Can We have a Civil Discussion about Abortion?

[TSherbs]

It is, indeed, very complicated, including a study of the history of how various human cultures have approached the topic. There are several competing interests and ethics in play, and modern medicine and its efficacy has increased the complexity of all this.

This is in part why, 12 different times (at least, counting from a thread search I just performed) I have stated that I am in favor of a kind of middle path of compromise on this topic, like a negotiated settlement of the various competing interests and standards. There are some on both sides of the argument who do not want compromise, but I am not among either of those groups.

What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity.

I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability. After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only. I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will. I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved.

[dneal]

It is, indeed, very complicated, including a study of the history of how various human cultures have approached the topic. There are several competing interests and ethics in play, and modern medicine and its efficacy has increased the complexity of all this.

This is in part why, 12 different times (at least, counting from a thread search I just performed) I have stated that I am in favor of a kind of middle path of compromise on this topic, like a negotiated settlement of the various competing interests and standards. There are some on both sides of the argument who do not want compromise, but I am not among either of those groups.

What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity.

I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability. After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only. I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will. I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved.

I generally agree with the above as a reasonable and practical compromise with regard to policy. Of course the absolutists on either side of the debate will not be happy with it.

This portion: "What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity." is a Non Sequitur. Massachusetts abortion law has no more import to a resident of Mississippi than it does to a resident of Morocco.

[kazoolaw]

It is, indeed, very complicated, including a study of the history of how various human cultures have approached the topic. There are several competing interests and ethics in play, and modern medicine and its efficacy has increased the complexity of all this.

This is in part why, 12 different times (at least, counting from a thread search I just performed) I have stated that I am in favor of a kind of middle path of compromise on this topic, like a negotiated settlement of the various competing interests and standards. There are some on both sides of the argument who do not want compromise, but I am not among either of those groups.

What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity.

I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability. After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only. I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will. I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved.

I generally agree with the above as a reasonable and practical compromise with regard to policy. Of course the absolutists on either side of the debate will not be happy with it.

This portion: "What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity." is a Non Sequitur. Massachusetts abortion law has no more import to a resident of Mississippi than it does to a resident of Morocco.

I have read TS' post, and dneal's reply, repeatedly and remain confused.

The first para of TS adds nothing to discussion of the issue.

The second para is unclear: "I am in favor of a kind of middle path of compromise on this topic, like a negotiated settlement of the various competing interests..." Is this middle path, negotiated settlement already accomplished, as outlined in the next para? If so, that settlement has its own set of inconsistencies and problems. If it is a future path to be negotiated, what is it a middle path between? Referring generally to the deadlines referred to in the next para (which are seriously flawed) is the deadline for abortions to be negotiated earlier and closer to conception, or later and closer to birth? Is the unborn included in the "various competing interests" during the negotiations?

The third para apparently fails to clearly state workable abortion limits. For example: "I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability." (emphasis added) Viability is commonly set at 24 weeks. TS supports elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks pre-viability, or 4-9 weeks post-conception. Really?

Next "After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only." What is TS' position during the period between 4-9 weeks post-conception (15-20 weeks pre-viability)_ and after viability (24 weeks)?

After 24 weeks TS supports abortion "for the health of the mother and emergencies." These limits are so vague as to be meaningless. Health exceptions have already been cited as including mental upset; are headaches enough? "Emergencies" of what kind? Objective or subjective? Related in any way to pregnancy? Breakup with a partner? Car problems?

Next "I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will." Abortifacient pills are used to induce abortions into the third trimester. Using them "at will" means there is no limit to when abortions may be performed, making the earlier discussions of viability and health of the mother window dressing for unlimited abortions. Which answers the question earlier posed in 901, though TS will presumably disagree.

On a related issue, "I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved." Though there are many, I only address one issue with the formulation: who are the "patient(s)?" Not the mother, as there is no treatment rendered to her in the instance of "disposal of fertilized embryos." The father? The only "treatment" is being rendered to the embryo, who would be "treated" to disposal.

My take on the 50 state comment is it comes from disagreement with Dobbs which did away with the constitutional right formulation of abortion, combined with a dislike for a constitutional republic in favor of pure democracy.

I gather TS wants some sort of compromise on abortion limits, though his formulation is unworkable. He supports compromise and negotiation apparently on the sole basis of political expedience. For the pro-abortion side of the issue I think that would be acceptable as a step to the next negotiation to reduce limits even more.

[dneal]

I don't disagree with the analysis on the particulars, which is why I "generally" agree - mainly with this paragraph:

I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability. After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only. I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will. I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved.

I view abortion as a form of homocide. The embryo has a unique DNA sequence, and is therefore a unique human even in the early stages of development. I think I posted earlier all the ways we describe human development post-birth: Infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager, adult, etc... I think "embryo and fetus" are part of that continuum.

I've found no ethical theory that is without dilemmas, and abortion presents its own. "Life of the mother" is perhaps the most difficult, followed by incest or rape. Frozen fertilized eggs present a different sort of dilemma.

Those circumstances are extremely rare, and the majority of abortions are elective. If they are outlawed completely, they will still happen (back-alleys, coat-hangers and other unpleasant descriptions and means). That creates a different set of problems.

There is no ideal solution, which leaves imperfect ones, and society will have to agree on the "reasonable compromise" noted by TSherbs.

Part of those compromises I can live with are:

"Morning after" pills.
Elective abortion within some reasonable timeframe corresponding roughly to the first trimester.
Abortion where there is a severe condition affecting the embryo/fetus, discovered through genetic tests, ultrasound, etc... If it is going to die in utero, or post delivery; I don't see the need to postpone the inevitable.
Abortion where it threatens the life of the mother (this is exceedingly rare, particularly with the advent of C-section)
I'm also ok with disposing of "extra" fertilized and frozen eggs.

I understand the moral position of the "under no circumstances" camp. I find it impractical, which is to say incompatible with reality.
I understand the "under any circumstances" camp. I find it callous, barbaric and inhumane - particularly post-birth and/or after viability.

At the end of the day, these decisions are arbitrary and are part of the problems of society and politics. Capital punishment is homocide, yet some societies find it justified. War is homocide, and another ethical problem for society. But society will still have to consider and decide these things.

I agree (and noted) that his 50 different solution "argument" was a Non Sequitur, and I suspect also that it is a disagreement with Dobbs. As his argument is fallacious, it may be dismissed.

[TSherbs]

It is, indeed, very complicated, including a study of the history of how various human cultures have approached the topic. There are several competing interests and ethics in play, and modern medicine and its efficacy has increased the complexity of all this.

This is in part why, 12 different times (at least, counting from a thread search I just performed) I have stated that I am in favor of a kind of middle path of compromise on this topic, like a negotiated settlement of the various competing interests and standards. There are some on both sides of the argument who do not want compromise, but I am not among either of those groups.

What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity.

I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability. After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only. I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will. I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved.

I generally agree with the above as a reasonable and practical compromise with regard to policy. Of course the absolutists on either side of the debate will not be happy with it.

This portion: "What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity." is a Non Sequitur. Massachusetts abortion law has no more import to a resident of Mississippi than it does to a resident of Morocco.

I have read TS' post, and dneal's reply, repeatedly and remain confused.

The first para of TS adds nothing to discussion of the issue.

The second para is unclear: "I am in favor of a kind of middle path of compromise on this topic, like a negotiated settlement of the various competing interests..." Is this middle path, negotiated settlement already accomplished, as outlined in the next para? If so, that settlement has its own set of inconsistencies and problems. If it is a future path to be negotiated, what is it a middle path between? Referring generally to the deadlines referred to in the next para (which are seriously flawed) is the deadline for abortions to be negotiated earlier and closer to conception, or later and closer to birth? Is the unborn included in the "various competing interests" during the negotiations?

The third para apparently fails to clearly state workable abortion limits. For example: "I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability." (emphasis added) Viability is commonly set at 24 weeks. TS supports elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks pre-viability, or 4-9 weeks post-conception. Really?

Next "After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only." What is TS' position during the period between 4-9 weeks post-conception (15-20 weeks pre-viability)_ and after viability (24 weeks)?

After 24 weeks TS supports abortion "for the health of the mother and emergencies." These limits are so vague as to be meaningless. Health exceptions have already been cited as including mental upset; are headaches enough? "Emergencies" of what kind? Objective or subjective? Related in any way to pregnancy? Breakup with a partner? Car problems?

Next "I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will." Abortifacient pills are used to induce abortions into the third trimester. Using them "at will" means there is no limit to when abortions may be performed, making the earlier discussions of viability and health of the mother window dressing for unlimited abortions. Which answers the question earlier posed in 901, though TS will presumably disagree.

On a related issue, "I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved." Though there are many, I only address one issue with the formulation: who are the "patient(s)?" Not the mother, as there is no treatment rendered to her in the instance of "disposal of fertilized embryos." The father? The only "treatment" is being rendered to the embryo, who would be "treated" to disposal.

My take on the 50 state comment is it comes from disagreement with Dobbs which did away with the constitutional right formulation of abortion, combined with a dislike for a constitutional republic in favor of pure democracy.

I gather TS wants some sort of compromise on abortion limits, though his formulation is unworkable. He supports compromise and negotiation apparently on the sole basis of political expedience. For the pro-abortion side of the issue I think that would be acceptable as a step to the next negotiation to reduce limits even more.

I should have said "clients," not patients.

My brother (a doctor) performed IVF procedures for 30 years. He said that he was governed mostly by state laws, and that the contractual agreement with the client(s) determined a lot of the responsibility. He also said that the science/practice was well ahead of the law (legislatures respond more slowly, I guess).

My point only was that I support all legal and contractual arrangements for the extraction, preservation, re-implantation, and disposal of IVF products. And whatever aspects of the process I can't think of here on my couch while typing this.

And since I am not trying to convince anyone nor even be consistent (I am not reviewing what I write as I sit here watching the Maui Classic), I'll leave it at that.

Kaz, what is your position on IVF procedures? Do you support them?

[TSherbs]

It is, indeed, very complicated, including a study of the history of how various human cultures have approached the topic. There are several competing interests and ethics in play, and modern medicine and its efficacy has increased the complexity of all this.

This is in part why, 12 different times (at least, counting from a thread search I just performed) I have stated that I am in favor of a kind of middle path of compromise on this topic, like a negotiated settlement of the various competing interests and standards. There are some on both sides of the argument who do not want compromise, but I am not among either of those groups.

What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity.

I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability. After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only. I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will. I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved.

I generally agree with the above as a reasonable and practical compromise with regard to policy. Of course the absolutists on either side of the debate will not be happy with it.

This portion: "What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity." is a Non Sequitur. Massachusetts abortion law has no more import to a resident of Mississippi than it does to a resident of Morocco.

I have read TS' post, and dneal's reply, repeatedly and remain confused.

The first para of TS adds nothing to discussion of the issue.

The second para is unclear: "I am in favor of a kind of middle path of compromise on this topic, like a negotiated settlement of the various competing interests..." Is this middle path, negotiated settlement already accomplished, as outlined in the next para? If so, that settlement has its own set of inconsistencies and problems. If it is a future path to be negotiated, what is it a middle path between? Referring generally to the deadlines referred to in the next para (which are seriously flawed) is the deadline for abortions to be negotiated earlier and closer to conception, or later and closer to birth? Is the unborn included in the "various competing interests" during the negotiations?

The third para apparently fails to clearly state workable abortion limits. For example: "I am for elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks (somewhere in there seems a reasonable compromise) before viability." (emphasis added) Viability is commonly set at 24 weeks. TS supports elective abortion up to 15-20 weeks pre-viability, or 4-9 weeks post-conception. Really?

Next "After viability, I support abortion for the health of the mother and emergencies, only." What is TS' position during the period between 4-9 weeks post-conception (15-20 weeks pre-viability)_ and after viability (24 weeks)?

After 24 weeks TS supports abortion "for the health of the mother and emergencies." These limits are so vague as to be meaningless. Health exceptions have already been cited as including mental upset; are headaches enough? "Emergencies" of what kind? Objective or subjective? Related in any way to pregnancy? Breakup with a partner? Car problems?

Next "I support the use of anti-pregnancy (abortifacient) pills at will." Abortifacient pills are used to induce abortions into the third trimester. Using them "at will" means there is no limit to when abortions may be performed, making the earlier discussions of viability and health of the mother window dressing for unlimited abortions. Which answers the question earlier posed in 901, though TS will presumably disagree.

On a related issue, "I also support all forms of IVF treatment and the making, freezing, and disposal of fertilized embryos per the expressed wishes of the patient(s) involved." Though there are many, I only address one issue with the formulation: who are the "patient(s)?" Not the mother, as there is no treatment rendered to her in the instance of "disposal of fertilized embryos." The father? The only "treatment" is being rendered to the embryo, who would be "treated" to disposal.

My take on the 50 state comment is it comes from disagreement with Dobbs which did away with the constitutional right formulation of abortion, combined with a dislike for a constitutional republic in favor of pure democracy.

I gather TS wants some sort of compromise on abortion limits, though his formulation is unworkable. He supports compromise and negotiation apparently on the sole basis of political expedience. For the pro-abortion side of the issue I think that would be acceptable as a step to the next negotiation to reduce limits even more.

oh, that 50 states stuff was a nod of agreement and elaboration to Warbler. My point was that abortion is a "complicated" issue on many levels, from the many angles (legal, geographical, ethical, health, etc....) that it can be looked at.

[TSherbs]

As his argument is fallacious, it may be dismissed.

Don't misunderstand: I am not engaging in "argument." Just sharing some thoughts and a response to Warbler (who also was not making an "argument").

If you and Kaz would like to make argument with each other, have at it.

[dneal]

As his argument is fallacious, it may be dismissed.

Don't misunderstand: I am not engaging in "argument." Just sharing some thoughts and a response to Warbler (who also was not making an "argument").

If you and Kaz would like to make argument with each other, have at it.

I do not use "argument" here to mean two guys at the bar "arguing" about who will pay the tab, who is the best quarterback or whether one hit on another's female companion.

I mean "argument" in the technical sense, and have made this point before. Argument: A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning; from Old French arguement "reasoning, opinion; accusation, charge" (13c.), from Latin argumentum "a logical argument; evidence, ground, support, proof," from arguere "make clear, make known, prove"

As noted your argument that "What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity." is a Non Sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. As it commits a fallacy, there is no refutation necessary once the fallacy is identified. You may of course make a more thorough argument, or not.

[dneal]

From an earlier post:

Abortion is about intentionally ending human life. It's an ethical question with legal implications, and there are many approaches. Some are rational and some are rhetorical.

Semantic arguments about "it's just a clump of cells", for example, seem disingenuous. That clump of cells has its own DNA and can be identified as a distinct human if the examiner had no other information. Rhetorical arguments abound. False analogies of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages, some inherent right to choose, only women get a say and other (frankly) disingenuous arguments that serve to avoid the issue and demand a conclusion.

Intentionally ending human life (homicide) is part of humanity, for better or worse. War, self-defense and capital punishment are generally considered ethical homicide. Manslaughter and the varieties of murder aren't. We simply haven't come to a conclusion on this type of homicide.

One can make the religious argument, which means nothing to another who doesn't hold the same religious view. It's ultimately grounded in the irrational, the many rhetorical arguments justifying it notwithstanding.

There are no clear ethical (in the philosophic sense) arguments. Kant's categorical imperative is flawed. It holds that "make no law which can't be made universal". Where does that leave us? Never abort? Always abort? What about the life of the mother? What about congenital and fatal defects? Utilitarians and their greatest happiness principle maintains the problem of measuring "greatest happiness". Whose is measured? How is it given "weight"? A focus on intrinsic value (more Kant) creates the problem of having to choose between two entities with intrinsic value. Furthermore, what are the implications? Bold points out the problem of fertilized eggs in storage.

Being able to discuss this sort of thing rationally (or not), recognizing that it is laden with emotion and individual perception and personal stories; is precisely an example of (and sort of case-study for) the problems with the forum living within human society.

[TSherbs]

As his argument is fallacious, it may be dismissed.

Don't misunderstand: I am not engaging in "argument." Just sharing some thoughts and a response to Warbler (who also was not making an "argument").

If you and Kaz would like to make argument with each other, have at it.

I do not use "argument" here to mean two guys at the bar "arguing" about who will pay the tab, who is the best quarterback or whether one hit on another's female companion.

I mean "argument" in the technical sense, and have made this point before. Argument: A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning; from Old French arguement "reasoning, opinion; accusation, charge" (13c.), from Latin argumentum "a logical argument; evidence, ground, support, proof," from arguere "make clear, make known, prove"

As noted your argument that "What we currently have legally is a fifty-state approach, adding another layer of legal and practical complexity." is a Non Sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. As it commits a fallacy, there is no refutation necessary once the fallacy is identified. You may of course make a more thorough argument, or not.

I like asparagus. It's green and awesome when grilled and slightly caramelized.

No need to refute that either. It's just a description of a preference.

No, like I said, I am not here for argument nor was my post above any attempt at one. As I said, I was sharing a description of my position.

I also support the wide access to birth control for all, minors included. I have no ethical qualms over the artificial or barrier prevention of fertilization during sex.

[dneal]

As I said, I was sharing a description of my position.

As I said, part of that description I generally agreed with, and part of that description was a Non Sequitur.

An inarguable fact is that the best asparagus is grown in Germany, and they have a whole season dedicated to (Spargelzeit). They grow it under cloth shade and keep piling dirt on it as it grows, so it never turns green. It's traditionally served with ham and boiled new potatoes, and covered with hollandaise.

mmmmm. Spargel ist Lecker.

[TSherbs]

As I said, I was sharing a description of my position.

An inarguable fact is ...

hail