America transitions into Gilead

[phiwum]

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.

Making abortion legal is often followed by a decrease in abortion rates. To go from that to a causal claim is precisely what post hoc means, absent good independent reasoning for the causal connection (that is, an explanation of the cause not dependent on the correlation already observed).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Making abortion legal is often followed by a decrease in abortion rates. To go from that to a causal claim is precisely what post hoc means, absent good independent reasoning for the causal connection (that is, an explanation of the cause not dependent on the correlation already observed).

That's... like completely not true but whatever. Exactly 37 angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm not proving cause and effect are thing and the universe doesn't run on random dream logic to a philosophizer yet again on this board.

If everytime you let go of a rock it falls to the ground that's cause and effect, not "Insert Latin Word Here."

 

[theprestige]

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.

Birth rates have gone down overall, though. It's possible that the decline in abortion rates has nothing to do with the legalization of abortion.

 

[phiwum]

That's... like completely not true but whatever. Exactly 37 angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm not proving cause and effect are thing and the universe doesn't run on random dream logic to a philosophizer yet again on this board.

If everytime you let go of a rock it falls to the ground that's cause and effect, not "Insert Latin Word Here."

You really don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, do you? And yet my studies in philosophy have not hampered my ability to recognize the difference.

Let's suppose that there are a million instances in which abortion has been legalized and in every instance, the rate has subsequently dropped. Heck, let's presume that every time it's been outlawed, the rate also went up. It does not follow that the drop in the rate was caused by the legalization.

I'm not talking about remote chances of coincidence here. I'm also not talking about philosophical issues involving the problem of induction. I'm talking about something much simpler. It may be that legalization and drops in abortion rates have a common cause, namely progressive values regarding sexual relations. A nation which legalizes abortion is likely to do so because it is developing more a progressive attitude towards sex. Such a change will also eventually lead to a decrease in abortions sought, since contraception will be more readily available and people more knowledgeable about sex and its consequences.

But, go on. Keep showing your intellectual superiority by displaying an irrational fear of Latin. I'm feeling might redfaced, I can tell you. I tremble in shame before your wisdom, I tell you what.

 

[theprestige]

You really don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, do you? And yet my studies in philosophy have not hampered my ability to recognize the difference.

Let's suppose that there are a million instances in which abortion has been legalized and in every instance, the rate has subsequently dropped. Heck, let's presume that every time it's been outlawed, the rate also went up. It does not follow that the drop in the rate was caused by the legalization.

I'm not talking about remote chances of coincidence here. I'm also not talking about philosophical issues involving the problem of induction. I'm talking about something much simpler. It may be that legalization and drops in abortion rates have a common cause, namely progressive values regarding sexual relations. A nation which legalizes abortion is likely to do so because it is developing more a progressive attitude towards sex. Such a change will also eventually lead to a decrease in abortions sought, since contraception will be more readily available and people more knowledgeable about sex and its consequences.

But, go on. Keep showing your intellectual superiority by displaying an irrational fear of Latin. I'm feeling might redfaced, I can tell you. I tremble in shame before your wisdom, I tell you what.

There seems to be an overall correlation between free markets, improved standards of living, more liberal attitudes toward sex, decreased abortion rates, and decreased pregancy and birth rates. I defy JoeMorgue or anyone else to demonstrate which of these things is causing which of these other things.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm pretty sure that phiwum is correct about the difference between correlation and causation. If there's a peer-reviewed study that says otherwise, I could be convinced, but I doubt such a rigorous study exists. (I tried looking for one too, but what I found seemed to show the opposite; however, it comes from a pro-life source so I remain skeptical.)

I have a new question now, about this philosopher who says that abortion is wrong.

By the way, Marquis chickens out at the beginning of the article and explicitly omits pregnancy due to rape from the discussion. I think this is intellectual cowardice on his part, since his argument applies equally well to that case. If he had the courage of his convictions, he would say that abortion is wrong even in that case, seems to me.

Would he also say that, by the same logic, every embryo created through in vitro fertilization must also be allowed to live? Or would the same logic make the whole concept of in vitro fertilization morally impermissible?

Here's a fact: 1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away

(That's only in the UK. I would imagine the number for the US is about 5 times larger).

So, it's not only elective abortion, it's also fertility clinics that are creating millions of human embryos which will never be born. Why no similar efforts to ban that practice? Is it just that people aren't aware of it?

 

[Puppycow]

There seems to be an overall correlation between free markets, improved standards of living, more liberal attitudes toward sex, decreased abortion rates, and decreased pregancy and birth rates. I defy JoeMorgue or anyone else to demonstrate which of these things is causing which of these other things.

I'm guessing that more effective birth control and more access to birth control has at least something to do with it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You really don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, do you?

I understand that you understand it as "I can just call any result I don't like an ad hoc."

But, go on. Keep showing your intellectual superiority by displaying an irrational fear of Latin. I'm feeling might redfaced, I can tell you. I tremble in shame before your wisdom, I tell you what.

Again I'll take it over you telling the 13 year old rape victim to carry the baby.

Until you can, without some stupid philosophical existential crisis tacked on to, understand that this is a bad thing, I'm not only okay being judged by you I welcome it.

 

[Brainster]

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.

You're ignoring every other change that has happened in society since Roe. If your argument is that legal abortion and sex education and widespread availability of effective contraception leads to lower abortion rates, then I can see it being likely, but it seems pretty obvious that the latter two are more likely the cause than the former.

About the only way I could see legal abortion in the absence of other changes leading to lower abortion rates long-term is if you make the argument that the babies who have been aborted would have grown up to have very high abortion rates but for the fact that they themselves were aborted. It's an intriguing argument but certainly not provable.

BTW, abortion was legal in some states in the US before Roe.

 

[Bob001]

Worth noting: Abortion was legal when the U.S. was founded. The first anti-abortion laws in the early 1800s had nothing to do with any view of when human life begins.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...bortion-law-years-ago/?utm_term=.5a3b8f448951

 

[theprestige]

I'm guessing that more effective birth control and more access to birth control has at least something to do with it.

That's my guess, too. I think for most purposes, we are fine with stipulating that guess as correct.

That is of course very different from JoeMorgue's proven causation.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Making abortion legal is often followed by a decrease in abortion rates. To go from that to a causal claim is precisely what post hoc means, absent good independent reasoning for the causal connection (that is, an explanation of the cause not dependent on the correlation already observed).

Was there something wrong with the explanation I provided?

 

[phiwum]

I'm pretty sure that phiwum is correct about the difference between correlation and causation. If there's a peer-reviewed study that says otherwise, I could be convinced, but I doubt such a rigorous study exists. (I tried looking for one too, but what I found seemed to show the opposite; however, it comes from a pro-life source so I remain skeptical.)

I have a new question now, about this philosopher who says that abortion is wrong.

Would he also say that, by the same logic, every embryo created through in vitro fertilization must also be allowed to live? Or would the same logic make the whole concept of in vitro fertilization morally impermissible?

Here's a fact: 1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away

(That's only in the UK. I would imagine the number for the US is about 5 times larger).

So, it's not only elective abortion, it's also fertility clinics that are creating millions of human embryos which will never be born. Why no similar efforts to ban that practice? Is it just that people aren't aware of it?

I hesitate to state with confidence what he'd say, partly because of the caveat at the beginning of his article.

The purpose of this essay is to set out an argument for the claim that abortion, except perhaps in rare instances, is seriously wrong. One reason for these exceptions is to eliminate from consideration cases whose ethical analysis should be controversial and detailed for clear-headed opponents of abortion. Such cases include abortion after rape and abortion during the first fourteen days after conception, when there is an argument that the fetus is not definitely an individual. Another reason for making these exceptions is to allow for those cases in which the permissibility of abortion is compatible with the argument of this essay. Such cases include abortion when continuation of a pregnancy endangers a woman's life and abortion when the fetus is anencephalic.

I've already said that I don't see how the rape case is hard to settle, given his argument, but perhaps he didn't want to draw a conclusion there without further thought. I don't know what is special about the fetus during the first fourteen days that makes it controversial whether it counts as a being at all. He could be referring to biological facts of which I am quite ignorant.

I'm guessing he would want to exclude embryos produced through in vitro fertilization as requiring specific, detailed thought.

The article was published back in 1989. I am not aware of any later contributions to the topic, since my only familiarity with Marquis comes from selecting this text for intro courses.

Sorry I couldn't give a clearer answer. If you want my opinion (trying to mimic Marquis's thinking), a fertilized embryo does not have a future like ours until it is in an environment in which it will naturally develop into a full-fledged person. I don't like that answer much, but it's an off-the-cuff suggestion. It seems to draw a distinction between doing to and bringing about that many find dubious, perhaps Marquis among them.

 

[Bikewer]

I listened to a discussion on NPR where it was mentioned that the abortion rate in France was about half that of the US.
France has mandatory sex education, paid pregnancy leave, subsidized child care, easy access to contraceptives, etc.
These are things that the fundamentalist pro-life crowd seems to despise.... Perhaps getting back to the “wages of sin” argument.

 

[phiwum]

I understand that you understand it as "I can just call any result I don't like an ad hoc."

You weren't accused of ad hoc reasoning, but of a particular fallacy, post hoc. The accusation was apt.

Again I'll take it over you telling the 13 year old rape victim to carry the baby.

Until you can, without some stupid philosophical existential crisis tacked on to, understand that this is a bad thing, I'm not only okay being judged by you I welcome it.

This criticism is about the claim that legalized abortion causes decreased demand. You have not shown a causal relation, but merely a correlation.

There are many other good reasons for legalized abortion. This criticism does not address those reasons nor is this criticism an argument against legalized abortion. It is simply an argument that one particular causal claim has not been justified by a mere correlation.

If all that is lost on you, well, I don't know what to say. It's not a subtle point.

ETA: Is it just me or are Joe's last two paragraphs best summarized as, "Either agree with my causal claim or you hate young, pregnant victims of rape?"

 

[phiwum]

You're ignoring every other change that has happened in society since Roe. If your argument is that legal abortion and sex education and widespread availability of effective contraception leads to lower abortion rates, then I can see it being likely, but it seems pretty obvious that the latter two are more likely the cause than the former.

About the only way I could see legal abortion in the absence of other changes leading to lower abortion rates long-term is if you make the argument that the babies who have been aborted would have grown up to have very high abortion rates but for the fact that they themselves were aborted. It's an intriguing argument but certainly not provable.

BTW, abortion was legal in some states in the US before Roe.

There is another indirect effect perhaps. Legalizing abortion might contribute to more progressive values regarding sex practices to some extent. Such values lead to legalization and may also be strengthened by legalization and it is the values which decrease demand, not the legal status of abortion directly.

 

[phiwum]

Was there something wrong with the explanation I provided?

Do you mean the "clean hands" argument? I don't see how it's directly related to the discussion of whether or not legal abortion decreases demand.

I also personally think you are too dismissive of those who desire clean hands. If something is dreadfully bad, morally speaking, then it shouldn't be sanctioned by the state. If it is not merely dreadfully bad to oneself but to someone wholly innocent, then it should be made illegal, even if doing so brings about other bad effects unintentionally. Of course, one should compare the effects of the bad side effects and that may be reason to keep it legal.

If I were pro-life, the negative effects of criminalized abortion may be outweighed by the moral harm of allowing legal abortions. If I thought it was murder, I would not think that the state should make it legal just so it's safer for the murderers.

I totally understand that some think that ethics is less important than results. I understand utilitarians who say ethical judgments are based on results alone even better. I don't share either position.

The methadone clinic is a fine example. I think that it should be illegal to sell opiates to abusers, but I favor methadone clinics. This seems to be an inconsistency in my thinking, but I view addicts primarily as victims or at least not responsible for their current abuse. The woman requesting an abortion is responsible in a way that an addict feeding his addiction is not. Responsibility in this case is a matter of degree and I don't mean to absolve the addict of all responsibility.

I'm not at all satisfied with the above analysis.

Is this more or less the response you requested?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No... I meant my post responding to you just above that one. But nice rant.

 

[Minoosh]

Can anybody put forth a coherent defense of punishing doctors while the person who ordered the hit is held harmless? I think there might be issues, possibly constitutional issues, just with that part of these new state laws. Also invoking God at the bill-signing strikes me as ... unconstitutional. I don't know exactly what's covered under the "establishment" clause but my understanding is it's pretty broad.

 

[Trebuchet]

I listened to a discussion on NPR where it was mentioned that the abortion rate in France was about half that of the US.
France has mandatory sex education, paid pregnancy leave, subsidized child care, easy access to contraceptives, etc.
These are things that the fundamentalist pro-life crowd seems to despise.... Perhaps getting back to the “wages of sin” argument.

Yup. It's all about punishing the sluts, one way or another.