25 ms·

> Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Abortion is a big issue that will continue to come up because one group

by skizm 4y ago

> Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? Abortion is a big issue that will continue to come up because one group of people view it as literally murdering a child and another group see it as a minor medical procedure. In reality the debate should just be "how many weeks into pregnancy should it be allowed?", but that's hard to sell in a campaign so politicians will go hard one way or the other.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Abortion is a great example of an issue where the resolution of discourse isn't adequate to actually address the problem. It's not a binary yes/no question and biologically cannot be, but somehow people are stuck debating as if it is. In reality it is a matrix with time on one axis and extenuating circumstances on the other.
- bobthechef 4y ago
  How is it not binary? There's no reason to obfuscate the issue. All you need to do is to answer two questions: 1. Are human beings _human beings_ beginning with conception? 2. Is it ever licit to kill an innocent human being intentionally? W.r.t. (1), if you answer "no", then the second question is moot. It may still be the case that abortion would be morally illicit, but that would be a different question. If you answer "yes", then you must answer the second question. If you answer "yes", then you are a utilitarian/consequentialist. The conflict has largely shifted to the second question over time. (For the sake of clarity, the word "intentionally" is important. Treating an ectopic pregnancy to save the mother by removing the affected implanted tissue will result in the death of the unborn, but this is not an intended consequence, only a tolerable side effect given what's at stake. These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate.)
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate They are unavoidably entangled with the abortion debate, because so many of the legislators and public are ignorant of such fine distinctions, and allowing a total abortion ban in the US _will_ result in maternal fatalities in these situations.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    It is a matrix specifically because many people answer no to #1 at conception but yes to #1 at a later date. Many people also answer yes to #2 based on circumstances, even if this means that they are utilitarians or consequentialists. Even the consideration of intent you mentioned adds at least one factor to the matrix.
  - danShumway 4y ago
    That oversimplifies things a great deal. First, most people don't have a single yes/no answer to point 1, and for better or worse they probably don't view "human being" as a binary state. Some of them believe that a fetus gradually becomes a human at some nebulous point in time, some believe that it's a "potential person", some believe that it's a person with caveats. Secondly, a decent chunk of them also believe that non-humans should have some moral right, and that there might be situations where the state has a compelling interest in preventing certain outcomes even where there is no clear individual harm (for example, a nontrivial number of people are uncomfortable with constructing high-level systems to allow abortions on the basis of neurodivergence, even if they believe that each individual abortion decision on its own is justified). But lets say someone answers #1 with, "yes, and they should have full human rights". Then we go to point #2, and the short answer is that people who believe that it's literally never moral to intentionally kill someone are exceedingly rare (I've gotten to know maybe one person total in my entire life who I considered to be genuinely a strict deontologist). Utilitarianism is also not a binary conclusion for most people, most people believe that individual rights are worth protecting in at least some cases where they could intentionally be used to cause harm, but in other cases should be blocked because of the outcome -- and they often differ on where they draw those lines and what rights they think are most important to protect. The vast majority of people in the world tend to be somewhat utilitarian in some situations, and somewhat deontological in other situations. So now there's question #3 which you hint at but don't actually raise -- are abortions intentional deaths or are they closer to the scenario you describe with ectopic pregnancies, where the actual goal is just the removal of the unborn and protection of the mother and as a side effect the unborn dies? This is somewhat closely related to the privacy/autonomy argument that gets brought up; that trying to save unborn lives is great and if you can keep an aborted child alive you're welcome to do so, but that concern has to be subservient to preserving bodily autonomy and preserving the patient's health -- in other words, I've heard people argue that abortion is primarily about stopping pregnancy, and that the death of the unborn is just an unfortunate side effect. And once again, a lot of people don't have binary opinions about that either; it's not uncommon for me to see people who draw lines at very different places and based on very different criteria even when they at first say something that sounds like a simple yes/no answer. Culpability for harm in general on many issues can be complicated to talk about sometimes. And then we go on to question #4, which wasn't brought up at all: regardless of the morality, how prudent is it to legislate abortion? And once again, there are a diversity of opinions on this, not just in regards to abortion, but in regards to the fundamental question of when and how our government should legislate morality even in situations where someone with moral value is getting hurt. In fact, a large number of US debates that are separate from abortion also intersect with this question. Some people believe that the state needs to preserve absolute autonomy regardless of the morality, some people believe that it would be reasonable for the state to impose morality in some cases, but that it's likely to get it wrong or have so many unintended consequences that it should only rarely impose morality. This also intersects a little bit with the privacy arguments people raise: is the government qualified to make broad rules about very individual health/parenting decisions, especially regarding risky pregnancies -- and is it reasonable to ask people to "prove" to the government that their pregnancies are risky? And then of course question #5, which is whether abolishing abortion is the most effective way to reduce abortion. See also drug legalization, where you'll occasionally run into strict drug critics who believe that recreational drug use is harmful and should be discouraged, that still want to see it legalized. Once again, most people don't have a binary answer to this question because there are a lot of restrictions and regulations a government can impose beyond just banning/allowing something, and even people who are primarily concerned about reducing abortion rates might disagree about which policies actually work to reduce abortion rates. All of those questions, on their own, will get you different answers if you ask different people. The problem is that saying no/yes to each question isn't enough on its own to create a perfectly logical policy that everyone in the world will just agree with based on first principles. There are a lot of possible answers someone might give to both questions that boil down to either "sometimes...", or to "yes/no, but..." And that's not to say that there aren't better or worse answers to those questions, it's just to say that a lot of people claim the reason conversations about abortion are stalled is because there's nothing else to talk about and everyone knows perfectly what they believe and there's no way to sway anyone, and in reality it's more that conversation is stalled because public opinion isn't perfectly resolved and many people just feel really uncomfortable and confused talking about it because it's very contentious and has a lot of stigma -- which ends up being kind of self-reinforcing because the more that people reflexively avoid the topic the less they tend to learn about it and the fewer opportunities they have to try and nail down their views.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Quick note: It's still classified as an "abortion" even when the fetus is dead. An abortion is an abortion, regardless of the status of the fetus. It's why you will hear of mothers suffering and dying from sepsis due to a dead baby rotting in their wombs. That's one reason why it's not binary.
crooked-v 4y ago
> view it as literally murdering a child Except they obviously don't, actually, or they wouldn't so regularly permit abortion in the case of rape or incest, nor would fertilization-preventing birth control be so often mislabeled as 'abortifacents'. Preserving life may be the stated goal, but if you look at the actual actions taken, it's obvious that it's actually about controlling sexuality.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  And it's a minority of the country that cares. And they only give a shit because media has effectively manufactured outrage. Fox News, CNN, msnbc, all have one goal and it's to push discussions from a class war (loaded term, I know) to a culture war.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    51.1% of the United States (women) have a direct and personal stake in this issue. They care, although many don't think about it until it's actually their immediate problem, and then it might be too late. As a male, I also care because the issue directly impacts people in my life that I care about. The pro-life side of the aisle is directly and viciously assaulting their bodily sovereignty and potentially their health and life. The pro-lifers might be fighting for some nebulous "unborn" who they will likely never know and never have any real obligation to, but I'm fighting for my partner, my daughters, my sisters, my friends. And I'll be damned before I let some disgusting religious extremists create a system that enslaves them.
    - zionic 4y ago
      The “this is a womens issue” argument is invalid on its face. Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human being has a stake in this.
      - anonporridge 4y ago
        No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. You and I only get to be here debating because our mothers chose to give that gift to us. It is not within our rights to force others to do the same for their own fetuses.
bitwize 4y ago
One group of people see it as literally murdering a child; the other group see banning or restricting it as literally enslaving or murdering women. You're right about the true nature of the debate: it's really at which point during the pregnancy is the unborn child to be considered a full human whose right to life it is imperative to respect?
- aaomidi 4y ago
  It's pretty simple, until the child is out of the womb, it's not a child. There is no overarching negative consequence if you abort that child. There is an extremely negative consequence if you try to regulate a person who is a grown persons body. I would only buy the argument of respecting a life if we also extend this to way beyond a child in the womb, and to everyone living. Until we do that, there's no excuse to control a person's body.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    Why stop there? A child about to be born is structurally and functionally identical to a child that has just been born. And once it is born, there are, as you say, "extremely negative consequences" to forcing the mother to either care for it herself or make other arrangements. The right to dispose of any unwanted child the mother cannot or will not care for herself is one that, like in vivo abortion, women will exercise irrespective of whether the law permits it. Poor indigenous women in Brazil allow their sickly babies to starve all the time. Conclusion: any society that does not allow humane infanticide within the first year is literally Handmaid's Tale.
  - stn8188 4y ago
    Just last night, my wife and I had a peek into the current home of our 15-week-along child. He or she was so active - wiggling and squirming, no doubt as a result of some of the prodding from the midwife. I saw arms and legs moving, fingers, feet and everything. Their heart beating at 140bpm. My other children live in the environment of our house, and this child lives in the environment of the womb. It is simple: this is a child. The consequence of killing him or her would be massive to them - ending the life which I was blessed enough to peek into for a few moments. The debate rages with passion because people are passionate about the subject - I know I am.
ta988 4y ago
Nobody sees it as a minor medical procedure.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  I do. Most of the time it's outpatient, and occasionally it is merely, take a pill, come back for a checkup in a couple of days.
giardini 4y ago
"bmitc>Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? skizm>Abortion is a big issue ... because one group of people view it as literally murdering a child and another group see it as a minor medical procedure...<" That is, it is a religious dispute and religious disputes are impossible to settle by negotiation or compromise.
tablespoon 4y ago
> In reality the debate should just be "how many weeks into pregnancy should it be allowed?", but that's hard to sell in a campaign so politicians will go hard one way or the other. I've read the problem there was actually Roe v. Wade itself. The Supreme Court took it upon itself to prematurely decide the issue, which twisted the politics around it into a question of "how to control the Supreme Court" that is resistant to nuance (because the court is so insulated from normal politics). Without Roe v. Wade, the debate would have probably eventually settled on the question you proposed in nearly all jurisdictions, though with some setting a number that Roe or Casey forbade.

by skizm 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Abortion is a great example of an issue where the resolution of discourse isn't adequate to actually address the problem. It's not a binary yes/no question and biologically cannot be, but somehow people are stuck debating as if it is. In reality it is a matrix with time on one axis and extenuating circumstances on the other.

bobthechef 4y ago
How is it not binary? There's no reason to obfuscate the issue. All you need to do is to answer two questions: 1. Are human beings _human beings_ beginning with conception? 2. Is it ever licit to kill an innocent human being intentionally? W.r.t. (1), if you answer "no", then the second question is moot. It may still be the case that abortion would be morally illicit, but that would be a different question. If you answer "yes", then you must answer the second question. If you answer "yes", then you are a utilitarian/consequentialist. The conflict has largely shifted to the second question over time. (For the sake of clarity, the word "intentionally" is important. Treating an ectopic pregnancy to save the mother by removing the affected implanted tissue will result in the death of the unborn, but this is not an intended consequence, only a tolerable side effect given what's at stake. These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate.)
- pjc50 4y ago
  > These sorts of situations are not the subject of the abortion debate They are unavoidably entangled with the abortion debate, because so many of the legislators and public are ignorant of such fine distinctions, and allowing a total abortion ban in the US _will_ result in maternal fatalities in these situations.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It is a matrix specifically because many people answer no to #1 at conception but yes to #1 at a later date. Many people also answer yes to #2 based on circumstances, even if this means that they are utilitarians or consequentialists. Even the consideration of intent you mentioned adds at least one factor to the matrix.
- danShumway 4y ago
  That oversimplifies things a great deal. First, most people don't have a single yes/no answer to point 1, and for better or worse they probably don't view "human being" as a binary state. Some of them believe that a fetus gradually becomes a human at some nebulous point in time, some believe that it's a "potential person", some believe that it's a person with caveats. Secondly, a decent chunk of them also believe that non-humans should have some moral right, and that there might be situations where the state has a compelling interest in preventing certain outcomes even where there is no clear individual harm (for example, a nontrivial number of people are uncomfortable with constructing high-level systems to allow abortions on the basis of neurodivergence, even if they believe that each individual abortion decision on its own is justified). But lets say someone answers #1 with, "yes, and they should have full human rights". Then we go to point #2, and the short answer is that people who believe that it's literally never moral to intentionally kill someone are exceedingly rare (I've gotten to know maybe one person total in my entire life who I considered to be genuinely a strict deontologist). Utilitarianism is also not a binary conclusion for most people, most people believe that individual rights are worth protecting in at least some cases where they could intentionally be used to cause harm, but in other cases should be blocked because of the outcome -- and they often differ on where they draw those lines and what rights they think are most important to protect. The vast majority of people in the world tend to be somewhat utilitarian in some situations, and somewhat deontological in other situations. So now there's question #3 which you hint at but don't actually raise -- are abortions intentional deaths or are they closer to the scenario you describe with ectopic pregnancies, where the actual goal is just the removal of the unborn and protection of the mother and as a side effect the unborn dies? This is somewhat closely related to the privacy/autonomy argument that gets brought up; that trying to save unborn lives is great and if you can keep an aborted child alive you're welcome to do so, but that concern has to be subservient to preserving bodily autonomy and preserving the patient's health -- in other words, I've heard people argue that abortion is primarily about stopping pregnancy, and that the death of the unborn is just an unfortunate side effect. And once again, a lot of people don't have binary opinions about that either; it's not uncommon for me to see people who draw lines at very different places and based on very different criteria even when they at first say something that sounds like a simple yes/no answer. Culpability for harm in general on many issues can be complicated to talk about sometimes. And then we go on to question #4, which wasn't brought up at all: regardless of the morality, how prudent is it to legislate abortion? And once again, there are a diversity of opinions on this, not just in regards to abortion, but in regards to the fundamental question of when and how our government should legislate morality even in situations where someone with moral value is getting hurt. In fact, a large number of US debates that are separate from abortion also intersect with this question. Some people believe that the state needs to preserve absolute autonomy regardless of the morality, some people believe that it would be reasonable for the state to impose morality in some cases, but that it's likely to get it wrong or have so many unintended consequences that it should only rarely impose morality. This also intersects a little bit with the privacy arguments people raise: is the government qualified to make broad rules about very individual health/parenting decisions, especially regarding risky pregnancies -- and is it reasonable to ask people to "prove" to the government that their pregnancies are risky? And then of course question #5, which is whether abolishing abortion is the most effective way to reduce abortion. See also drug legalization, where you'll occasionally run into strict drug critics who believe that recreational drug use is harmful and should be discouraged, that still want to see it legalized. Once again, most people don't have a binary answer to this question because there are a lot of restrictions and regulations a government can impose beyond just banning/allowing something, and even people who are primarily concerned about reducing abortion rates might disagree about which policies actually work to reduce abortion rates. All of those questions, on their own, will get you different answers if you ask different people. The problem is that saying no/yes to each question isn't enough on its own to create a perfectly logical policy that everyone in the world will just agree with based on first principles. There are a lot of possible answers someone might give to both questions that boil down to either "sometimes...", or to "yes/no, but..." And that's not to say that there aren't better or worse answers to those questions, it's just to say that a lot of people claim the reason conversations about abortion are stalled is because there's nothing else to talk about and everyone knows perfectly what they believe and there's no way to sway anyone, and in reality it's more that conversation is stalled because public opinion isn't perfectly resolved and many people just feel really uncomfortable and confused talking about it because it's very contentious and has a lot of stigma -- which ends up being kind of self-reinforcing because the more that people reflexively avoid the topic the less they tend to learn about it and the fewer opportunities they have to try and nail down their views.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Quick note: It's still classified as an "abortion" even when the fetus is dead. An abortion is an abortion, regardless of the status of the fetus. It's why you will hear of mothers suffering and dying from sepsis due to a dead baby rotting in their wombs. That's one reason why it's not binary.

crooked-v 4y ago

> view it as literally murdering a child Except they obviously don't, actually, or they wouldn't so regularly permit abortion in the case of rape or incest, nor would fertilization-preventing birth control be so often mislabeled as 'abortifacents'. Preserving life may be the stated goal, but if you look at the actual actions taken, it's obvious that it's actually about controlling sexuality.

aaomidi 4y ago
And it's a minority of the country that cares. And they only give a shit because media has effectively manufactured outrage. Fox News, CNN, msnbc, all have one goal and it's to push discussions from a class war (loaded term, I know) to a culture war.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  51.1% of the United States (women) have a direct and personal stake in this issue. They care, although many don't think about it until it's actually their immediate problem, and then it might be too late. As a male, I also care because the issue directly impacts people in my life that I care about. The pro-life side of the aisle is directly and viciously assaulting their bodily sovereignty and potentially their health and life. The pro-lifers might be fighting for some nebulous "unborn" who they will likely never know and never have any real obligation to, but I'm fighting for my partner, my daughters, my sisters, my friends. And I'll be damned before I let some disgusting religious extremists create a system that enslaves them.
  - zionic 4y ago
    The “this is a womens issue” argument is invalid on its face. Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human being has a stake in this.
    - anonporridge 4y ago
      No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. You and I only get to be here debating because our mothers chose to give that gift to us. It is not within our rights to force others to do the same for their own fetuses.

bitwize 4y ago

One group of people see it as literally murdering a child; the other group see banning or restricting it as literally enslaving or murdering women. You're right about the true nature of the debate: it's really at which point during the pregnancy is the unborn child to be considered a full human whose right to life it is imperative to respect?

aaomidi 4y ago
It's pretty simple, until the child is out of the womb, it's not a child. There is no overarching negative consequence if you abort that child. There is an extremely negative consequence if you try to regulate a person who is a grown persons body. I would only buy the argument of respecting a life if we also extend this to way beyond a child in the womb, and to everyone living. Until we do that, there's no excuse to control a person's body.
- bitwize 4y ago
  Why stop there? A child about to be born is structurally and functionally identical to a child that has just been born. And once it is born, there are, as you say, "extremely negative consequences" to forcing the mother to either care for it herself or make other arrangements. The right to dispose of any unwanted child the mother cannot or will not care for herself is one that, like in vivo abortion, women will exercise irrespective of whether the law permits it. Poor indigenous women in Brazil allow their sickly babies to starve all the time. Conclusion: any society that does not allow humane infanticide within the first year is literally Handmaid's Tale.
- stn8188 4y ago
  Just last night, my wife and I had a peek into the current home of our 15-week-along child. He or she was so active - wiggling and squirming, no doubt as a result of some of the prodding from the midwife. I saw arms and legs moving, fingers, feet and everything. Their heart beating at 140bpm. My other children live in the environment of our house, and this child lives in the environment of the womb. It is simple: this is a child. The consequence of killing him or her would be massive to them - ending the life which I was blessed enough to peek into for a few moments. The debate rages with passion because people are passionate about the subject - I know I am.

ta988 4y ago

Nobody sees it as a minor medical procedure.

mywittyname 4y ago
I do. Most of the time it's outpatient, and occasionally it is merely, take a pill, come back for a checkup in a couple of days.

giardini 4y ago

"bmitc>Why is abortion literally a major topic in every presidential election over decades? skizm>Abortion is a big issue ... because one group of people view it as literally murdering a child and another group see it as a minor medical procedure...<" That is, it is a religious dispute and religious disputes are impossible to settle by negotiation or compromise.

tablespoon 4y ago

> In reality the debate should just be "how many weeks into pregnancy should it be allowed?", but that's hard to sell in a campaign so politicians will go hard one way or the other. I've read the problem there was actually Roe v. Wade itself. The Supreme Court took it upon itself to prematurely decide the issue, which twisted the politics around it into a question of "how to control the Supreme Court" that is resistant to nuance (because the court is so insulated from normal politics). Without Roe v. Wade, the debate would have probably eventually settled on the question you proposed in nearly all jurisdictions, though with some setting a number that Roe or Casey forbade.