote, so they have to speak in code.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Slight hijack//

I will say one thing though the whole "Handmaiden's Tale" metaphor has been run into the ground at this point and people are starting to get blinded by the metaphor.

I get it, for progressives, abortion rights advocates, and feminists it's usurped 1984 as the "Handy go-to universal dystopian literature metaphor" and they've been trigger happy for a chance to use it for a while now but enough is enough.

 

[The_Animus]

What does "feel pain" mean? Be conscious of, and distressed by, the pain? Or simply react to a negative stimulus in order to escape it? Organisms that don't even have a nervous system do the latter. If foetal nociceptors are 'firing' it doesn't necessarily mean that the foetus is conscious of the event or experiencing distress.

"By the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) nerve cells are beginning to form rudimentary connections between different areas of the brain. However, these connections are sparse and incapable of performing the same functions as an adult brain. So by 12 weeks, although the fetus is certainly starting to look like a little human, the neural circuits responsible for conscious awareness are yet to develop." link

My statement was just a general reference to pain as I'm not knowledgeable enough on the specifics such as you describe. I'd leave that determination up to a panel of qualified scientists who have studied that area.

 

[The_Animus]

State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the state to provide free prenatal and medical care for mothers who had been denied an abortion by the new law. Her amendment was struck down by a vote of 23-6.

https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-abortion-ban-mother-child-health-care-1426643

Pro life really is an inaccurate descriptor. You don't care about the life of the child or mother when you deny things like healthcare, education, food, and other support.