Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

[StephTheStuden]

Hello everyone, this is for a college project that I have to write on online deliberation - so please participate and help me out!

As everyone knows abortion is a very controversial issue in the United States, and it does not appear to be going away any time soon. Many people tend to be rather polarized on this issue, but there are also the gray areas where it becomes confusing - maybe abortion is acceptable in these circumstances, maybe it should be regulated like this, etc.

• Should abortion be completely legal, or completely illegal?
• Or what are certain regulations or circumstances in which possible laws could/should have exceptions? Age restrictions, health reasons, rape cases, insurance policies, cost, etc?
• Is making abortions illegal a violation of the woman's rights? Or is maybe allowing abortions a violation of the unborn child's life?
• How could this debate be solved?

[Ibelsd]

Hello everyone, this is for a college project that I have to write on online deliberation - so please participate and help me out!

As everyone knows abortion is a very controversial issue in the United States, and it does not appear to be going away any time soon. Many people tend to be rather polarized on this issue, but there are also the gray areas where it becomes confusing - maybe abortion is acceptable in these circumstances, maybe it should be regulated like this, etc.

• Should abortion be completely legal, or completely illegal?
• Or what are certain regulations or circumstances in which possible laws could/should have exceptions? Age restrictions, health reasons, rape cases, insurance policies, cost, etc?
• Is making abortions illegal a violation of the woman's rights? Or is maybe allowing abortions a violation of the unborn child's life?
• How could this debate be solved?

Yes
OK
Yes
Maybe.

Hope that helps.

[Sigfried]

Debate topics must state a position and offer support. I've moved this to a discussions forum.

[eye4magic]

Hello everyone, this is for a college project that I have to write on online deliberation - so please participate and help me out!

How could this debate be solved?

Concerted, focused, ongoing, objective, factual (scientific), non-biased, education using modern day media tools regarding the development of human life at all stages of development.

I think if people knew better, most people will do better, i.e. the right thing with regards to abortion. Ignorance and convenience can be an easy choice. But ignorance is never bliss. It's just a temporary convenient excuse.

A concerted, well funded, sustained, objective educational campaign for all young adults about the development of human life, will not make the controversy go away, but after a few years it would probably take it down to a low roar. Just like anything else in our so called enlightened society, when we're objectively educated and informed with the facts, common sense often sets in; reason sets in and a new thinking begins to develop.

[Katforichon]

I do not think that abortion should be completely illegal, as there is a possibility that it could simply sweep the issue under the rug instead of fully addressing it. I have heard vaguely of other countries (don't quote me on this, this is simply from memory) where abortion is illegal, and women instead undergo back alley-type abortions illegally, which are extremely unsafe. I think that it would do well to instead educate people better on the issue, and for those who are against abortion, maybe offer help once they have the child.

[Squatch347]

As with all of our previous abortion debates, the elephant in the room is a lack of an agreed upon definition of human life (as odd as that may seem). We lack a definite answer as to when a person becomes a person. The standard pro-choice answer of "independence" seems inadequate because that opens a large box of possible options such as aborting 2 year olds or the mentally handicapped.

[mican333]

As with all of our previous abortion debates, the elephant in the room is a lack of an agreed upon definition of human life (as odd as that may seem).

No, I don't think there's much debate that at the moment of conception there's a "human life". It's a question of when does that life attain human rights. And it's not strange that as the fetus develops, the thought of aborting it because less palatable for everyone, pro-choice and pro-life alike.

We lack a definite answer as to when a person becomes a person. The standard pro-choice answer of "independence" seems inadequate because that opens a large box of possible options such as aborting 2 year olds or the mentally handicapped.

No, the standard pro-choice answer is "viability" which means the life can exist outside of the womb which definitely covers any born person.

[Squatch347]

No, I don't think there's much debate that at the moment of conception there's a "human life". It's a question of when does that life attain human rights. And it's not strange that as the fetus develops, the thought of aborting it because less palatable for everyone, pro-choice and pro-life alike.

I disagree, I think there is a necessary bit of mental gymnastics involved in saying that human beings don't have human rights. Usually this is achieved by saying that the mother too has rights, but this is somewhat unsatisfactory due to the disparate outcomes of the rights being weighed (significant time and financial impact vs death).

No, the standard pro-choice answer is "viability" which means the life can exist outside of the womb which definitely covers any born person.

This doesn't really absolve the objection though. Viability is not tied to the explanation used by pro-choice advocates. They attempt to invoke that a fetus is dependent on the mother and that the mother has the right not to be "parasitically" fed off of. The same is true for a newborn or a mentally handicapped person. The resulting change towards viability is more a sophistry change than an actual change in rationale.

[mican333]

I disagree, I think there is a necessary bit of mental gymnastics involved in saying that human beings don't have human rights.

But who says that pro-choicers consider fetuses to be "human beings"? In your previous statement you used the term "human life", not "human beings".

This doesn't really absolve the objection though. Viability is not tied to the explanation used by pro-choice advocates.

I disagree. In debates I consistently use the criteria of viability. If you want to say that others use a different criteria, perhaps they do. But you cannot make a blanket statement that pro-choice beliefs do not factor in viability at all.

I AM a pro-choicer so MY beliefs are indicative of pro-choice philosophy even if other pro-choicers disagree with me.

[Squatch347]

But who says that pro-choicers consider fetuses to be "human beings"? In your previous statement you used the term "human life", not "human beings".

Perhaps you could detail the difference for me? I'm not sure I understand how those two are fundamentally different.

I disagree. In debates I consistently use the criteria of viability. If you want to say that others use a different criteria, perhaps they do. But you cannot make a blanket statement that pro-choice beliefs do not factor in viability at all.

I AM a pro-choicer so MY beliefs are indicative of pro-choice philosophy even if other pro-choicers disagree with me.

That isn't exactly my argument. My argument is that the difference between viability and independence are ephemeral, especially when we discuss the moral reasons underlying the pro-choice position. Viability also tends to be somewhat of a medically nebulus term. Do we mean viable given an incubator? A breathing machine? Or viable giving nothing more than food and water?

[mican333]

Perhaps you could detail the difference for me? I'm not sure I understand how those two are fundamentally different.

A human being has all of the rights that we associate with born humans.

That isn't exactly my argument. My argument is that the difference between viability and independence are ephemeral, especially when we discuss the moral reasons underlying the pro-choice position. Viability also tends to be somewhat of a medically nebulus term. Do we mean viable given an incubator? A breathing machine? Or viable giving nothing more than food and water?

All of the above. If an unborn can be removed from the womb and kept alive, then it should be afforded legal protections that are denied to fetuses that cannot be kept alive once removed from the womb.

And I should not that I am not speaking for all pro-choicers (for none of us can speak for every single one of us) but if there is an inherent contradiction in pro-choice belief then that must apply to me as well so my position of "viability" is as valid a criteria for pro-choice belief as any other criteria one can hold and still be considered pro-choice.

[Squatch347]

A human being has all of the rights that we associate with born humans.

That is begging the question.

You are self defining a difference that presupposes the conclusion, that human beings have rights, but living humans might not have rights. I don't think that gives us much of a fundamental difference to base rights assignment on.

All of the above. If an unborn can be removed from the womb and kept alive, then it should be afforded legal protections that are denied to fetuses that cannot be kept alive once removed from the womb.

So if we were to invent an artificial womb would women lose the ability to have an abortion? So the fetus gains rights if it moves from being reliant on the mother to being reliant on someone else?

You make a point about you only being able to speak for yourself, so can I ask, under what moral authority does the woman exercises her ability to have an abortion?

[eye4magic]

[*]Or what are certain regulations or circumstances in which possible laws could/should have exceptions? Age restrictions, health reasons, rape cases, insurance policies, cost, etc?

Most states in the U.S. have implemented restrictions and different policies for abortion. If you want some ideas, here's some references on the different abortion restrictions and the states that have them.

State Abortion Laws: A Survey
https://www.msu.edu/user/schwenkl/abtrbng/stablw.htm

Where all 50 states stand on abortion, in two charts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...in-two-charts/

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 AM ----------

[*]Should abortion be completely legal, or completely illegal?

I think public opinion will probably continue to shape the answer to this question as it has for the past 40 years. Personally, I'm pro-life. It's interesting to note, however, that the national mood about abortion is changing in America and it looks like "abortions are becoming illegal in more states at a rapid clip."

Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions?
March 12, 2013

Abortions are becoming illegal in America at a rapid clip.

Last week, Arkansas passed the nation's most restrictive abortion law, enraging abortion-rights supporters and sparking plans for a court challenge. But that law followed a wave of legislation in the last three years: Since 2010, 10 states have passed outright bans on abortions for women who have been pregnant for more than 20 weeks, and in some cases earlier.

Before 2010, no states banned abortions outright at any stage of pregnancy. Nebraska started the trend with a 20-week abortion ban in April 2010. In 2011, Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma followed suit, and in 2012, Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana passed curbs of their own. Last week, Arkansas became the first state to approve an abortion ban this year.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=18703520

[mican333]

You are self defining a difference that presupposes the conclusion, that human beings have rights, but living humans might not have rights. I don't think that gives us much of a fundamental difference to base rights assignment on.

It just depends on when one feels that the human life has progresses far enough to qualify as having rights and therefore be considered "human beings". Pro-lifers generally say "conception" and pro-choicers either say "viability" or "at birth".

So if we were to invent an artificial womb would women lose the ability to have an abortion?

I'd say technically she's still having an abortion if the fetus is removed from her body and moved to another location but still survives. And if you want to define abortion as necessarily involve the death of the fetus then I would say that women could no longer have abortions (or at least the legal justification for having them would be greatly diminished).

So the fetus gains rights if it moves from being reliant on the mother to being reliant on someone else?

It gains rights once it is capable of surviving outside of the womb.

You make a point about you only being able to speak for yourself, so can I ask, under what moral authority does the woman exercises her ability to have an abortion?

If you mean the legal right, I would say it comes under the right to medical privacy which falls under the fourth amendment.

[Squatch347]

It just depends on when one feels that the human life has progresses far enough to qualify as having rights and therefore be considered "human beings". Pro-lifers generally say "conception" and pro-choicers either say "viability" or "at birth".

Exactly, that was largely my point in the original post. The essence of the debate usually comes down to what exact point the fetus becomes a "human" (or whatever term you wish to insert that implies it has rights).

It gains rights once it is capable of surviving outside of the womb.

But even in that scenario it is dependent on others. It must have an incubator or a feeding tube, a monitor, safety, food, etc. Those are resources that must be paid for and supported. So we are simply shifting the burden from the biological mother to whomever is paying for the hospital right?

If that is so, we have some problems since (in most cases) the woman has chosen a course of action that resulted in her pregnancy, we as a society had no role in that choice.

If you mean the legal right, I would say it comes under the right to medical privacy which falls under the fourth amendment.

Legally thats a pretty specious argument and I think even Pro-Lifers would be hesitant to raise it. But that aside, I mean moral right. What makes it ok to terminate what will, under no intervention become a fully formed human being?

[mican333]

Exactly, that was largely my point in the original post. The essence of the debate usually comes down to what exact point the fetus becomes a "human" (or whatever term you wish to insert that implies it has rights).

I completely agree. I just disagree that the pro-choice position is particularly problematic in a way that the pro-life position is not.

But even in that scenario it is dependent on others. It must have an incubator or a feeding tube, a monitor, safety, food, etc. Those are resources that must be paid for and supported. So we are simply shifting the burden from the biological mother to whomever is paying for the hospital right?

If that is so, we have some problems since (in most cases) the woman has chosen a course of action that resulted in her pregnancy, we as a society had no role in that choice.

Nor do we if she gives birth to the baby and then relinquishes it to the state.

But that aside, I mean moral right. What makes it ok to terminate what will, under no intervention become a fully formed human being?

I don't say it's okay to do that. I'd say that you have two conflicting interests and one of them has to win out - picking the lesser of two evils. And I put the right to medical privacy for the mother over the life of a fetus.

And I do consider the right to medical privacy to be a moral right - it falls under "liberty". And regardless of the specific legal mechanisms of how we get there, my point is the woman has the right to make those kinds of choices without government interference.

[Squatch347]

And if you want to define abortion as necessarily involve the death of the fetus then I would say that women could no longer have abortions (or at least the legal justification for having them would be greatly diminished).

Sorry, forgot to bring this up earlier. What about our technological level is determinative of a being's rights?

Nor do we if she gives birth to the baby and then relinquishes it to the state.

In both situations we have a scenario where the demands are diffused from one (more or less) voluntary individual to many non-voluntary individuals. Nothing about that diffusion implies a right is conferred or new.

I don't say it's okay to do that. I'd say that you have two conflicting interests and one of them has to win out - picking the lesser of two evils. And I put the right to medical privacy for the mother over the life of a fetus.

What "privacy" is she lacking by carrying the baby to term?

And if medical privacy trumps the life of another, is it then ok to shoot someone trying to look at my medical records?

[mican333]

Sorry, forgot to bring this up earlier. What about our technological level is determinative of a being's rights?

Because it alters when a fetus is viable.

In both situations we have a scenario where the demands are diffused from one (more or less) voluntary individual to many non-voluntary individuals. Nothing about that diffusion implies a right is conferred or new.

So you're making an argument against the state caring for unwanted children? If so, I think we're getting off topic.

What "privacy" is she lacking by carrying the baby to term?

None. But if she has the right to medical privacy then the government has no right to even know that she's going to have a medical procedure let alone interfere with her decision to have it.

And if medical privacy trumps the life of another, is it then ok to shoot someone trying to look at my medical records?

It doesn't trump the right to life of another human being. I never argued otherwise.

[Sigfried]

This doesn't really absolve the objection though. Viability is not tied to the explanation used by pro-choice advocates. They attempt to invoke that a fetus is dependent on the mother and that the mother has the right not to be "parasitically" fed off of. The same is true for a newborn or a mentally handicapped person. The resulting change towards viability is more a sophistry change than an actual change in rationale.

Do you feel we are morally and legally obligated to care for those in society unable to fully care for themselves? AKA we should have state welfare for anyone disabled to a degree they cannot earn a set standard of living?

I couch the answer of viability differently. It is not a question of our willingness it is a question of our ability. If we cannot care fore the life of the child then we cannot take responsibility for that life and it remains the responsibility of the only individual who has the power to care for it. In other words, for all practical purposes mother and child are one individual until such time as the society could care for the child without the mother. This for me is a legal answer to the question one where we are examining the scope of the societies authority to dictate to individuals how they act. If a society is utterly powerless to sustain a life, can that life said to be part of the society?

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

I think public opinion will probably continue to shape the answer to this question as it has for the past 40 years. Personally, I'm pro-life. It's interesting to note, however, that the national mood about abortion is changing in America and it looks like "abortions are becoming illegal in more states at a rapid clip."

I think there are a number of factors at work.

1. There may well be an element of pro/against abortion.
2. It may be that without the extremes of full abortion bans being the objective, a wider audience is willing to support more limited legislation. (I think this is the winner)
3. I may be greater regional polarization on the issue.
4. It could be the inevitable progress of the insurgent side of the issue making ground against the defending position.

This is interesting
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/ge...on-narrow.aspx

It shows generational opinions over time. I'm not sure it supports many of these possibilities in public opinion. It shows that support for abortion grew from Roe vs Wade through the 1990s and then has declined back to levels around the time of the 1970's though the variation is not especially big (about 10% or so).

The overall views show that the strongest support is for legal abortion with restrictions. The weakest support is for a complete ban, followed a bit by legal with no restrictions.
That means the concensus point is for some restricttions on abortions but not to have it be illegal.

Given that, I think the strongest case to be made is that legislative efforts have shifted from creating full bans on abortions to creating reasonable restrictions on them instead, and as that shift has occurred those laws have found greater support and less opposition.

But if the opinions hold true, that trend will not continue to efforts to outright ban abortion, at that point the coalition against would be far larger than the coalition for.

[Squatch347]

Because it alters when a fetus is viable.

That seems an arbitrary connection. How are my individual rights incumbent on technology levels? What is the causal factor? If its survivability, then does that mean an elderly person who has lost the ability to feed himself has lost his rights if no technology exists to substitute for his children feeding him?

So you're making an argument against the state caring for unwanted children? If so, I think we're getting off topic.

No, I'm arguing that nothing about transferring the responsibility from one to many or from someone who had input to create the situation to those who did not logically implies a creation of rights.

None. But if she has the right to medical privacy then the government has no right to even know that she's going to have a medical procedure let alone interfere with her decision to have it.

The government needs no such ability to ban an abortion, anymore than it needs to have any such ability to monitor people's movements within their own homes to ban murder. The Fourth Amendment provides no privacy protections for those who have been legitimately suspected of committing a crime.

It doesn't trump the right to life of another human being. I never argued otherwise.

Again, this seems to be a bit of sophistry. If that is a material distinction it needs to be shown to be a material distinction in the individual, human being or human life. You are implying a categorical distinction in the victim (or individual, whatever term you wish here), but not showing an inherent change in that victim that prompts that change. Instead, you are relying on our status as a society, but that is unsatisfactory because it then implies that we, as a society can make decisions that affect someone's inherent human rights.

I couch the answer of viability differently. It is not a question of our willingness it is a question of our ability. If we cannot care fore the life of the child then we cannot take responsibility for that life and it remains the responsibility of the only individual who has the power to care for it. In other words, for all practical purposes mother and child are one individual until such time as the society could care for the child without the mother. This for me is a legal answer to the question one where we are examining the scope of the societies authority to dictate to individuals how they act. If a society is utterly powerless to sustain a life, can that life said to be part of the society?

Are conjoined twins then one person? Even if they have different brains, personalities? If they are separate individuals except that they share a portion of their intestinal tract that we cannot replace, does that make them a single individual?

Likewise, is that determination of rights based on our decision to develop said technology? Are they two people because I chose to invent an intestinal replacement device? Are they fundamentally one person because I chose not to?