Talk:Abortion/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 15 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Dead reference

[4]...not sure what it originally pointed to, and I slogged through the history and didn't see anything. Someone else know/wanna give it a whack? -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lookit this little tract I dug up...

Ta da! Idiotic, I know. When I get the time, I'm planning on dissecting this bunk. It'll take some time, especially because I'm going to be reading a lot about embryology so I can discredit the day numbers towards the end. Most of these will involve painstakingly searching for a day-by-day guide to pregnancy online and possibly buying pregnancy calendars despite being a single guy. I'm dissecting this one because most Chick tracts worth dissecting have already been done by the Jabberwock and I've read them and I don't want to inadvertently rip off of him, and even most Tim Todd tracts were already dissected by Boolean Union. When I looked more into Tim Todd's work, I found that at least two of the comics (those on evolution and abortion) undergone significant changes between their present forms and what they (presumably) originally were, so it's nice to have some "unconquered" territory. I'm here to stake my claim and show you the comic for your perusal. Wish me luck! The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to mental health problems

...which I didn't even know was a point of contention, has been debunked. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It has NEVER been accepted within the real world of real doctors. it's a way the right tries to say there is "depression". of course, there is a medical condition that is widly known called Postpartum depression... but somehow the Right ignores that. so, what are we saying about mental illness? hum....Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you undergo an extremely stressful and difficult period in your life, then you have all these pro-life right-wingers screaming at you for being a baby-murdering bitch and all that... if it was linked to depression and anxiety I wouldn't be surprised, but you know. ^narchist 09:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for abortion ?

Is this covered anywhere ? there are economic, social/cultural (sex selection), medical ( genetic /downs/drug) as well as personal choice. Hamster (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins recently caused controversy on Twitter by suggesting that aborting Down Syndrome foetuses is a 'humane moral choice', implying that it is inhumane to bring a DS person into the world (for unspecified reasons). Would this be worthy of inclusion? dawkins causing controversy for change Therealnessy (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

False Dichotomy

Am I the only one that thinks that the terms Pro-life and Pro-choice present a false dichotomy? For instance, I'm Pro-life in that I think abortions should be the last resort and if I was female I wouldn't have one, but I'm Pro-choice in that I think that I recognize it's not my decision. Greatnecro (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not "pro-life" at all. You're 'pro-choice'. You feel that your choice would be not to have an abortion but that doesn't mean you're pro-life because you admit that it's a choice. It's a big, big mistake to think that pro-choice means that you don't "think abortions should be the last resort and if I was female I wouldn't have one". Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that there was really a dichotomy. I was complaining about how the terminology implies one or the other. I think "Pro-life" should be renamed "Anti-choice". Greatnecro (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clear things: Pro-choice doesn't mean apparently people who force anyone to have abortions or who always get an abortion. It is, i think, people who want humans in general to have the right to have a abortion if they deem it's needed and wanted in their situation. The strawman would be "forcing everyone to have an abortion, therefore causing the extinction of the human race". Imadmagician (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Against Abortion

This page honestly sickens me. My stomach is reeling and I feel depressed, mortified. You are all arguing in favor of killing little children, yet you intellectualize this grim reality, and by a turn of rhetoric convince yourselves that killing little children is morally defensible, hardly objectionable in the least. It sickens me to see people placing such a low value on the life, that depriving a being of life, the most precious resource of all, is without consequence. As a profound atheist--I once injured my wrist slamming my cane into the ground, bellowing "Death to religion! Death to religion!", I know that this is the only life that they shall ever know, that YOU shall ever know, and yet you rob them of it, condone this robbing, and convince yourselves you have committed no wrong. Please, have more respect for life. To condemn someone to nothingness before his or her time is evil boundless. {{Animalian (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)|Animalian}}

The counterposition to that argument is: no, it isn't. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What if the aborted fetus was cryogenically frozen. Then it wouldn't be death, huh?Talk to Civic Cat 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What if it wasn't? What does that have to do with the price of fish? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this massive delete was well considered.Talk to Civic Cat 21:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Pro-choice advocates, terrain now slipping from beneath their feet, might desperately flee to the last remaining argument of any substance, that of overpopulation. Abortion, indeed, serves as a form of population control, but it is just as radical and inhumane as genocide or warfare, belonging not to civilized society. Instead of resorting to such primitive methods of population control, we should economically empower the poor, universalize education, provide better healthcare, and subsidize contraceptives, all more effective and rewarding vehicles of population control and societal progress. —the change

Look at this (sample) stupid rhetorical bullshit. It was perfectly considered. Ikanreed (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

More than that was deleted and at least a third of that make some sense.Talk to Civic Cat 22:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Let's take a look at a couple of those other paragraphs arbitrarily(since there's a lot to deconstruct here)

Pro-choice advocates may object that fetuses lack rationality and cannot (yet) act as moral agents. To subscribe to this narrow, Kantian view of rights and corresponding duties, however, would justify the indiscriminate and unadulterated abuse of infants, the mentally deficient, and all animals, for by denying “consciousness” to these individuals, we reserve them no rights, and owe them not a single obligation. —

This is a shitty false dilemma, where the mere idea of not deserving the same consideration of the pregnant woman is a complete dismissal of all rights. If it were framed in a "some people think this" kinda way I'd be okay, but no. It's verbally structured like a take-down of pro-choice people. Not a good thing.

--Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I sense the false dilemma in that it is possible to believe fetuses have no rights, yet to still treat infants, the mentally deficient, animals, with dignity and respect. However, as implicated elsewhere in the article, if you deny rights to fetuses on the basis that they are not rational, autonomous beings, then you logically must deny rights and any sense of personhood to infants, the mentally deficient, and animals. Otherwise, you are gravely inconsistent, and on such basis, hypocritical. Though you dismiss this argument, it is a cornerstone in arguments for attributing rights to those three categories I have listed several times now--infants, the mentally deficient, and animals, and has been validated time and time again. Simply because the fetus is not yet rational or autonomous, simply because some kid with Down Syndrome or cerebral palsy is not entirely rational or autonomous, does that justify not extending rights to them, and respecting their rights? Because they do not fit the Kantian definition of "person", a rational, autonomous agent, does that justify mistreating or killing them?

--Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Next, I am not dismissing the mother's right to choose. Merely, I am stating the obvious when, in the equilibration of rights, when we make judgments of moral significance, it tends that the right to life supersedes the right to choose, just as a deer's right to life tends to supersede the hunter's right to kill. I am not completely the mother's rights. Instead, I make a general statement upon the matter of moral significance without which anything morally considerable cannot be judged appropriately against something else which bears such moral considerability. For example, if a tree and a human are morally considerable, should we, generally speaking, assign greater significance to the tree, or to the human? You falsely equate my general statement about moral significance with a complete dismissal of the mother's rights, and in so doing, you warp my words to create a strawman. You should not attack someone's position until you can accurately restate it.

--Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Finally, it is a logical, ethical take-down, not a verbal, ad hominem attack. If you deny rights to fetuses on the basis that they are not rational, autonomous individuals, you must, of logical necessity, deny rights, and therefore obligations, to those who also aren't rational, autonomous individuals, namely infants, the mentally deficient, and animals. This is an unavoidable logical consequence of the position taken by this article, a position to which I believe you subscribe. Unless or until such time as that you validate a morally relevant difference between fetuses, infants, the mentally deficient, and animals, you must treat them the same, or you violate the foremost principle of consistency in moral reasoning, that like cases be treated alike. ^{— Unsigned, by: Animalian / talk / contribs}

Another:

Arguments that children will be unwanted or abused are likewise inexcusably flimsy. If a pregnancy is carried to term, 98% of white mothers and 99% of black mothers will not abandon their child. If abortion were restricted, these rates would remain roughly the same, since the maternal bond is among the strongest in nature, reinforced by oxytocin release during childbirth, breastfeeding, and childrearing. —

Look at this: Complete scientific bunk like "Maternal bond among the strongest in nature" and the needlessly racist distinctions. That's some metapedia shit. It's ... kinda shitty. Ikanreed (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

--Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Admittedly, I relied on the common sense understanding of the world to acknowledge that mother's have innate desire to care for their young. I tried to validate this obvious claim by citing the neurotransmitter, oxytocin, which solidifies the "maternal bond". It would be completely contrary, moreover, to the thrust of evolutionary theory if mother's didn't care enough to defend their young, as they often do, even to the death.

--Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Additionally, citing facts is not racist, especially when I possessed no intent of being racist. In fact, I thought these statistics gave some credit to African American mother's for being better parents, contrary to the belief that African American parents are less committed to their children. Mind you that we are discussing a difference of a massive 1%. I do apologize for using the words white and black instead of the more politically correct terms, caucasian and African American. Nevertheless, you should not have jumped to the conclusion that I was intentionally being racist and derogatory, and you could have simply changed the words to reflect your sensibilities. ^{— Unsigned, by: Animalian / talk / contribs}

Or look at this one

Unless abuse is truly life-negating, as in many depraved cases of animal vivisection, pain so profound, and prospects of recovery so slim, there exists little justification to deprive an individual of life, and even then, we would preserve hope for a better life, and seek to ameliorate the very conditions which conduced one so unlivable. All other acts constitute murder rather than euthanasia, and consequently rarely possess sufficient justification. —depends on ignoring that they were talking about animal rights a moment ago

Strangely, this attitude is almost never coupled with a desire to ban eating meat. Some sort of wholesale protection is deserved, for non-rational creatures that live, but let's only worry about it when it's fetuses? Why? It's not a self-aware argument. This whole edit was bad, and every time I look in more detail at a particular paragraph, the more reasons I find to support my revert. Ikanreed (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

--Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)I accept the criticism that my contribution had major flaws, but not the ones you continue to nitpick at. First and foremost, it was written and presented as a brief essay, going against the style of this article. However, I found it necessary to create a new section of general objections since, most likely by virtue of revisionists such as yourself, there is not even a single section on this article for arguments AGAINST abortion. This is one sub-section, by it is abysmal compared to my contribution. Basically, all arguments against abortion appear to have either have never been written, or edited out. This is contrary to the very aim of rationalwiki, which is to provide constructive criticism of ideas. The revisionism I have just encountered is eerily reminiscent of religious pages which dare people to refute the arguments thereon, sometimes with prizes offered in the thousands of dollars, only to be systematically removed and denied by the page owner. This article absolutely should have at least one section reviewing counterarguments against abortion, particularly since it would be more disruptive to respond in line to the arguments in favor of abortion. ^{— Unsigned, by: Animalian / talk / contribs}

See our articles on abortion arguments and the pro-life movement. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

People are often hypocrites when it comes to dealing with the full implications of their arguments, but that doesn't mean that their arguments are invalid, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't there those who oppose abortion and are pro-animal rights? I return that at least 30% of that stuff is still good. I might do some wedding, but if I did it'd be a while.Talk to Civic Cat 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I will guarantee that this person doesn't sincerely want to ban meat. Ikanreed (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost a billion Hindus. w:Hinduism and abortion. I wonder if some of them would ban both abortion and meat. (More reading, huh?)Talk to Civic Cat 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We already discuss the various religious perspectives. The phrasing was as a (not purposefully) dishonest deconstruction of legalized abortion, not some personal perspective on what they themselves should do. Ikanreed (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

‎Animalian, couldn't you have posted this thing at the bottom of this page as well as use the 4 tildes?Talk to Civic Cat 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Folks, should I revert Animalian's posts here unless he/she uses the four frikin' tildes? I'm kinda ig'nint about conventions here.Talk to Civic Cat 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

--Animalian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)I oppose abortion, I detest religion, and I fight for animal rights. I apologize for not using tildes--I joined yesterday, and I am still quite unfamiliar with this site. I nevertheless have valid contributions to make. My articles have been reviewed by my philosophy and ethics teachers, and they reassured me that, not only are my arguments against abortion valid, but also sound. I have even changed a few minds along the way. If these arguments have been commended by my teachers, and even convinced a few teachers otherwise, I assure you that they must be at least partially valid. I tried posting some of these arguments when I found not a single section dedicated to arguments against, rather than FOR, abortion and abortive rights, particularly since responding inline to the preexisting material would be disruptive. I have more arguments in a more a digestible format to post, but I am afraid that those of of a revisionist mindset will remove them. I find such revisionism unacceptable, in that it defeats the purpose of constructive criticism, ignores my arguments, and suppresses the information the free exchange thereof. Denying, editing out, and decrying valid arguments is not how you win debates. Instead you refute them, and refute them deftly. You are welcome to criticize the content I generate, but you are not permitted to destroy it entirely, especially since the arguments in question are valid and correspond to the only full-bodied defense of the position so clearly unjustly disfavored on this article. ^{— Unsigned, by: Animalian / talk / contribs} 00:04, 11 February 2015‎

My suggestion is to put your arguments in an essay rather than in this article. You can create an essay by creating a page with the title "essay:[your chosen essay title]". If you specify yourself as author, nobody else will edit it & they will raise any counterarguments on its talk page. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not opposing your arguing. I oppose your not using 4 tildes. Upper left part of the keyboard. Also you might want to put your counter-punches at the bottom of the page, keep it chronological-like.Talk to Civic Cat 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The tilde appears in various keyboard locations. Mine is on the right in the centre row. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it one of those Dvorik one's I read about oh so long ago? By the way, Weaseloid, we kinda walked this ranch before, but when should posts be chronological and when not? Edumacate me.Talk to Civic Cat 00:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I sign things now! What do I have to do to upload content which you won't remove? I apologize for the length of the numerical pure numerical argument, but I want the introduction and conclusion back, because those were easy to follow and stress the main point. (The pure numerical numerical argument was just a string of line of lines, united by words such as "therefore".)--Animalian (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I suggest putting it in an essay, not the article. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Weaseloid, you have just posted a chronologically ordered post.Talk to Civic Cat 00:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There, you did it again. But why for you do it dis way?Talk to Civic Cat 01:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're being successful in transmitting your intended meaning. Typically, when replying to a post, you put your reply below it with an extra indent. If there's already a chain of replies below it, you can either put your comment below the reply chain or directly underneath the comment you're replying to (possibly with an additional extra indent to separate your post from the one below it). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Numerical Argument

Weaseloid, I finally condensed the numerical argument to sufficient length and clarity to include it on the main article. I accept your objection--I would have cited it, but I had terrific difficulty tracking down a professional source--the statistic I used came from the March of Times, but was without citation. At last, I have found the source from which these oft-cited yet uncited statistics descend (or, at least, by which these statistics are validated), an article included in the New England Journal of Medicine. Believe it or not, this article is cited on the "Spontaneous Abortion" page of rationalwiki, yet terribly misconstrued. Here is what is actually states--

"A total of 199 pregnancies were detected by measurement of maternal urinary excretion of chorionic gonadotropin.19 The day of ovulation or implantation could not be determined for 10 pregnancies (5 percent) because of missing data; these pregnancies were excluded from our analysis. The remaining 189 pregnancies include all 48 that ended in early loss (loss within six weeks after the last menstrual period), all 15 clinical losses (those occurring after six weeks), and 126 pregnancies ending in live birth."

Given that of 199 pregnancies, tracked as soon as conception was confirmed (via the presence of certain hormones in urine within one or two days after fertilization), 126 pregnancies resulted in live births, we may derive that 66.666% of all measured conceptions result in live births (126/199). This experiment and the means employed, successive hormone tracking, offer our best estimate for the number of conceptions miscarry, before and after implantation, and until such time as more accurate methods are developed, and valid disconfirming evidence arises, must treated as our closest proxy to the actual figure.

As to your indictment that I am merely window dressing the right to life argument, I would ask why the numerical argument, adequately condensed, clarified, and now sourced, cannot remain on this article, particularly wherefore there exists not even a single section dedicated to the rights to life argument, let alone, until very recently, a section for any argument against abortion. I find such revisionism therefore unacceptable, and hereunto do I now render my source--

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199906103402304#t=articleResults

--Animalian (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds more in line with what I've heard, but it's very different from the edit you put in earlier. Ikanreed (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, I do have a question, because I am interested in factual accuracy. In the source I cited, the definition of "conception" is unclear, and appears to include implantation. Yet I keep hearing that 50-80% of all fertilized eggs are discarded prior to implantation, in which case I would need to revise the numerical content of the "numerical argument". (If we assume maximums, would arrive at the conclusion that up to, but no more, than 88.888% of all pregnancies, defined here as all biological processes following fertilization, end in miscarriage, so construed, as widely as it may be construed. With this maximum, it becomes the case that roughly 1 in 10 abortions claim the life of a child who would otherwise be born alive. Would a 1 in 10 chance of killing someone who would otherwise survive into infancy, growing more likely than not into adulthood, becoming friends, family, and other loved ones, be justified?) Does anyone have a source which provides a valid estimate of the total percent of all conceptions, here defined as the full (or sufficiently representative) set of fertilized eggs, which die prior to birth? Until such time, the numerical content of the numerical arguments stands. ^{— Unsigned, by: Animalian / talk / contribs} 21:03, 11 February 2015

I can't help it, but now we're about to have an argument about abortion rather than the article's content. But I think it's necessary.

So here it goes:

Why do those lost eggs not deserve the live saving attention the law mandates for a human who's on track to death? Enabling implantation is a medical technology that has seen a lot of development for those suffering from fertility issues. Why do you not mandate that on these lost eggs? Ikanreed (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC, reply to Animalian:) Is "the numerical argument" an actual thing within the abortion debate or something you've just made up? I've Google-searched for abortion & "numerical argument" and it comes up with nothing. I do still see it as window dressing a 'right to life' argument, since you are arguing that "abortion must be strictly justified in denying such fetuses several decades of life", and if this is the case, what difference does it make whether 40% or 20% or 80% of pregnancies end in miscarriage? There's no connection between the two things. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid, the validity of an argument is not determined by its popularity, though stronger arguments, naturally, tend to be more common. Again, we need to more purely address the right to life argument, and more generally, other arguments against abortion. All my attempts have been categorically rejected and removed by you, even though these represent the only well-articulated arguments against abortion on this entire article. And even though the numerical argument does not purely address the right to life argument, it is a very powerful tool to visualize the impact of abortion, putting it in practical, readily understandable terms. I suggest that the unpopularity of this argument descends, in part, from this power. You claim there is no connection between the right to life and the percentage of children inadvertently, to the best of our capacity for inference, killed via abortion. It would seem significant that abortion results in the inadvertent death of children who would otherwise, to the best of our capacity for inference, be alive, in that these inadvertent deaths should be considered in the calculus by which we determine whether a specific instance of abortion was sufficiently justified. Life and death are, indeed, crucial to the present ethical consideration, particularly since, at the very least, 1 in 10 children aborted would, to the best of our capacity for inference, be inadvertently killed. The numerical argument would therefore seem entirely relevant. We aren't talking about marginal percentages. We talking about, at the very least, the inadvertent death of 1 in 10 children. If inadvertent, yet avoidable deaths, applies to our consideration of other ethical issues, such as starvation wherefore the starving could be so easily fed, given relatively minimal investment, why should inadvertent death not apply to our consideration of specific instances of abortion? Can you provide a morally relevant difference strong enough to completely dismiss consideration of the deaths inadvertently caused by abortion? Until such time, the numerical argument stands on its own merits.--Animalian (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It was removed by me, not weasel because I thought it wasn't very good article material, per many of the objections I've raised above. Here's some things that would help establish an anti-abortion section that I'd personally be happy with

• Make it clear whether this is an argument against a personal choice some people make or an argument against allowing that personal choice. Anti-abortion can mean multiple things, and being opposed to abortion doesn't necessarily mean being opposed to abortion being legal. See: vegetarianism.
• Try to avoid strawmanning at all. It's hard not to do it a little, but if you can't make your case without ascribing specific arguments to pro-choice people it's probably not a great argument.(There are exceptions to this, but the extent to which you did it in your edit definetly went too far)
• Definitely make clear to what extent the arguments come from different perspectives. You did this a little. A matter-of-fact tone is nominally fine, but it worked out very badly when making the case that abortion is wrong. Different philosophical perspectives on morality are going to come to wildly different conclusions, and knowing which is which would be great. Ikanreed (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is about the phenomenon of abortion and about the well known subject of the abortion debate (although, as I've already pointed out, arguments within the abortion debate are covered more thoroughly in other articles) - it isn't a good place to put up ad hoc arguments that don't actually feature in the abortion debate at all. This argument also isn't numerical since there's no logical connection between the numbers and the conclusion. There is no connection between intentional abortion and accidental miscarriage. Either we accept the premise that, for whatever reason, a fetus has an inalienable right to life which is violated by abortion, or we don't. How frequently miscarriages occur is neither here nor there. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In the context of legality it's relevant for its comparisons to manslaughter. If you take an action that could lead to the discharge of an embryo(malnutrition, e.g.), are you criminally liable for unimplanted ones you have? Heck, outside the law, morally responsible? It's a relevant question, and focusing on before or after potential abortions is kinda misleading. Ikanreed (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

First, pro-life arguments and pro-choice arguments are only presented efficaciously on the abortion arguments page, which many wish to denigrate to essay status, such denigration as of which I defended the article against. Pro-choice arguments and reasoning moreover saturate the abortion page, which contains an entire section dedicated to "arguments for safe, legal abortion", and which, until recently, lacked a section for "arguments against abortion". All attempts to more adequately represent the pro-life position and the arguments thereto have been categorically rejected, even when I have attempted to emphasize these arguments through other theories, some of which you have yet to see because I simply do not have the time to upload them all because of your ever-surveillant nighthawks who categorically reject any and every pro-life argument, except the flimsiest aside from divine command theory. (Recall the argument that, since the constitution mentions nothing of abortion or family planning, abortion is categorically illegal, the same ridiculous argument that Castaigne made that, since the American Medical Association in its ethical code made no specific mention of abortion, this generalized, abstract construct (just like the bill of rights) had no bearing whatsoever on the ethics of abortion, and the once-common and occasionally heard argument that, since the bible never condemns slavery, slavery is morally justifiable. Why limit the pro-life section to only the most measly arguments, ones that aren't even the most common or most central? Centrality belongs, most assuredly, to the right to life, which for whatever, revisionary reason, cannot even appear on the pro-life page.) The point being, pro-life arguments, though adequately covered one of four articles, the abortion arguments page, do not and should appear on the abortion page, or the pro-life page at the very least. If the abortion arguments page is denigrated to the status of an essay, which few will ever find, visit, let alone read, then all that will remain of pro-life arguments are those flimsy excuses, such as the constitution states nothing of abortion, and that abortion is therefore categorically illegal. The pro-choice position will only be more hegemonic and unjust.--Animalian (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Next, this argument is numerical in that its content is numerical. Your conniption against lies in my interpretation of the numerical argument, or, more exactly, the ethical considerations I apply to this simple mathematical reality. You therefore assert that the conclusion, “abortion must be strictly justified” shares no logical connection with the numerical content. However, if you apply the right to life, which I would have specified, had I not encountered such vehement resistance—I sought to create an operational proxy subject to further revision, not categorical rejection and destruction (remember everything I said about actually editing?)—this conclusion you both accept as consistent and valid within the framework of rights-based ethics, just as we accept certain utilitarian conclusions within the domain of utilitarianism. A proxy moreover represents a launching point for further inquiry, discussion, and debate, and is subject to change as we revise our understanding. You are welcome to revise this understanding, but you accomplish it by writing criticisms alongside the pro-life arguments, just as in any other debate, rather than categorically rejecting what your opponent asserts. And though you may object that our operational understanding rests solely on the pro-choice imperative, we are both intelligent human beings, applying reason and arriving at different conclusions concerning a number of ethical dilemmas, and we must reconcile these differences through debate. We are not debating evolution versus creationism; we are debating empirical data and competing ethical theories to broach the subject of abortion and its justifiability. But what proxy do you leave us, insofar as actual content of the pro-life position is concerned, if you will not allow pro-life arguments to exist at all? You unfairly bias and skew the article toward the absolute exclusion of pro-life arguments and mock pro-life advocates, despite the fact that some of us are highly reasonable and extremely intelligent. To constantly ascribe pro-life advocates to the status of irrational, hateful, and bigoted Christian fundamentalists, is a fallacy of composition, and overlooks, perhaps deliberately, strong counter-examples such as myself. At one time, however, rationalwiki did note that it is possible to oppose abortion on purely humanistic grounds—but this, too, was edited away, probably since it reveals the wider of community of rationalists, humanists, and skeptics who oppose abortion. You may find we the overlooked here—http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/. Even the great Christopher Hitchens was among our ranks— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI.--Animalian (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your following remarks, you attribute more than I believe due to the numerical argument as a constricted document, though the conniptions you draw are certainly relevant. I furthermore believe that you could incorporate these criticisms alongside the numerical argument, and I will not remove them, unless outrageously incredible, in the original sense of the word. (I actually encourage the strongest arguments on either side, for, if you intend to defend your beliefs, you must address the most prominent and strongest arguments against your position, and frankly, the pro-life argument that, since the constitution mentions neither abortion nor family planning, abortion is always and invariably immoral, and therefore illegal. Honestly, it is as if Tom Regan woke up and decided that, to defend animal rights, all he had to do was refute Descartes’s belief that animals were insentient, unfeeling, living machines, whose cries from dismemberment were no different from the sound of cogs in a clock.) Fortunately, you at least offer valid criticism, and I now redress it. You submit that miscarriage and abortion differ by intentionality, and that, consequently, no comparison between either exists. While I grant this obvious verity, the numerical argument, to the best of our power for inference, relates that, since roughly 40% of all pregnancies, both documented and undocumented, as per the NJM study I cited, end in miscarriage, we may assume that roughly 40% of all abortions result in the death of a fetus who would have died anywise. Hence, the abortion, in roughly 40% of all pregnancies, does not change the outcome, the death of fetus. While we cannot with perfect confidence assert this statistic absolutely, you would have to be profoundly unreasonable to reject the power of strong inferential judgment, since women rarely obtain abortions to spare their children miserable diseases, a large enough volume of women obtain abortions, and the set of women who obtain abortion is sufficiently representative. And while abortions occur disproportionately among the poor, poverty is a social construct, and largely irrelevant concerning fetal health, since most are born into poverty and anyone can be so born, except in extreme cases, such as starvation, in which the health of the fetus may be severely compromised, though recovery may indeed be possible. For the remaining 60% of cases, however, abortion alters the outcome of the pregnancy—a child who would otherwise have been born alive was killed, to the best of our capacity for inference, in such cases. You very much hate this argument, and admittedly, it seems to rest on an unstated premise of “necessary evil”, i.e., that, if we are to reproduce, we must accept a 40% death rate among the conceived until such time as that these deaths become avoidable. Though one may argue that humanity should cease reproduction to drive this theoretical death rate to 0%, such persons are highly unrealistic, and no better in their “maunderings” than the utter failure of abstinence only sex education programs backed by religious fundamentalists. For the time being, to ensure the continuity of our species, we necessarily must accept a 40% death rate among fetuses. This is a necessary evil. Abortion isn’t.--Animalian (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Having demonstrated preliminarily, though with moderate investment, the very unreasonableness of preventing pro-life arguments from appearing on the pro-life page, I will attempt greater defense of the pro-life position tomorrow. I am nevertheless aggravated that I must argue with people who have convinced themselves that others do not value their lives, that the unborn are not persons in any meaningful sense, regardless of development and the imminent potential thereto, and that the unborn do not matter. I find it sickening, and again, I reassert—valuing one’s comfort before the rights and lives of others has always been a central component to every atrocity perpetrated, whether in the holocaust or the “casual” consumption of meat. And if you apply the utilitarian ideal, the greatest good for the greatest number, and perform the hedonistic calculus, the pro-life conviction in the vast majority of cases recommends life rather than death.--Animalian (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The equilibration of rights

Contrary to popular belief, pro-life advocates do not strictly argue that we must preserve the right to life of the fetus at all costs. At the same time, while pro-life advocates tend to emphasize the right to life of the fetus to the diminution of the mother’s right to life, pro-choice advocates tend to emphasize the rights of the mother to the near or total exclusion of the rights of the fetus.

Under a more just worldview, however, we would consider the mother’s claims and those of her fetus on the merits of those claims. Weighing these claims against each other constitutes that grand act of calibrating the scales of justice.

Loose guidelines may be prescribed to determine, given isolated variables or smaller clusters of variables, which rights should take precedence in which conditions. Such guidelines will all factor into the moral calculus of the decision of whether or not to abort.

The right to life is influenced by the probability that the mother and/or child will die, the expected quality of the mother’s and child’s life following natural pregnancy or abortion, the expected lifespan of the mother and child following natural pregnancy or abortion, and various combinations of these factors.

In general, the fetus’s right to life will outweigh the mother’s right to life; out of nearly four million live births in the US each year, only 650 women die of pregnancy-related complications (1, 2). Moreover, only 13% of mother’s in a 2005 survey choose “possible problems affecting the health of [my] fetus”, even when given the opportunity to check off as many reasons they sought abortion as possible, and write in reasons not listed, indicating that a comparatively low number of abortions are sought to protect the child’s welfare, and even fewer with demonstrated or expected disability.--Animalian (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf#table01 2. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm 3. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

Changing the "arguments" section to side-by-sides

I think the article would benefit from comparing "pro-life" and "pro-choice" arguments, which is best done with side-by-side templates, as done at Abortion arguments. Good idea? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Precisely!!!--Animalian (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

But .. wouldn't that just duplicate the existing side-by-side Abortion arguments article? If there are additional pro and contra points wouldn't it be better to expand that article?--Coffee (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would merge Abortion arguments into Abortion. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't. That article was split from this one because it was making it too long & interrupting the flow of the article. See threads above, circa mid-2011. Besides which, side-by-side is meant for textual commentary, & isn't a very good format for discussing the merits of arguments. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Then I propose the reverse: move arguments about the morality of abortion to the abortion arguments page. (It could be renamed "Morality of abortion" or similar.) That way we provide a close look at both pro-life and pro-choice arguments; right now, the abortion page doesn't do either extremely well.

Why's sbs bad for merits of arguments? (And, if sbs is bad -- what's the alternate? Do point-counterpoint vertically?) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ikanreed, you have asked me to discuss alternate theories. I have not had the time to contribute and expand my arguments because of the unreasonable revisionism I have encountered. Here--look at all the material I could improve and which other people could view and edit but which will never make it because of unreasonable revisionists who will categorically reject all pro-life arguments on the basis they contain pro-life content. It is as if we were discussing vegetarianism on a page controlled by non-vegetarian meat-eaters, and everything you wrote was destroyed simply because it contained pro-vegetarian arguments, the flaws of which your opponents will not bother to correct and which they are apt to emphasize, even though they perpetrate such flaws in their own arguments and corresponding discourse.

I wish for you to actually EDIT these arguments, to suggest revisions, offer constructive criticism, and insert your own refutations and reasoning until such time as that you actually permit these pro-life arguments to appear on the pro-life page. I will soon contribute elsewhere, but would like to finally produce something which overcomes your sensibilities and yet which still adequately represents the pro-life position and arguments thereto.--Animalian (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The utilitarian argument

(This section is incomplete. I had to wrap it up to fit a three-page word document to print and distribute amongst other members of socratic society.)

Following the mantra “the greatest good for the greatest number”, we may derive useful utilitarian arguments against abortion, depending on the value we select. In classical utilitarianism, that value is suffering. Though modern utilitarians may select alternate values, such as happiness, as the ultimate or intrinsic good, their moral considerations still obey the same hedonistic calculus, variables of which include intensity, duration, certainty, and propinquity (1).

By the right to life, “the greatest good for the greatest number” consists of two competing variables, a) the number of the living and b) the respective quality of their lives. Through the hedonistic calculus, we may optimize both. Such remark, however, fails to directly provide utilitarian arguments for or against abortion, for which we resort to general observations. We count, among these observations, the simple fact that most beings cherish their life, so much so that they are willing to persevere through horrendous conditions to preserve it. We may also count the simple fact that life is a rewarding experience, and that for all its misery, there remains tremendous joy, the joy we actively strive to achieve. (As an aside, non-existence is a misery of its own, for it neither provides comfort, nor ever the relief of tribulation overcome.)

An objection arises in that, if suffering is the ultimate evil, then we should eliminate suffering entirely. And since the only option presently available to achieve this end appears the extermination of all life, including human life, such an objection defies our foremost moral sensibilities. Moreover, this objection tacitly assumes that neither nature could create nor could man ever synthesize beings which, though capable of suffering, cannot process such suffering, i.e., a being whose interests may be violated, but whose capacity for experiencing pain is nil.

From these considerations arises not only the conviction that we should respect the right to life of beings, but also ensure that humans thrive via the optimization of our competing variables. It stands to reason, that, in general, forsaking a child to nothingness, denying him life in all its wondrous complexity, is a grave evil for which, even as a profoundly anti-religious man, I believe we should repent (2).--Animalian (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1. http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html 2. http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

(I have some slightly off-the-cuff remarks…) You cite a principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number”, then detail the feelings and imagined suffering of the potentially aborted person(s). (If they're aborted, there is a great difficulty in claiming that they suffer actual pain, loss of anything, etc. You can't easily claim their soul/spirit exists and has suffering inflicted upon it; and if they do exist as spirit, they might simply be born to someone else…) You don't seem to allow possible societal good of abortion… for potential benefits to society, such as population control, preventing single-parent births, reducing high school and college drop-out rates, preventing pushing people and their offspring [further] into poverty, preventing what some sufferers of birth defects (and the courts) term “wrongful life”… The typical things anti-abortion people claim that people who choose to have an abortion selfishly and wrongly cite as their reasons. — Moray (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Move the arguments about the morality of abortion to the Abortion arguments page
2. Rename the Abortion arguments page to "Morality of abortion" or similar

Currently, this page is biased and doesn't have much room for response. If there's no opposition for 24 hours, I'll move them over. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCat, you believe that this page is biased, in favor of pro-choice advocates? If you do, I esteem you for such recognition. I can't believe how much I had to fight just to get valid pro-life arguments on either the pro-life or abortion page. I am exceedingly intelligent, and I should not have to deal with such bullshit. I apologize for my arrogance, but I was told most people here hold doctorates, or other advanced degrees, or are elsewise intellectually respectable, or even just mentally competent. I, for one, would like to believe that doctors are smarter than those I have encountered. I believe furthermore that you revamped the morality of abortion page, for which I would thank you tremendously.--Animalian (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)