160 replies to this topic

[Goose]

The following is a opinion article posted a West'Australian Newspaper that I found while looking at stories for my job. I have to go through the papers every day.

We must make a big decision

I'd like to draw your attention to two recent items of news. In one, Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre announced the

prospect of a pre-natal test for autism spectrum disorders, which might lead to the selective termination of foetuses testing

positive. The test will not differentiate between different degrees of autism. In the other report, a biography

was published of a man called Archibald Wavell. As a soldier, Wavell led allied forces to their first significant

victory over the fascists in World War II. As an administrator, he proposed to release Mahatma Gandhi from prison at a time when

his superiors regarded Gandhi as a dangerous crank. He had a prodigious memory for detail and a gift for languages, and the ability to stay calm when working with difficult people. In interviews, on the other hand, he exasperated listeners with his long silences. In meetings, he failed to flatter his bosses and refused to speak other than plainly. At parties he was so socially awkward. He was (in my opinion) a classic case of high-functioning autism, also known as Asperger's syndrome.

Now here's the thing: in a modern organisation, someone like Wavell would not be promoted. In a modern social setting, he would find it hard to get married and he would not be appropriately educated. So, we have a decision to make. Should we remove people like Wavell from our gene pool by aborting them, or should we instead change our institutions so that such people can once more function in and contribute to our society, instead of barely surviving on the fringes of it? If the announcement from Cambridge is true, we may have only a few months to make that decision.

Jonathan Griffiths, Mt Lawley.

[Chiaki]

Being autistic myself, I feel that there is a lot we can offer the world if we are given the chance. With special schooling by teachers who know how to deal with us, I think that for the most part, we can function pretty well in normal society. At least this is the case with high-functioning autism. It would certainly demand a lot of patience and understanding from parents of autistic children to raise them successfully, and I can completely relate to the bit it mentioned about conversations being awkward (part of why I greatly prefer communicating through emails, IMing, forums and chatrooms), especially when it comes to talking to strangers. At one point, it was difficult to tell the waitress at a restaurant what I wanted to order, and now, phone conversations are my worse enemy. I talk just fine with people I know well though, like family and friends. Its really a matter of people having patience and being understanding when they are dealing with someone who is autistic.

A more direct answer would be, no, I don't think its necessary to abort children simply because they are autistic. Ultimately, it should be the parents choice, but I think that they should not make the decision lightly.

Edited by LinksLove, 26 January 2009 - 10:07 PM.

[Poore]

If you are pro-choice, then you cannot logically oppose letting parent's abort autistic fetuses. Even if it's for a different reason, it's just another unwanted child. Whether it's due to failure to pull out successfully or a genetic disorder should be irrelevant. Any other stance is hypocrisy. Either the law is allowed to tell a woman what she can do with her body, or it can't.

Personally, I don't see any difference between this argument and any other pro-life/pro-choice debate.

[Goose]

But where is there a limit?

I'm hearing impaired. If there was a test to tell my parents what I was going to be like, with the deafness and stuff, where would we draw the line at eugenics?

Colour, race, gender?

Do these all play an issue?

[Poore]

But where is there a limit?

I'm hearing impaired. If there was a test to tell my parents what I was going to be like, with the deafness and stuff, where would we draw the line at eugenics?

Colour, race, gender?

Do these all play an issue?

I was really playing Devil's advocate with my first post, and I was trying to bring up this very point. If you follow the idea of the woman's right to choose to it's logical conclusion, then there is no line. A fetus can be aborted for any reason if that's the mother's choice, no questions asked. That's what I view as the fundamental problem with the pro-choice mindset. If it is justifiable for a woman to choose not to support a fetus for any reason, then it is justifiable for a woman to choose not to support a fetus for any reason.

I'm not proposing an all-out ban on abortion. There are cases where it is a medical necessity (definitive stillbirths that propose a threat to the safety of the mother, etc.), and both sides of the argument (esp. pro-lifers) contain extremists. What I do propose is that defenders of the pro-choice argument seriously evaluate why they believe what they believe, and how the logical implications of those beliefs can positively or negatively affect the world around them if they are applied to their lives - and the lives of others - on a large scale.

Rule utilitarianism FTW.

[Egann]

^ Autistic or not, you aren't the only person who hates the phone to death.

Without turning this into another one of my anti-abortion rants, I think that without the ability to detect gradations of autism, this will only wind up with thousands of unneeded abortions.

It's a known fact that between 1996 and 2007 the diagnosis rate for autism has nearly tripled. Does this mean that we're in an epidemic? Possibly, but more likely than not it means that our ability to diagnose the slight cases has increased that much.

If you give parents a test that gives a simple up or down to autism and it comes back yes, even though it is much more likely than not that the child will be functionally autistic, the parents are that much more likely to abort the baby if the result comes back positive, but no less likely to keep it if the results are negative.

I've met a hard-over autistic case. I'm not sure which was worse; his condition (not being able to speak besides to his family and close friends) or the abominable treatment the medical establishment gave him (Ritalin and nothing else) until his parents finally insisted that he be taken off of it and given some therapy. Regardless of how bad the disease is, though, I firmly believe that life is better than non-life and that the life he leads as a fully-dependent autistic is better than him not having experienced any life at all.

EDIT: @ Poore: I beg to differ, but as that the mother and fetus do not share genetic codes and each maintains different internal environments, the only legitimate medical definition of a fetus is a parasite, and not an extension of the mother.

Without getting too much deeper into the abortion thing, I'll put in my 2 cents: If there is any doubt as to whether or not there is human life, the only morally justified action is to give the benefit of the doubt.

Edited by Egann, 26 January 2009 - 10:50 PM.

[Reflectionist]

The following is a opinion article posted a West'Australian Newspaper that I found while looking at stories for my job. I have to go through the papers every day.

We must make a big decision.
I'd like to draw your attention to two recent items of news. In one, Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre announced the prospect of a pre-natal test for autism spectrum disorders, which might lead to the selective termination of foetuses testing positive.

The test will not differentiate between different degrees of autism. In the other report, a biography was published of a man called Archibald Wavell. As a soldier, Wavell led allied forces to their first significant victory over the fascists in World War II. As an administrator, he proposed to release Mahatma Gandhi from prison at a time when his superiors regarded Gandhi as a dangerous crank. He had a prodigious memory for detail and a gift for languages, and the ability to stay calm when working with difficult people. In interviews, on the other hand, he exasperated listeners with his long silences. In meetings, he failed to flatter his bosses and refused to speak other than plainly. At parties he was so socially awkward. He was (in my opinion) a classic case of high-functioning autism, also known as Asperger's syndrome.

Now here's the thing: in a modern organisation, someone like Wavell would not be promoted. In a modern social setting, he would find it hard to get married and he would not be appropriately educated. So, we have a decision to make. Should we remove people like Wavell from our gene pool by aborting them, or should we instead change our institutions so that such people can once more function in and contribute to our society, instead of barely surviving on the fringes of it? If the announcement from Cambridge is true, we may have only a few months to make that decision.

Jonathan Griffiths, Mt Lawley.

I want to start a discussion on the piece, about what type of a person should society value, and what gives that person the basic right to exist. Is there a boundary on what type of genetic alterations should be undertaken? Should people be allowed to abort a child simply because they are autistic?

Hmmm. It sounds like Jonathan Griffiths is stretching the paranoia out a bit, thusly setting the stage for this thread's responses. According to this quote, the Cambridge University's discovery is a very, very progressive and good thing. However, Mr. Griffiths makes the mistake of assuming that because the results "might lead to the selective termination of fetuses testing positive [for autism]," that abortion will run rampant. I do not share this pessimism.

Having been born with multiple birth defects (concluding at age 19, whence I had my thirty-second surgery, a kidney transplant), none of which affect my mental function in any significant way, I can say that this an opportunity for parents to take very seriously. What you would be getting is not a "death sentence," but a simple heads-up for preparation. Think of it this way: when people find out that their child is a boy as opposed to the girl they wanted, they don't consider killing the child; they simply replace their pink clothes with blue ones before the baby arrives.

They become prepared ahead of time.

To consider aborting a pregnancy for something as 'tolerable' (for lack of a better word) as autism is just plain silly, yet Mr. Griffiths's mind immediately jumps to that conclusion. This is a dead giveaway of his agenda - which is not on people themselves, but rather on an issue that means nothing to him personally except that he must have a certain view of it to maintain credibility with his audience / family members / church. To naturally jump to the conclusion of abortion as he did, instead of thinking of improving the quality of life of autistic people, is to assume that autistic people have no value as human beings.

The rest of his article, about Mahatma Gandhi and Archibald Wavell only serves as special pleading. A case specifically to drive his audience toward his conclusion. If one had said "yes," to his rhetorical questions, one would be immediately be incriminated with the question, "You would want to kill a friend of Mahatma Gandhi?" It's a basic special pleading fallacy.

The name drop is clear evidence for my conclusion about his intentions.

But, that's what you get. You did say it was an opinion article.

Being autistic myself, I feel that there is a lot we can offer the world if we are given the chance. With special schooling by teachers who know how to deal with us, I think that for the most part, we can function pretty well in normal society. At least this is the case with high-functioning autism. It would certainly demand a lot of patience and understanding from parents of autistic children to raise them successfully, and I can completely relate to the bit it mentioned about conversations being awkward (part of why I greatly prefer communicating through emails, IMing, forums and chatrooms), especially when it comes to talking to strangers. At one point, it was difficult to tell the waitress at a restaurant what I wanted to order, and now, phone conversations are my worse enemy. I talk just fine with people I know well though, like family and friends. Its really a matter of people having patience and being understanding when they are dealing with someone who is autistic.

A more direct answer would be, no, I don't think its necessary to abort children simply because they are autistic. Ultimately, it should be the parents choice, but I think that they should not make the decision lightly.

I agree with you completely. Perhaps if the overall approach to autism was less nihilistic, or less hopeless, then perhaps people would simply prepare better for this and cases like this that may not necessarily point to autism, but something along the lines of birth defects like my own (which I'm sure made life very difficult for my mother, who was not prepared, and didn't know until I was born). Not only is it not necessary to abort children because they are autistic, I believe it's so obviously unthinkable that the only people who would think of that aren't really thinking of it at all, so much as their ideological rivalries and the best way to discredit them.

But where is there a limit?

I'm hearing impaired. If there was a test to tell my parents what I was going to be like, with the deafness and stuff, where would we draw the line at eugenics?

Colour, race, gender?

Do these all play an issue?

I was really playing Devil's advocate with my first post, and I was trying to bring up this very point. If you follow the idea of the woman's right to choose to it's logical conclusion, then there is no line. A fetus can be aborted for any reason if that's the mother's choice, no questions asked. That's what I view as the fundamental problem with the pro-choice mindset. If it is justifiable for a woman to choose not to support a fetus for any reason, then it is justifiable for a woman to choose not to support a fetus for any reason.

I'm not proposing an all-out ban on abortion. There are cases where it is a medical necessity (definitive stillbirths that propose a threat to the safety of the mother, etc.), and both sides of the argument (esp. pro-lifers) contain extremists. What I do propose is that defenders of the pro-choice argument seriously evaluate why they believe what they believe, and how the logical implications of those beliefs can positively or negatively affect the world around them if they are applied to their lives - and the lives of others - on a large scale.

Rule utilitarianism FTW.

I don't agree with your first paragraph, because it very plainly overgeneralizes things and then makes a slippery slope fallacy to cover it up. Justifying one reason for abortion does NOT justify every one of them, and you conceeded this point in your second paragraph. Yes, abortion should be the mother's choice, but it should not be the mother's whim. Like Mr. Griffiths, you seem to hold a pessimistic view of human nature, but perhaps this is a religious thing. (After all, I know no religious person who is "pro-choice," nor do I know any nonreligious person who is "pro-life." [I hate those terms.] And it makes sense considering the religious view necessarily espouses a position of Original Sin, which labels every human as "guilty until proven innocent." before they are even born. In the religious view, humans are inherently evil. So I understand at least where the position comes from.)

At any rate, motherly intuition is something that should not be overlooked here. Sometimes, mothers do act irrationally, but I've never, ever heard of a woman walking into an abortion clinic with a smile on her face. There are always extreme extenuating circumstances before a mother considers abortion. Most of the time it's either rape, finances, or family problems (ie. "You're not going to live in my house while you have a baby, young lady!"). Some religious sects murder their girls who become pregnant out of wedlock, no matter for what reason.

To be honest, banning abortion is not going to stop them from happening any more than banning alcohol is going to stop people from drinking (and we know how that went). Ever heard of coat hanger abortions? The abortion rate is going to lower slightly if you ban it (though statistics will say it's a more defined drop, simply because no one would answer that survey honestly out of shame / fear of law enforcement), but the percentage of un-sterile abortions like coat hanger abortions is going to increase dramatically.

Since you pointed out the "flaw" of the pro-choice position, I shall extend you the same courtesy. The flaw of the pro-life position is that it grossly underestimates the complexities of circumstance. Falling for the innocent illusion we receive as children that the world is split up into good guys and bad guys, black and white, with no thought to the idea of 'grey,' occurring at all.

As far as I'm concerned, abortion is a horrible ugly thing... but at least the clinics do it safely, in a sterile environment. Utilitarianism, ftw indeed (although I'm skeptical of any philosophy that starts with mere 'pleasure' as the crux of its application). To quote Barack Obama: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Perhaps you should seriously "evaluate why you believe what you believe and how the logical implications of those beliefs can positively or negatively affect the world around you if you they are applied to your life - and the lives of others - on a large scale." I think you'll be surprised at the pessimistic, nihilistic world it would be with your views at the helm, my friend.

^ Autistic or not, you aren't the only person who hates the phone to death.

Without turning this into another one of my anti-abortion rants, I think that without the ability to detect gradations of autism, this will only wind up with thousands of unneeded abortions.

It's a known fact that between 1996 and 2007 the diagnosis rate for autism has nearly tripled. Does this mean that we're in an epidemic? Possibly, but more likely than not it means that our ability to diagnose the slight cases has increased that much.

If you give parents a test that gives a simple up or down to autism and it comes back yes, even though it is much more likely than not that the child will be functionally autistic, the parents are that much more likely to abort the baby if the result comes back positive, but no less likely to keep it if the results are negative.

I've met a hard-over autistic case. I'm not sure which was worse; his condition (not being able to speak besides to his family and close friends) or the abominable treatment the medical establishment gave him (Ritalin and nothing else) until his parents finally insisted that he be taken off of it and given some therapy. Regardless of how bad the disease is, though, I firmly believe that life is better than non-life and that the life he leads as a fully-dependent autistic is better than him not having experienced any life at all.

EDIT: @ Poore: I beg to differ, but as that the mother and fetus do not share genetic codes and each maintains different internal environments, the only legitimate medical definition of a fetus is a parasite, and not an extension of the mother.

Without getting too much deeper into the abortion thing, I'll put in my 2 cents: If there is any doubt as to whether or not there is human life, the only morally justified action is to give the benefit of the doubt.

A lot of what I said to Goose and Poore applies here as well, which further strengthens my hypothesis that religion breeds jumping to overly pessimistic conclusions about human nature. Yes, the best approach to austism is to simply handle it properly. On this, I agree with you - as far as autism goes. However, I challenge your use of the statement "Life is better than non-life," with the extremely rare, but not unheard of, situation that a child is born with Ichthyosis - or one of the diseases like it.

As nihilistic as it sounds, there is a line somewhere where death is preferable to life. What "benefit" of doubt is there to give in these cases, Egann? Autism is certainly not worth aborting a child over. But some things are.

Edited by Reflectionist, 28 January 2009 - 05:57 PM.

[Raien]

One issue with discussing autism is that the disability exists on a sliding scale; some autistic people can function very well in society, whereas others simply cannot communicate with anyone. It's important that we don't shove all autistic people under the same banner.

I've been wondering whether I have minor autism, but tests as a child were incomplete, so I can never know for sure. But assuming that I do have it, it's never stopped me developing and maturing as a person, although my maturing has come late than most others.

[Pushtrak]

If you are pro-choice, then you cannot logically oppose letting parent's abort autistic fetuses. Even if it's for a different reason, it's just another unwanted child. Whether it's due to failure to pull out successfully or a genetic disorder should be irrelevant. Any other stance is hypocrisy. Either the law is allowed to tell a woman what she can do with her body, or it can't.

Personally, I don't see any difference between this argument and any other pro-life/pro-choice debate.

I have to say I agree with this. Parents on finding a positive will either have the loving atttiude and want to raise the child anyway, or they'll want the abortion. And if they want an abortion after finding out something like that, are they really fit to be parents of such a child? You could say foster home or something like that, but I think that such an approach would be even worse were the child severely autistic.

I'm in the "pro-choice" camp anyway. Seems that makes me the minority here.

I think the article is fear mongering. Its not as if on receiving the results, a doctor will say, "So, abortion then, is it?" Though if parents were to somehow take to such an idea, we're talking a very slippery slope. I still stand by it being fear mongering from the article though.

[Goose]

I'm a unusual case. I'm christian, and pro choice, for the same reasons Obama gave. I still see abortion as a horrible thing, but I'm not going to force my beliefs on other people.

I'd rather have safe abortions where only one life(the babies) is lost, rather than endanger both the mother and the child.

Basic healthcare should be free all around the world, which is why if I were American , I'd be a democrat.

[Green Goblin]

I have to say I agree with this. Parents on finding a positive will either have the loving atttiude and want to raise the child anyway, or they'll want the abortion. And if they want an abortion after finding out something like that, are they really fit to be parents of such a child? You could say foster home or something like that, but I think that such an approach would be even worse were the child severely autistic.

I'm in the "pro-choice" camp anyway. Seems that makes me the minority here.

I think the article is fear mongering. Its not as if on receiving the results, a doctor will say, "So, abortion then, is it?" Though if parents were to somehow take to such an idea, we're talking a very slippery slope. I still stand by it being fear mongering from the article though.

I agree with this. My little Brother (20) is a low-functioning autistic and he will never be able to function in society. Our lives have been changed dramatically because of him. Money towards special schools, wheelchairs despite having the ability to walk (it's to keep better control of him in public), staying in Maryland due to Virginia's poor aid services for those with special needs, barely having people over due to his refusal to wear clothes when at home and not learning to use the restroom until the age of 10.

Now, all those into consideration, I cannot imagine my life for a second without my brother. I love him unconditionally and I always will. He's given me a level of patience and tolerance that very few people my age have. And although he can't say it, it's clear that he loves us all too.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "If I love him despite all this, how can I be for abortion?" Quite simply, because our situation was willing and able to live with Ryan and his disability. My dad's a dentist with his own office and my mom's a physical therapist with Kaiser Permanente. I honestly couldn't ask a couple or heaven forbid, a single woman to take on that responsibility without having the necessary patience or financial backing. I feel it's their choice to make.

[Egann]

Contrary to all the hype, health reasons, rape, and incest account for a net total of 7% of abortions. I don't mind doctors making tough choices to save a patient's life, but in practice it is statistically nonexistent situation. In practice it is used as an excuse for irresponsibility.

There are two great responsibilities involved with adulthood in most Western countries: sex (the universal responsibility of adulthood) and the vote (the democratic ideal.) If we can prove people aren't being responsible with their own private lives with sex by needing an abortion, what makes you think they will bear the much greater public responsibility of a vote? We are effectively guaranteed that it will be misused. Would we cut off our nose to spite our face?

EDIT: @ Reflectionist: Yes, my view of man and this world as it is is...rather pessimistic. But of course, I don't believe that is the whole picture, either.

Edited by Egann, 28 January 2009 - 10:14 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Contrary to all the hype, health reasons, rape, and incest account for a net total of 7% of abortions. I don't mind doctors making tough choices to save a patient's life, but in practice it is statistically nonexistent situation. In practice it is used as an excuse for irresponsibility.

It's enough. My point still stands: banning abortion isn't going to stop abortions. It's just going to change the environment to a sterile exam room or whatever with sterile needles and tools and medically trained doctors to a dingy kitchen floor with a rusty coat hanger, with your teenage boyfriend scared to death of killing you.

And you threw a statistic at me. Like I said before, people don't answer honestly (an anthropological nihilist such as yourself should be able to understand this - considering your pessimistic view of humanity, it's kind of surprising you find statistics reliable) on these surveys and things where it's a matter of guilt. No woman walks into an abortion clinic with a big smile on her face. And if you're going to cite medical record, there is such thing as patient confidentiality; being that abortion is usually a reluctant choice, I believe that many who have abortions prefer to keep the reasons private (or suppressed) out of shame.

Here, let's put it this way. See if you can see what you're doing here. Suppose I said, "Contrary to all the hype, only 38% of Americans are actually Christian. I don't mind people looking to a higher power to make tough choices, but in reality it is an epistemologically insubstantiable position to hold. In practice, it is used as an excuse for irresponsibility." See what I did there? I can say anything I want to promote my ideology or prejudice with the help of a statistic, but it doesn't mean anything at all.

There are two great responsibilities involved with adulthood in most Western countries: sex (the universal responsibility of adulthood) and the vote (the democratic ideal.) If we can prove people aren't being responsible with their own private lives with sex by needing an abortion, what makes you think they will bear the much greater public responsibility of a vote? We are effectively guaranteed that it will be misused. Would we cut off our nose to spite our face?

EDIT: @ Reflectionist: Yes, my view of man and this world as it is is...rather pessimistic. But of course, I don't believe that is the whole picture, either.

The thing is that you can't prove that someone is being irresponsible about anything. You can never know what goes on inside another human being's mind. And when we label someone as "irresponsible," we are saying that they wouldn't make the choice that we would make. We naturally believe the sun shines out of our own convictions, don't we? The attempt of doing so, especially with the approach you have espoused, reveals a far deeper personal insecurity with the idea of having your views addressed at all in the slightest for fear of them being 'wrong.' The rest of your position follows with your apparent hatred of humanity (a character quality you do not share with your Jesus).

But, yes. Everyone has their vices. For some it's sex, for some it's politics. Yours is nihilistic religious escapism - arguably a metaphysical irresponsibility in itself, like the 40 year old who lives with his mother, you refuse to accept the responsibility of being a cosmic orphan in control of your own life and instead put your fate in the hands of "daddy." Of course, it's noble for you, but sadly irresponsible to me. See my point yet? Irresponsibility is in the eye of the beholder, though whereas you are ultimately pessimistic about humanity and thus will never bother lift a finger to help anyone except for those who "matter" (ie. share your metaphysical views), I choose to be optimistic and as a consequence, I take the risk of taking Jesus's preaching more seriously than I really do - certainly more seriously than you do. Evidently.

Edited by Reflectionist, 29 January 2009 - 05:20 AM.

[Egann]

Reflectionist, As that this is off topic, I will indulge you for one and only one post. Anything more should be either conducted on another thread or in PM. I will leave you to decide which if either.

The rest of your position follows with your apparent hatred of humanity (a character quality you do not share with your Jesus).

I've told you this many times before: respond to what I say, not to what you think I mean.

Yes, my view of man and this world as it is is...rather pessimistic. But of course, I don't believe that is the whole picture, either.

All this says is that I understand the nature of man and the world as it is as fallen and totally incapable of Good without God's intervention. Hate is only a part of the system as much as "love the sinner hate the sin" is a falsehood.

Put another way, to be a Christian is not to believe that God loves you because you are Holy (you are fallen and incapable of any such thing) but rather that God will make you Holy because He loves you.

This argument was just a straw man, like most of your post.

[Raien]

For the record, I think banning abortions would stop most people from getting abortions, regardless of the availability of illegal options. Most people would not consider illegal options, or know where to find them. But then this opens up a new can of worms; the potential human cost to the individuals involved.

I think that in the long-term future, pro-choice will end up as the victor of this debate; there's just no moral high ground we can take for allowing people to kill unborn babies. However, the reason an abortion ban cannot be made to stick now is because a lot of people are still insecure; they don't believe that everyone is yet willing to take responsibility for their own lives. If abortions were banned, people would get pregnant and not take responsibility. This is actually very much like the argument for possessing guns, now that I think about it. A lot of Americans do not trust people (or the government) to not take advantage of new restrictions, and thus they still feel it is necessary to keep gun ownership.

So if we want an abortion ban to stick, we have to make people feel secure in the belief that others will take responsibility for their sex lives. We can best achieve this through positive sex education.

[Poore]

I don't agree with your first paragraph, because it very plainly overgeneralizes things and then makes a slippery slope fallacy to cover it up. Justifying one reason for abortion does NOT justify every one of them, and you conceeded this point in your second paragraph. Yes, abortion should be the mother's choice, but it should not be the mother's whim. Like Mr. Griffiths, you seem to hold a pessimistic view of human nature, but perhaps this is a religious thing. (After all, I know no religious person who is "pro-choice," nor do I know any nonreligious person who is "pro-life." [I hate those terms.] And it makes sense considering the religious view necessarily espouses a position of Original Sin, which labels every human as "guilty until proven innocent." before they are even born. In the religious view, humans are inherently evil. So I understand at least where the position comes from.)

At any rate, motherly intuition is something that should not be overlooked here. Sometimes, mothers do act irrationally, but I've never, ever heard of a woman walking into an abortion clinic with a smile on her face. There are always extreme extenuating circumstances before a mother considers abortion. Most of the time it's either rape, finances, or family problems (ie. "You're not going to live in my house while you have a baby, young lady!"). Some religious sects murder their girls who become pregnant out of wedlock, no matter for what reason.

And throwing me into the pro-life camp, when I very clearly stated I do not support a ban on abortion, because you assume I'm religious is NOT overgeneralizing?

I wasn't saying that the slippery slope will happen. I'm saying that, looking at it from a purely legal perspective, a woman getting an abortion for an autistic fetus is operating completely within the bounds of the law. Subjectively, there is a line. People do have morals. Objectively, as far as the law is concerned, there is not.

I don't think that the practice will ever become commonplace, or a happy event, but I think it would be a tragedy if it happened even once. Abortions can happen for the right reasons - I totally agree - but they can happen for the wrong reasons, too.

BTW, nice rhetorical jab with the anecdotal religious references. If I didn't see through all your persuasive techniques, I might fall victim to them myself.

To be honest, banning abortion is not going to stop them from happening any more than banning alcohol is going to stop people from drinking (and we know how that went). Ever heard of coat hanger abortions? The abortion rate is going to lower slightly if you ban it (though statistics will say it's a more defined drop, simply because no one would answer that survey honestly out of shame / fear of law enforcement), but the percentage of un-sterile abortions like coat hanger abortions is going to increase dramatically.

I agree.

Since you pointed out the "flaw" of the pro-choice position, I shall extend you the same courtesy. The flaw of the pro-life position is that it grossly underestimates the complexities of circumstance. Falling for the innocent illusion we receive as children that the world is split up into good guys and bad guys, black and white, with no thought to the idea of 'grey,' occurring at all.

Where did I say I was pro-life? I said I disliked pro-life extremists (just as I dislike pro-choice extremists). I believe there is a grey area. I believe there are much better solutions than abortion (like reforming the adoption infrastructure and improving sex education). It seems you're the one who's split the camps in two, placing me as a stark opposite to yourself so you can more easily shoot down your opponent from a distance.

As far as I'm concerned, abortion is a horrible ugly thing... but at least the clinics do it safely, in a sterile environment. Utilitarianism, ftw indeed (although I'm skeptical of any philosophy that starts with mere 'pleasure' as the crux of its application). To quote Barack Obama: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Appeal to authority and anecdotal evidence. However, I agree with your first sentence.

RULE Utilitarians don't focus on pleasure, btw. We are concerned with the amount of general 'goodness' the following of a particular rule will bring society as a whole.

Perhaps you should seriously "evaluate why you believe what you believe and how the logical implications of those beliefs can positively or negatively affect the world around you if you they are applied to your life - and the lives of others - on a large scale." I think you'll be surprised at the pessimistic, nihilistic world it would be with your views at the helm, my friend.

Yeah. Because proposing that people find better solutions to there problems than throwing them in a trash can is 'pessimistic' and 'nihilistic'.

Edited by Poore, 29 January 2009 - 11:48 AM.

[Oberon Storm]

I find myself wondering whatever happened to Korhend.

I was really playing Devil's advocate with my first post, and I was trying to bring up this very point. If you follow the idea of the woman's right to choose to it's logical conclusion, then there is no line. A fetus can be aborted for any reason if that's the mother's choice, no questions asked. That's what I view as the fundamental problem with the pro-choice mindset. If it is justifiable for a woman to choose not to support a fetus for any reason, then it is justifiable for a woman to choose not to support a fetus for any reason.

That is my stance actually. I don't think it's anyones business but the mother's and father's. Yes. I believe a father has rights in all aspects fo his future child or living child's life.

Contrary to all the hype, health reasons, rape, and incest account for a net total of 7% of abortions. I don't mind doctors making tough choices to save a patient's life, but in practice it is statistically nonexistent situation. In practice it is used as an excuse for irresponsibility.

It really doesn't matter what the statistics are in this case. Considering the number of unreported cases of rape and incest I have a hard time of believing them anyway. But who are you to arrogantly proclaim these people are irresponsible? There is a story behind every abortion. Be it a sad story in the sense it is a young mother or financially unstable mother who would otherwise love and care for the child or sad in the sense of a story of a young white rich girl who got a little drunk one night at a party, there is a story. And there are many many other stories. A very vast majority of which you will. Never. Know.

It is a deeply personal decision. No one makes it cherrfully.

As for the article from the OP, fear mongering. Pure and simple. Maybe some will choose to abort. That's their decision. I don't know of any evidence that would support the theory an overwhelmingly large number of families will choose to abort.

For the record, I think banning abortions would stop most people from getting abortions, regardless of the availability of illegal options. Most people would not consider illegal options, or know where to find them.

Maybe. But that doesn't stop the numbers from going up. And then there is the numbers for unreported incidents.

Edited by Chief Fire Storm, 29 January 2009 - 12:12 PM.

[Reflectionist]

Poore:

Calm down, man. I simply addressed what your post gave me. You did say you didn't support an all-out ban on abortion, but for all I got from that post, you certainly weren't pro-choice. Especially considering the way you addressed that position. As if it were the "enemy." In my defense, I did say, "Justifying one reason for abortion does NOT justify every one of them, and you conceeded this point in your second paragraph."

I didn't give you a "rhetorical jab," either. I don't care much for jabbing at people - except for Egann, because it's like a big chess match, really. I do care about understanding people. From what I know of you, religion seemed to be the motivating factor behind your stance, so I played with the idea. "Persuasion techniques?" So eager to feel encroached upon and offended... Really, the one jab I took at you was about the Utilitarianism, and there you opted to politely correct me....

And I didn't cite Obama as an Appeal to Authority. I cited Obama because I agreed with the quote, and thought it applied, and it was worded better than I could word it. It had nothing to do with who said it.

Again, if you have a problem with the way I addressed your post, maybe you should rephrase it or include more information... I simply replied to what you gave me. I'm sorry I can't see through the computer screen to get your position out of your head so that I may address it properly...


Raien:

There is no 'availability' to worry about with illegal abortion methods. Everyone has an illegal abortion method in their closet, you know... holding up a shirt. It's not that the access is a problem... anything is access, to someone who is distraught and determined enough.


Egann:

To PMs, again we go.

[canas is back]

Raien:

There is no 'availability' to worry about with illegal abortion methods. Everyone has an illegal abortion method in their closet, you know... holding up a shirt. It's not that the access is a problem... anything is access, to someone who is distraught and determined enough.

sorry if this seems out of place, but this is why plastic hangars are your friends.

Really the way I see it, abortion really should nly be used for rape,incest, etc. even if you can't support the baby you can always put it up for adoption, so even if your child finds out you gave it away, at least it will know that you loved it enough to keep it alive.

EDIT: also with birth rates as low as they are should people really be egging it on?

Edited by canas is back, 29 January 2009 - 12:47 PM.

[Raien]

Raien:

There is no 'availability' to worry about with illegal abortion methods. Everyone has an illegal abortion method in their closet, you know... holding up a shirt. It's not that the access is a problem... anything is access, to someone who is distraught and determined enough.

Sure, there will always be people distraught or determined enough to perform illegal abortions on themselves, but they are an extreme minority. Most people aren't going to go through it, either because of moral conflict, or fear for their health, or increased pressure from family/friends (would you be as accepting of an illegal abortion as you would a legal abortion?). There are lots of factors here relating to the psychology of individuals, and that will stop most people from carrying out illegal abortions.

And let's face it, I can't think of a single example in which a ban/restriction did not lead to decreased activity. And vice versa; lifted bans/restrictions are almost always followed by increased activity.

[Oberon Storm]

Really the way I see it, abortion really should nly be used for rape,incest, etc. even if you can't support the baby you can always put it up for adoption, so even if your child finds out you gave it away, at least it will know that you loved it enough to keep it alive.

It can get so much more complicated than simply being an issue of being able to support a child with all the prenatal care involved.

also with birth rates as low as they are should people really be egging it on?

With a population as high as it is I don't think it matters.

[Raien]

Falling birth rates are natural in all first-world countries, and consolated with immigration from developing countries. Japan's anti-immigration stance is the reason why it suffers from an aging population.

[Reflectionist]

And let's face it, I can't think of a single example in which a ban/restriction did not lead to decreased activity. And vice versa; lifted bans/restrictions are almost always followed by increased activity.

Prohibition.... the 18th amendment.

The ban itself led to increased activity.

[Egann]

Abortions will still occur even if it is illegal, although it will be in a much less safe context.

As has been noted on other threads before, arguing this is just like arguing that drugs should be legal because legal drugs would be safer and people will do drugs anyways or that we should legalize theft because people will still steal. Just because something can be made "safer" by making it legal is no reason to legalize it in the first place.

In general, many (if not most) of the people who would get an abortion in a legal situation would not have the (for lack of a better word) balls to do it the illegal way. Yes, some will still do it, but I'll wager that it would by far be the exception...But getting reliable statistics is virtually impossible in an illegal setting.

Besides, lots of crazy hippies who think it's the key to achieve a higher consciousness have given themselves a trepanation on their own. Self-surgery without any training isn't that difficult. It just takes said testicles, lots of research, and preferably a few friends to lend a hand. A dose of common sense might help, too...assuming that it's presence does not preclude this kind of thing.

Besides, there's always the abortive gesture:

[Reflectionist]

As has been noted on other threads before, arguing this is just like arguing that drugs should be legal because legal drugs would be safer and people will do drugs anyways or that we should legalize theft because people will still steal. Just because something can be made "safer" by making it legal is no reason to legalize it in the first place.

In all seriousness, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or masochistic. At any rate, any rebuttal that starts off with "arguing this is like arguing..." should not be taken seriously because it's always, always, always, always, a slippery slope fallacy - and usually a ridiculous one at that. You can't possibly believe that people are arguing that theft be legalized because it's 'safer,' that way, are you? You must be being sarcastic.

...perpetually sarcastic or masochistic?

Edited by Reflectionist, 29 January 2009 - 01:40 PM.

[Raien]

And let's face it, I can't think of a single example in which a ban/restriction did not lead to decreased activity. And vice versa; lifted bans/restrictions are almost always followed by increased activity.

Prohibition.... the 18th amendment.

The ban itself led to increased activity.

Actually, countrywide, it led to decreased activity. Only in the big cities did it actually increase.

[Reflectionist]

Source?

[Fizzbit]

The problem with the Legal Abortion VS Legal Drugs is this: Illegal abortions are DEADLY. If you illegalize abortion, it will KILL mothers who try to abort themselves. Drug use will go on no matter what, and the results of use will still be the same (minus drug dealers and overlords and that, I'm talking about the use itself). A legal drug will still have the same effect on your body as if it were still illegal. But a LEGAL Abortion is SAFE.

[Raien]

Source?

I think it was a school history book, so I obviously can't provide a link. It basically pointed out that despite increased drunkenness in cities, the majority of the country accepted Prohibition and when the law was repealed, general drinking was less than it was before Prohibition began.

[Pushtrak]

And you threw a statistic at me. Like I said before, people don't answer honestly (an anthropological nihilist such as yourself should be able to understand this - considering your pessimistic view of humanity, it's kind of surprising you find statistics reliable) on these surveys and things where it's a matter of guilt. No woman walks into an abortion clinic with a big smile on her face. And if you're going to cite medical record, there is such thing as patient confidentiality; being that abortion is usually a reluctant choice, I believe that many who have abortions prefer to keep the reasons private (or suppressed) out of shame.
/Snip

I'll not copy it all, but that was a Win of a Post.

For the record, I think banning abortions would stop most people from getting abortions, regardless of the availability of illegal options. Most people would not consider illegal options, or know where to find them. But then this opens up a new can of worms; the potential human cost to the individuals involved.

They would look to where it was legal, yes. I know there was a huge trend here in Ireland for people going over to England for their abortions. I'm not really going to argue against your point about what most people would do if it was illegal. I don't feel I have anything to justify any position there. But then, such statistics even if they related to the exact amount of people who would get an abortion anyway is irrelevant. Its not like we see a large amount of people doing something and thats the justification to legalize it. It should be legalized for sure, but for its own merits, not because it'll be done anyway.

Really the way I see it, abortion really should nly be used for rape,incest, etc. even if you can't support the baby you can always put it up for adoption, so even if your child finds out you gave it away, at least it will know that you loved it enough to keep it alive.

I'm sorry, but I can't imagine many children considering that a win. A win in that they are alive, but their parents loved them enough to let them live? Wow, thats scraping the barrel pretty thin.

As has been noted on other threads before, arguing this is just like arguing that drugs should be legal because legal drugs would be safer and people will do drugs anyways

I would agree with that mentality. Well, not every drug. Cannabis definitely. But, thats going off into another thread.

or that we should legalize theft because people will still steal.

Satire, yes, I see what you did there.

In general, many (if not most) of the people who would get an abortion in a legal situation would not have the (for lack of a better word) balls to do it the illegal way. Yes, some will still do it, but I'll wager that it would by far be the exception...But getting reliable statistics is virtually impossible in an illegal setting.

Ah, another using this point. Ultimately, does it matter how many people would get it or how many wouldn't? If it does, how would we get accurate figures? Oh, we wouldn't. I see this particular point being irrelevant because there will be no truth behind it.

The problem with the Legal Abortion VS Legal Drugs is this: Illegal abortions are DEADLY. If you illegalize abortion, it will KILL mothers who try to abort themselves. Drug use will go on no matter what, and the results of use will still be the same (minus drug dealers and overlords and that, I'm talking about the use itself). A legal drug will still have the same effect on your body as if it were still illegal. But a LEGAL Abortion is SAFE.

If a topic going into drugs is done, I'll reply to that.