Abortion? The final conclusions?

[Luke T.]

This is a totally emotion-based issue for me. My skepticism tends to go completely out the window. Just to be upfront here.

When my wife and I found out she was pregnant with our third kid, we were not happy about it. We met three or four of the top reasons women give for aborting. The pregnancy coming when it did was just damned inconvenient. We were completely exhausted with four month old twins, and shortly after we found out, I was laid off from my job and was unemployed. We were living off the government, and let me tell you, the government doesn't give you enough to live.

Anyway.

Abortion was not an option. In fact, we were shocked and horrified at which friends of ours suggested an abortion. Namely, all of them.

Our third child just turned three. I look at her, and can't imagine life without her. She is a real treasure.

I have looked into the abortion issue skeptically and rationally, and found some of my preconceived ideas were way off. I won't go into all of it again. But I presented what I found here, and on Skeptical Community and can point you to it if you really wish so.

As a result of my investigations, I have come to the conclusion that talking about abortion is only talking about half the problem. Because nearly half of all abortions are the result of pregnancies which occurred due to not using any birth control of any kind at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Nil. Zero.

Nearly half. 46-point-something percent. No birth control.

The rest of my investigations led me from being totally against abortion except in cases of rape and incest to being maybe, could be, possibly, amenable to first trimester abortions.

But I gotta be honest with you. Sometimes some of the people on the pro-choice side piss me off soooooo much that I revert back to zero tolerance of abortion.

Yeah, I know pro-lifers can be rage-inspiring, too. I do my best not to get like that. That's why I like to talk about birth control when abortion comes up. Seems like a pretty fair thing to talk about that doesn't raise so much ire, and it seems to me that solving half the abortion problem is better than not solving any of it, which is what has been going on for the last umpteen gazillion years. I don't think even the pro-choice side is comfortable with the number of abortions that occur.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As a result of my investigations, I have come to the conclusion that talking about abortion is only talking about half the problem.

Check.

Nearly half of all abortions are the result of pregnancies which occurred due to not using any birth control of any kind at all. ==snip== 46-point-something percent. No birth control.

Check.

That's why I like to talk about birth control when abortion comes up.

Check.

I don't think even the pro-choice side is comfortable with the number of abortions that occur.

Check.

The family planning counsellors we talked to advocated proactive methods of birth control, and planned parenthood, in part due to the risks imposed on a woman's health by abortion. There are risks to the Pill, to IUD's, to condoms, and to other methods. Life isn't risk free, but some risks can be addressed and mitigated.

DR

 

[KingMerv00]

This is a totally emotion-based issue for me. My skepticism tends to go completely out the window. Just to be upfront here.

So if you don't use rationality and facts, why is your opinion worth considering?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So if you don't use rationality and facts, why is your opinion worth considering?

Consider: the decision to abort, or not to abort is often a human, emotional decision. When it is your body, or you and your wife's condition, the abstract often takes second place to human needs that are more subjective.

Luke has experiential data to offer.

DR

 

[KingMerv00]

Consider: the decision to abort, or not to abort is often a human, emotional decision. When it is your body, or you and your wife's condition, the abstract often takes second place to human needs that are more subjective.

Luke has experiential data to offer.

DR

I don't really have a problem when he is referring to his own body. But one should use skepticism when giving opinions about other people's bodies.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't really have a problem when he is referring to his own body. But one should use skepticism when giving opinions about other people's bodies.

Fair enough. (My clumsy "your own body" referred to a generic woman considering the options, sorry to be unclear.)

However, Luke noted that he did the research on unplanned pregnancies, and cited the roughly 50% causal factor of not using a form of contraception. So, from there he suggests, and I concur, that addressing the root cause (ooh, pun) might do more to alleviate the scope, and scale, of the need for a difficult decision: do we get the vacuum cleaner and coat hanger, or not? (Gratuitous and grisly hyperbole comes to you courtesy of old jokes on the topic. )

DR

 

[Luke T.]

So if you don't use rationality and facts, why is your opinion worth considering?

First, I mentioned in the same post that in the past I had used rationality and facts and had some of my preconceived notions overturned as a result, and that I would be happy to point you to where I presented them.

So here you go.

In case it isn't blindingly obvious, I am the poster "Sock" in that topic, and later switch to my "Luke T." persona. Read the whole topic and you will see the calculations I made in my first post were way off, and that I was forced to change my opinions as a result of my own investigation. And with a giant boost from Electric Monk.

ETA: You only need to read as far as halfway through the second page of the topic to see my turnaround.

The topic is heavily laden with links to evidence, including evidence which contradicted my original beliefs.

Second, the issue of abortion will never be completely fact-based. Just like "age of consent" never will be. There will always be an emotional factor. Arbitrary lines get drawn based as much on emotion as science. That's just a fact of life that we should be honest about, and deal with it from there.

 

[KingMerv00]

Fair enough. (My clumsy "your own body" referred to a generic woman considering the options, sorry to be unclear.)

However, Luke noted that he did the research on unplanned pregnancies, and cited the roughly 50% causal factor of not using a form of contraception. So, from there he suggests, and I concur, that addressing the root cause (ooh, pun) might do more to alleviate the scope, and scale, of the need for a difficult decision: do we get the vacuum cleaner and coat hanger, or not? (Gratuitous and grisly hyperbole comes to you courtesy of old jokes on the topic. )

DR

I would absolutely agree that contraception education is key and that the issues are related.

 

[Luke T.]

Reasons Given For Abortions

not using contraception: 4,957: 46.40

46.4 percent, no birth control.

 

[Luke T.]

An interesting number below that one that I am hesitant to assume it means what I think it means.

using contraception 5,726 53.60
contraceptive failed despite proper use ~1,808 16.9

Am I correct in assuming that of those who got abortions, 53.6 percent used birth control, but only 16.9 percent were using it properly?

If that is the case, are we approaching 83 percent of abortions being the result of no birth control or improper/sporadic use of birth control?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I would absolutely agree that contraception education is key and that the issues are related.

Try getting the government in Texas to listen to that, even with Luke's data, and what do you get?

"Abstinence only public sex education."

Since 1995, a number of studies, including a good one at Texas A & M, show that teen pregnancy hasn't much changed, but it has increased in some counties (particularly in the southern half of Texas.)

Some of us people don't rely on the government to teach their kids about such things.

DR

 

[steverino]

This is a totally emotion-based issue for me. My skepticism tends to go completely out the window. Just to be upfront here.

When my wife and I found out she was pregnant with our third kid, we were not happy about it. We met three or four of the top reasons women give for aborting. The pregnancy coming when it did was just damned inconvenient. We were completely exhausted with four month old twins, and shortly after we found out, I was laid off from my job and was unemployed. We were living off the government, and let me tell you, the government doesn't give you enough to live.

Anyway.

Abortion was not an option. In fact, we were shocked and horrified at which friends of ours suggested an abortion. Namely, all of them.

Our third child just turned three. I look at her, and can't imagine life without her. She is a real treasure.

I have looked into the abortion issue skeptically and rationally, and found some of my preconceived ideas were way off. I won't go into all of it again. But I presented what I found here, and on Skeptical Community and can point you to it if you really wish so.

As a result of my investigations, I have come to the conclusion that talking about abortion is only talking about half the problem. Because nearly half of all abortions are the result of pregnancies which occurred due to not using any birth control of any kind at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Nil. Zero.

Nearly half. 46-point-something percent. No birth control.

The rest of my investigations led me from being totally against abortion except in cases of rape and incest to being maybe, could be, possibly, amenable to first trimester abortions.

But I gotta be honest with you. Sometimes some of the people on the pro-choice side piss me off soooooo much that I revert back to zero tolerance of abortion.

Yeah, I know pro-lifers can be rage-inspiring, too. I do my best not to get like that. That's why I like to talk about birth control when abortion comes up. Seems like a pretty fair thing to talk about that doesn't raise so much ire, and it seems to me that solving half the abortion problem is better than not solving any of it, which is what has been going on for the last umpteen gazillion years. I don't think even the pro-choice side is comfortable with the number of abortions that occur.

The above post is a thing of beauty. I choose not to get bogged down in statistics, but appreciate the personal and vulnerable nature of this episode in Luke's life. We skeptics can nitpick, but there is truth in what he wrote, and was willing to share with us. This post is genuine.

 

[Jocko]

Jocko,

We ALL rely on the rest of society to support our existance, period. Were it not for you local police, YOU would soon secum to armed bandits with bigger guns and more bullets than you have.

Financial support, then. I produce something marketable and am paid for doing so. Who pays the welfare leech? An employer? No, it's the state. What does the welfare leech produce apart from carbon dioxide and more welfare leeches? Nothing.

Your argument has NOTHING to do with what we are actually talking about. 'Society' or the 'planet Earth' is NOT 'specific'...

Which was my point about your premise. You spoke of an individual running a respirator as if that individual was responsible for its existence as well as its operation, and that's obviously untrue.

My argument is based on the relationship between a parasite and its host. Abortion laws should be based what is and is NOT an individual life form. A parasite, or rather a fetus 5 months old or younger possesses ZERO 'individual' characteristics. It is 'absolutely dependent' on ONE host, a specific host. To date, you can't transmit one fetus into another womb. When that technological advance happens, THEN the laws should change.

But you fail to explain why leeching off a relative is substantially different than leeching off society at large. And since your example of the respirator or cashier cutting a check obviously gives the lie to any execution of this theory, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't work that way - and like I said, shows you have a problem understanding what a parasite is.

Comparing the fetus/host relationship to welfare receipants and the society that supports is an inaccurate comparison to say the least.

Explain why without assuming that leeching off one person is in any way different than leeching off one million people.

I agree that there are problems with comparing a fetus with a welfare bum - the fetus at least has the potential to develop into a useful, contributing member of society. The bum does not.

What criteria would you use to decide when or if a fetus can or should be aborted?

I'll answer that once you actually address the point given to you on page 1 and again here.

 

[King of the Americas]

Jocko,

You never fail not to suprise me...

You have misconstrued my points, ignored me questions, and misrepresented my stance. I did not mean to say that ONE person was responsible for the ventilator, in fact my point was exactly the opposite of that- that ANYONE could run a vent and that the person on it isn't dependent upon a 'specific' person.

Second, your comparing someone who "leeches" off of society as a whole to someone who is 'absolutely dependent' upon a 'specific' host for ALL of their life functions is the horrible comparison...

My point, which you have overshadowed and ignored STILL, is that a person or fetus' physical ability should determine one's 'rights'. If you are NOT, capable of life without being absolutley dependent upon a specific host, then you are not an individual, you are a parasite.

When technology allows a 5 month old fetus to exist outside of the womb, without the need of that specific host, THEN we change the rules.

In fact, I believe the rules are incorrect now, and are in need of reformation. A fetus in its 6th month IS capable of life outside the womb without the mother's specific care, and I believe is deserving of legal protection. Moreover, I believe that if a pregnant woman who consumes drugs or alcohol, in her 7th-9th month is guilty of no less than child abuse or endangerment. All that said, I think that until the fetus can exist outside the womb, then it is NOT an individual and is deserving of nothing in the way of 'rights'. Until the point of external viability, the fetus is a parasite, capable of life ONLY due the 'willing' and able host. Therefore, the host's willingness and ability to carry said parasite are the only criteria that need be considered.

I'll ask you AGAIN, what criteria do YOU think should be considered in allowing a woman to abort a pregnancy?

 

[Jocko]

My point, which you have overshadowed and ignored STILL, is that a person or fetus' physical ability should determine one's 'rights'. If you are NOT, capable of life without being absolutley dependent upon a specific host, then you are not an individual, you are a parasite.

You still don't explain your distinction. You simply repeat it as fact without further comment; why is the one-to-one correlation so critical to an otherwise simple issue? I mean, the welfare bum cannot maintain life without the host. Just because the host is a taxman and not a pregant woman is a distnction without a difference, IMHO.

I think you're avoiding the issue by retreating to meaningless semantics. Why is it acceptable to terminate the life of a fetus that cannot exist without its "host," and not acceptable to terminate the welfare bum who cannot exist without his "host"?

 

[Jocko]

To clarify my problem with your use of "parasite" and "host," your usage isn't really appropriate on many levels, though my counterexample of the welfare bum is:

From Dictionary.com:

par‧a‧site  /ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ - noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

The species requirement rather rules out #1, while #2 fits my description of the welfare leech to a tee. Just trying to clarify terms before proceeding, you understand.

 

[CaptainManacles]

All these things can really start giving one a headache when trying to reason this issue.

Okay, I'm tired of headaches, let's just simplify this thing once and for all. Any time a fetus dies we spin the wheel of morality and it tells us what crime was commited or what we should do with those involved. The wheel will be as follows.

Murder
Manslaughter
Assult
Nothing
$1000 fine
Win $200
Bankrupt
Spin Twice
Everybody wins a car
Spanking
Deportation to random country
Community service
President for a day
Forced to argue on internet message boards until driven over the brink of sanity
10 minutes time out
must give Ted Haggard massage
death by repeatedly watching tomb raider
given access to secret NSA archieve of dirty celebrity e-mails
R. Kelly



and that's the end of that arguement forever, I'm officially pro-wheel

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It lacks the self/identity to be a person.

So do many mentally retarded people or brain dead people. That doesn't make them any less people.

Me and logic. If it is in the body then it is part of it.

I don't see how that follows.

By that extend it is also murder when you spray pesticides against insects.

That's if you define "Murder" to include killing insects. Right now it isn't. Only defined as killing "people" and my argument is viable babies are people.

It can also do that without technology, but without support that would be temporarly, just like with a baby.

I don't follow what you're saying here.

 

[skeptifem]

Perhaps I should share my personal, emotional, experienced based opinion on abortion to present the opposite side to luke t's experiences.

I went to a high school with a teen pregnancy program, it was the only one for quite a ways so most teen mothers from neighboring towns who wanted a diploma would end up there.

I can not begin to express how sorry I felt for the children of those mothers.

The teen moms got their own home room, where they were taught how to care for children and were taught about birth control. It didnt matter, most of them got pregnant again after attending the school, they learned nothing. The number of people being investigated by CPS also showed that caring for their own children is too much of a challenge for many of them.

Two of them were sisters who were third generation teen mothers. Being pregnant at an early age where they are unable to afford or care for children is a normal thing in their gene pool, almost doomed into being unable to pass on a sense of responsibility to their children. Other girls had mothers who were pregnant as teens as well. Despite having their own mothers raise them poorly, most decided to have babies young. The reason most often sited for this is being pro life for religious reasons. Jesus never gives people more than they can take, right?

Some of them were drug addicts and alcoholics, unwilling to give up their habits even during second or third pregnancies. One girl kept coming to school and using alcohol despite being ordered to take bedrest and having to take magnesium pills to keep her from expelling a 1.5 lb fetus three months early. She did give birth to her baby, it weighed a little over two pounds and was pre mature. Other babies had serious health problems due to the drug use of their mothers.

There were only one or two girls who did not have some sort of serious issue.

Almost all of these women were on government assistance and congradulated each other when their children were approved for government programs. The ones who did have jobs were in food service. They were less mature than the average teenager, and didnt seem to grow up at all no matter how much they messed up their childrens lives by being arrested or using drugs or choosing men over their own children. I can't imagine coming out of these situations with a healthy childhood.

An awful lot of them had serious emotional problems. Manipulation, constant lying, unprovoked aggressive behavior, psyical violence (domestic as well), theft, and every kind of drama you can imagine was not uncommon.

The sad part of it was that these women were in the minority of teen mothers who actually cared enough to finish high school.

Statistics show that society usually pays the price long after the children of these mothers turn 18 and move out- sons of teen moms are much more likely to go to prison and commit crimes, and daughters of teen moms are much more likely to become teen mothers and perpetuate the cycle.

Saying that women who dont use birth control deserve to have children isnt quite correct- what is really being said is that children who are concieved out of stupidity deserve to be born and raised by irresponsible people. I dont think that children deserve these kinds of situations, they do not ask to be born. Children deserve to grow up wanted and cared for, and adoption does NOT ensure that. There are far too many children out there being hurt because of something they had no part in, and we all know that these situations are not exclusive to teen motherhood. Seeing that much wrong going on twards children does something to you, especially when there are so many people working very hard to help those women fix their lives and it makes no difference. If abortion is murder, its a mercy killing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Saying that women who dont use birth control deserve to have children isnt quite correct- what is really being said is that children who are concieved out of stupidity deserve to be born and raised by irresponsible people. I dont think that children deserve these kinds of situations, they do not ask to be born. Children deserve to grow up wanted and cared for, and adoption does NOT ensure that. There are far too many children out there being hurt because of something they had no part in, and we all know that these situations are not exclusive to teen motherhood. Seeing that much wrong going on twards children does something to you, especially when there are so many people working very hard to help those women fix their lives and it makes no difference. If abortion is murder, its a mercy killing.

That's a chilling post. The problems in our adoption system are indeed a contributor to the general malaise.

The charge that some bleeding hearts promote the vicious cycle you describe in your early paragraphs, so that they can ensure a dependent class of prols, sometimes rings true.

DR