Split Thread Legislation to restrict access to abortion and contraception

[xjx388]

The answer to the abortion debate is not cut and dried simply because morals are not cut and dried. There are no absolute morals. Neither side has the absolute moral truth on any issue.

The problem is that all arguments I've heard can be countered. For example, the "viability," argument. Let's say we determine that a fetus is officially viable at 24 weeks. Awesome. But I could counter argue that even a baby born at term isn't really "viable." Leave it alone on a table and see how viable it is. The baby would require someone to give it food and shelter until he or she can reach self-sufficiency. On the other side of the spectrum, a zygote is a viable human if allowed to mature into one. This process is fundamentally no different from the process that happens from birth to self-sufficiency.

No one has a hold on the absolute moral truth. Therefore, society should err on the side of protection of life.

 

[RandFan]

The answer to the abortion debate is not cut and dried simply because morals are not cut and dried. There are no absolute morals. Neither side has the absolute moral truth on any issue.

The problem is that all arguments I've heard can be countered. For example, the "viability," argument. Let's say we determine that a fetus is officially viable at 24 weeks. Awesome. But I could counter argue that even a baby born at term isn't really "viable." Leave it alone on a table and see how viable it is. The baby would require someone to give it food and shelter until he or she can reach self-sufficiency. On the other side of the spectrum, a zygote is a viable human if allowed to mature into one. This process is fundamentally no different from the process that happens from birth to self-sufficiency.

No one has a hold on the absolute moral truth. Therefore, society should err on the side of protection of life.

You so miss the point. Ethics/justice/moral reasoning, are not about finding absolute moral truth. In this context they are about resolving moral dilemma.

A baby doesn't need to be killed to resolve any moral dilemma. In the case of a baby, if the mother doesn't want the baby then those who think that killing a baby is wrong can pass laws to protect it and step in to provide the resources to save it. In the case of a zygote, if it is viable and those who think it should be saved can take the zygote from the mother and provide for it. Currently that is not possible so in that case the needs and interests of a thinking feeling human being trump that of a mass of cells that cannot think or feel.

No one claims a hold on absolute moral truth. That's a straw man. What we claim is the means to best resolve moral dilemma. If the sperm/ovum/blastocyst/zygote/fetus can live outside of the womb and some group thinks it worthy of protection and they can take it form the mother and provide for it then I say let them.

Simple. No need to demand that everyone agree as to what is absolute moral truth. Just that we have a means to resolve the dilemma.

 

[xjx388]

You so miss the point. Ethics/justice/moral reasoning, are not about finding absolute moral truth. In this context they are about resolving moral dilemma.

Actually, that is the point. To morally reason, you need to have adopted some moral stance. Morals don't comport to logic, necessarily. Since there is no such thing as "objective morals," any moral judgement is subjective. Viability is subjective, value is subjective, etc.

A baby doesn't need to be killed to resolve any moral dilemma. In the case of a baby, if the mother doesn't want the baby then those who think that killing a baby is wrong can pass laws to protect it and step in to provide the resources to save it. In the case of a zygote, if it is viable and those who think it should be saved can take the zygote from the mother and provide for it. Currently that is not possible so in that case the needs and interests of a thinking feeling human being trump that of a mass of cells that cannot think or feel.

What if one day, medical science progresses to the point where a zygote can be developed outside the womb. Would abortion be morally ok then? It's simply not any stronger a criteria than what Christians believe.

No one claims a hold on absolute moral truth. That's a straw man. What we claim is the means to best resolve moral dilemma. If the sperm/ovum/blastocyst/zygote/fetus can live outside of the womb and some group thinks it worthy of protection and they can take it form the mother and provide for it then I say let them.

But at that point, should abortions be illegal?

Simple. No need to demand that everyone agree as to what is absolute moral truth. Just that we have a means to resolve the dilemma.

The means to resolve moral dilemmas is to take a moral stance and judge which solution comports with your moral stance. Such moral stances are entirely subjective.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, that is the point. To morally reason, you need to have adopted some moral stance. Morals don't comport to logic, necessarily. Since there is no such thing as "objective morals," any moral judgement is subjective. Viability is subjective, value is subjective, etc.

This does not obviate my point about moral dilemma. If we assume that values are subjective we can determine the best way to resolve the dilemma. Viability is the best way. It puts the needs of a thinking feeling human being over one that isn't. Since most people don't think sperm is sacred then we have a fairly good basis to make our decision. To think sperm not sacred but blastocyst sacred can only be resolved with special pleading. People value humans over other animals because of that which is intrinsic to being human. Feelings and self awareness. These are what we as a society prioritize. The mother has them. A zygote doesn't.

What if one day, medical science progresses to the point where a zygote can be developed outside the womb. Would abortion be morally ok then? It's simply not any stronger a criteria than what Christians believe.

You've already conceded that there is no absolute moral truth so your question is nonsensical. The question is this, would outlawing abortion best resolve the dilemma? I think it could. Assuming society were willing to pick up the costs. So, next question. If and when technology can turn all sperm and ovum into humans (skin cells?). Should we ensure that all sperm and all ovum are protected? I think when it gets to that point the scales will fall from people's eyes and they will stop seeing human cells as sacred.

But at that point, should abortions be illegal?

"Should"? It could. There are all other issues to deal with. I suppose by then we will get over our ideas that sperm ovum after conception are any different than sperm and ovum before.

The means to resolve moral dilemmas is to take a moral stance and judge which solution comports with your moral stance.

No. This can only lead to dilemma. The moral stance of a pro-lifer and the moral stance of a pro-choicer are incompatible. We need to find a strategy to best resolve that dilemma that has nothing to with taking a moral stance. If I take a moral stance on abortion one way or the the other that won't resolve the dilemma. I've already told you how to resolve it. Repeating ad nauseam that moral values are subjective won't change anything as I agree and that doesn't negate my point.

 

[gnome]

There is a moral stance on which a pro-choice and pro-life person should be able to readily agree and cooperate--reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

 

[AvalonXQ]

There is a moral stance on which a pro-choice and pro-life person should be able to readily agree and cooperate--reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

In principle, yes.

In practice, many pro-lifers are also opposed to contraception, and many pro-choicers believe in encouraging open sexuality in young women. Which means that in practice, there's not much left for them to agree on.

 

[RandFan]

In principle, yes.

In practice, many pro-lifers are also opposed to contraception, and many pro-choicers believe in encouraging open sexuality in young women. Which means that in practice, there's not much left for them to agree on.

Source please?

 

[Caper]

Source please?

I think you should know what that means. People who would call themselves prochoice are generally more sexually liberal then people who call themselves prolife. I don't have any evidence.... for all I know prolifers are less sexually educated and that leads to more unwanted pregnancies.... not sure.

 

[RandFan]

I think you should know what that means. People who would call themselves prochoice are generally more sexually liberal then people who call themselves prolife. I don't have any evidence.... for all I know prolifers are less sexually educated and that leads to more unwanted pregnancies.... not sure.

This is the problem with simply relying on one's intuition. It often fails. Take for instance the idea of abstinence only education. States with ‘abstinence-only’ sex ed programs rank highest in teen pregnancies. Now, there could be many reasons for this having nothing to do with "abstinence only education" (though I think it plays a big role). In any event, these are not states where the culture and family values are "sexually liberal".

I consider myself "sexually liberal". I didn't encourage my daughter to be sexually open. I wanted my children to be informed and to make informed decisions. I wanted them to know the consequences both mentally and physically of sexual intimacy. This idea that sex positive people are all or mostly hedonistic and encourage the same of peers and adolescents is absolute nonsense. We know the dangers of STD's, unwanted pregnancies and the pain of broken families and broken promises. For many if not most of us the goal is a balance or personal liberty and personal responsibility. Sufficient information and access to birth control to make responsible decisions.

Please, if you are going to make claims about us, show us your data and skip the assumptions.

 

[Caper]

This is the problem with simply relying on one's intuition. It often fails. Take for instance the idea of abstinence only education. States with ‘abstinence-only’ sex ed programs rank highest in teen pregnancies.

I would not expect an abstinence only sex education to have the best effect. Intuition is not perfect... some have it better then others... I think mine's pretty good.


I don't have the money to commission a survey.... and I'm sure I can't find one online. But if I could I would ask.... 1)Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice? (forget the problems with labels for a moment.) Then I would ask.... 2) how many sexual partners have you had 3) Do you come from an environment (family, close peer group, ect) where an open sexuality is either encouraged or not shunned upon. My intuition tell me that the pro-choice group would have on average 1) more sexual partners and 2) Came from an environment that did not discourage this behavior, or even encouraged it.

But again. I don't have the money to commission a survey.

 

[RandFan]

I would not expect an abstinence only sex education to have the best effect. Intuition is not perfect... some have it better then others... I think mine's pretty good.

I don't have the money to commission a survey.... and I'm sure I can't find one online. But if I could I would ask.... 1)Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice? (forget the problems with labels for a moment.) Then I would ask.... 2) how many sexual partners have you had 3) Do you come from an environment (family, close peer group, ect) where an open sexuality is either encouraged or not shunned upon. My intuition tell me that the pro-choice group would have on average 1) more sexual partners and 2) Came from an environment that did not discourage this behavior, or even encouraged it.

But again. I don't have the money to commission a survey.

My intuition tells me you are wrong. But not only that, the evidence speaks against you.

See, here is the problem, about 5-7 years ago (not exactly sure at the moment but I can look it up if it is important) I was a HUGE supporter of conservative sexual values. I firmly believed that loose morals/free love/hedonism were the reason for so many of our problems. I had strongly supported the policies of George H. W. Bush to stress family values and abstinence only education. When Dubya re-instigated his policies I was a strong supporter. It was only after coming to this forum and arguing for years in favor of these "family values" as they related to sexuality and sex education that I changed my mind. I did so because of the sociological data.

But why do you need a study? Seriously, you just dismissed the very fact that red states have higher unwanted pregnancies. What good are studies if you only accept the ones that you make up in your head?

 

[Caper]

My intuition tells me you are wrong. But not only that, the evidence speaks against you.

Really? I think my intuition would be correct and yours would be wrong.

See, here is the problem, about 5-7 years ago (not exactly sure at the moment but I can look it up if it is important) I was a HUGE supporter of conservative sexual values. I firmly believed that loose morals/free love/hedonism were the reason for so many of our problems. I had strongly supported the policies of George H. W. Bush to stress family values and abstinence only education. When Dubya re-instigated his policies I was a strong supporter. It was only after coming to this forum and arguing for years in favor of these "family values" as they related to sexuality and sex education that I changed my mind. I did so because of the sociological data.

Do you get the impression that I argue for conservative sexual values?

But why do you need a study? Seriously, you just dismissed the very fact that red states have higher unwanted pregnancies. What good are studies if you only accept the ones that you make up in your head?

How does your study answer the questions I want answered. How do you know any of these unwanted pregnancies are from people that are prolife or prochoice? Actually, the unwanted pregnancy part of it tells me they are actually prochoice women... as I'm sure they got their data from abortion rates. How does knowing someone had an unwanted pregnancy answer who had more sexual partners?

 

[Dessi]

I don't think there's a way to spin or rationalize the statement that "pro-choicers encourage open sexuality among young women" in a way that actually means "pro-choicers encourage open sexuality among young women".

 

[RandFan]

Really? I think my intuition would be correct and yours would be wrong.

Well of course you would. Why bother with evidence?

Do you get the impression that I argue for conservative sexual values?

I got the impression that you are arguing that conservative sexual values leads to less sex.

How does your study answer the questions I want answered. How do you know any of these unwanted pregnancies are from people that are prolife or prochoice? Actually, the unwanted pregnancy part of it tells me they are actually prochoice women... as I'm sure they got their data from abortion rates. How does knowing someone had an unwanted pregnancy answer who had more sexual partners?

Dude? Seriously? What on earth are you talking about? There are more pro-choice women in blue states. There are more liberal men and more liberal women in blue states. We can confidently say that liberal states are negatively correlated to increased unwanted pregnancy.

Please to tell me how a state with more liberal women and more pro-choice women have fewer unwanted pregnancies IF pro-choice and liberal means more sex?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I think the evidence is pretty strong that abstinence-only education doesn't work and kids need to be taught the use of proper contraception.

I also think one of the big reasons why this is a problem at all is that blue-state values have a large impact on youth culture, particularly in encouraging open sexuality among youth.

When the liberals spend all their time teaching my kids how fun it is to go for a ride, I'm sure as heck going to make sure they know how to wear a helmet.