It seems to be the strategy of the “pro-life” types to characterize the pro-choice side as some sort of abortion-happy baby haters. They need to look up the meaning of the word “choice” in the dictionary. Consider that the abortion rate in Canada where there are no abortion laws at all and abortions are covered by free health care is far lower than in the US (as is the overall rate of teen births and abortions):
I’ll say it again: The abortion prohibitionists really need to look up the meaning of the word “choice” in the dictionary. They should stare at the definition for as long as it takes for the meaning of the word to really sink in.
Actually, the real difference is that liberals tend to bring facts to the table, such as scientific evidence for stages of fetal development and development of meaningful brain function, and the effects that abortion laws or lack thereof have on society. While anti-abortion conservatives (the self-proclaimed “non-intrusive small government” types) only know one thing: a fetus is “a person”, and the laws must enforce that, facts and consequences be damned, no matter what anyone else thinks, period.
In addition to that superb answer, aldiboronti’s charge is inexact. Liberals are, at very least, less dogmatic about sole choices. Liberals tend to favor diversity for its own sake. (There’s another thread exploring whether or not this is dumb, but at least it’s granted as factual.)
You never see liberals picketing in front of a maternity hospital waving signs demanding anyone have an abortion!
ISTM that the primary argument that I hear from the pro-choice side is that the government shouldn’t “get between a woman and her doctor”. This is hardly a factual argument. Neither is “A woman shouldn’t have to carry an embryo/fetus/baby that she doesn’t want.”
When Whoopi Goldberg’s 15 year old daughter got pregnant and choose to have the baby, her mother supported her in every way because Whoopi is “pro-choice.”
You’re misrepresenting my point. I don’t think I’ve ever made those arguments at all, let alone claimed they were “factual”, although I happen to agree with them and think they represent important value judgments. A factual argument would be something like the biological phases of fetus development, whereby a fetus in an early stage of gestation – the stage where virtually all abortions are performed – could not be considered “a human being” in any sane or rational meaning of the term, since it has no more mind or body than a collection of organic chemicals in a test tube. One could certainly argue that there eventually comes a gray area where the distinction isn’t so clear, and arguments against late-term abortions carry a certain amount of moral weight.
But by the same token, in the early developmental stages the claim of “human being” is ludicrous, relying for its authority not on medicine but on scripture and baseless emotion and sometimes imaginative fantasy. When meddling amateurs don’t try to cast their personal fantasies into restrictive abortion laws, the medical profession – guided by the Hippocratic Oath and a rational code of ethics – generally has no ethical problem with early-term abortions on demand, but typically requires a good medical reason for late-term abortions.
Another factual argument would be the observation that sociologically similar countries to the US, in the absence of abortion laws but in combination with progressive social and educational policies and availability of contraception, actually have fewer abortions, as well as fewer teen pregnancies. One could also examine the impacts on mother and child and society of unwanted children. These are all real and tangible and measurable impacts. The so-called “pro-life” side has no such logical grounding. They have only one argument, one which makes no scientific sense, and they parrot it incessantly.
Hmm. “Mind” is a terrible term to use if you’re trying to be factual and scientific, as it doesn’t have a well agreed upon definition. And “Body”? You are trying to tell us how rational and factual you are by claiming a fetus in the first trimester has no more of a body than a collection of organic chemicals? The median point at which abortions are performed in the US is about 9 weeks.. You’re seeing no more of a body than you’d see in a collection of organic chemicals?
No, it’s actually reasonably clear, especially if one wants to define what a human mind isn’t. A picture isn’t scientific evidence in this kind of context, especially a picture that we tend to anthropomorphize as looking like a baby, the way that children anthropomorphize teddy bears. Yes, a body-like thing starts to develop within weeks, but the brain takes much, much longer. You may recall I posted a link to this article earlier. Herewith a relevant snippet, emphasis mine:
So we see that through your median point of 9 weeks (I’ll take your word for that number being correct), and straight through the entire first trimester and beyond, there is nothing even remotely like a human brain. There’s a reason that the usual medical ethics apply the guidelines that they do.
I apologize if you mistook my comments as having come from you. I thought that my preface of “from the pro-choice side” implied an origin from other sources. At any rate, I certainly didn’t mean to misrepresent your point.
I do think that implying that the pro-life side is unscientific is incorrect. We do not dispute the facts of fetal development. We simply disagree as to the point during fetal development that the “thing” is deserving of legal protection and the extent to which this legal protection should take.
The issue of using “mind” wasn’t the main point of that post (and, oddly enough your own cite never uses that term). But the idea that a 9 week old fetus looks like a collection of organic chemicals in a test tube is, in fact, rebutted by a picture of said fetus. Actually, I can’t imagine anyone would even needing a picture to reject your claim. I’m baffled why you would make it after boasting how your argument is centered on facts.
Speaking as a pro-choicer…I agree. Some terms do not have a scientific definition, but have to be defined arbitrarily, as a point of law. Minors vs. Adults, for instance: we could define an adult as someone who has started growing pubic hair – but it is more convenient to use an arbitrary age.
I think for most people who are pro-life, their position is informed mainly by religion. And religion simply isn’t scientific. But science doesn’t tell us when we become human, so that’s neither here nor there. Science might help us inform our decision on abortion, but it’s ultimately a moral decision, not a scientific one.
The comment about “not having a body” was obviously in reference to the earliest stages of gestation, where the fetus begins as literally a microscopic sphere. I made it because there are those who claim that “human life” exists from the moment of conception, or else the moment of implanation.
I note that you conveniently ignore the link and the quote relating to fetal brain formation. Wherever the point may be at which any sort of plausible claim can be made for sentience or any other human-like brain function – if any such clear point even exists before birth – it’s clear that no such function exists at the gestational periods for which even many of the less fanatical pro-lifers would declare to be absolutely out of bounds for abortion.
I completely agree, and the last sentence that I bolded expresses very well what I’ve been trying to say. Science will never answer moral questions, but we need to allow it to help inform our decision-making, just as we routinely rely on medical science in everyday life. Whether to have an abortion, pull the plug on a comatose patient, the delicate questions of DNR and even euthanasia in terminal illness – these are all moral questions, sometimes deeply personal ones, sometimes religious ones, but science can at least give us some rudimentary facts to guide us to wiser decisions.
And that is what I mean by fact-based and science-based decision-making on abortion: it’s not that science will answer the moral questions of the ages, like at what point a fetus is actually a human being, but that it gives us information and a frame of reference to help us make judgments consistent with our own moral outlook. Different people will make different decisions based on that information, reflecting different moral or religious views, and I respect that. I really do. I wish others would respect it, too. That’s why I’m pro-choice, and why I’ve emphasized several times the significance of that word choice.
:dubious: I think you’d be hard pressed to find pamphlets supporting abortion rights that contain such ludicrously unscientific misinformation as the statements Annie-Xmas quoted.
But hey, if you do, by all means post quotes from them here. I can always do with a good laugh.
The thing is, though, that pro-choice arguments in general don’t have the same sort of incentives to be dishonest about the facts, because they’re not trying to encourage anybody to have abortions if they don’t want to.
The anti-abortion side, on the other hand, is fundamentally driven by a one-size-fits-all ideological mission: they want to get people to stop having abortions, whatever their personal views on fetal personhood or the science of fetal development or abortion rights. That, plus a hefty admixture of ignorance and/or unscrupulousness on the part of many anti-abortion activists, makes it easy for them to spout whatever bullshit comes to mind about alleged negative consequences of abortion.
Well, I know for a fact I’ve been addicted to masturbation ever since my SO had an abortion. And the 10-15 years before that, too. It’s *that *traumatic.
That sums it up nicely. I’ve heard the anti-abortion crowd state that “abortion makes women sterile” and “some woman have ten abortions.” Uh, both statements cannot be true.
You can have your own opinions. You cannot have your own facts.
Which “earlier-asserted ‘fact’” are you referring to, Shodan? This thread is 18 blessed pages long and I haven’t been able to find in recent posts any statement by Annie-Xmas that seems to be a factual assertion requiring a cite.
Which “earlier-asserted ‘fact’” are you referring to, Shodan? This thread is 18 blessed pages long and I haven’t been able to find in recent posts any statement by Annie-Xmas that seems to be a factual assertion requiring a cite.
