Difference between revisions of "Abortion"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Comparative Rights: rollback and spelling)
m (Reverted edits by Sprocket J Cogswell (Talk) to last version by Earthland)
Line 67: Line 67:
 
Pregnant woman usually continues with her social life and career, instead of becoming some kind of unanimous and passive life-support system for someone else. And it is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.  
 
Pregnant woman usually continues with her social life and career, instead of becoming some kind of unanimous and passive life-support system for someone else. And it is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.  
  
−
|valign="top"  |Pro-choice advocates generally acknowledge the fundamental inviolability of the individual human being's body, and recognize that the state should not regulate it. Specifically, women should never be forced to be "incubators" for a fetus. Furthermore, adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion because it does not address the problem of unwanted pregnancy; abortion addresses the problem of unwanted pregnancy while averting unwanted parenthood.
+
|valign="top"  |Advocates of pro-choice generally believe that a human being's body is inviolable, and the state should not regulate it. Specifically, women should never be forced to be "incubators" for a fetus. Furthermore, adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion because it does not address the problem of unwanted pregnancy; abortion addresses the problem of unwanted pregnancy while averting unwanted parenthood.
  
 
Furthermore, comparing the rights of the embryo/foetus against those to the mother depends heavily on whether the embryo/foetus can be considered a ''person'' capable of having rights. For all the 'life begins at conception' arguments defining the start of personhood is far more complex and many authorities - especially non religious ones - place it beyond the limit for normal legal abortions at around 25 weeks.
 
Furthermore, comparing the rights of the embryo/foetus against those to the mother depends heavily on whether the embryo/foetus can be considered a ''person'' capable of having rights. For all the 'life begins at conception' arguments defining the start of personhood is far more complex and many authorities - especially non religious ones - place it beyond the limit for normal legal abortions at around 25 weeks.

Revision as of 18:59, 27 November 2009

Abortion refers to a range of medical procedures[1] used to terminate a pregnancy. Whether and to what extent induced abortions should be permitted, encouraged, or severely repressed is a social issue that has divided theologians, philosophers, and legislators for centuries.[2] In many parts of the world there is public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion.

Many opponents of abortion base their position on religious doctrine;[3][4] however, it is possible to oppose the practice on purely humanistic grounds.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

Opponents of abortion argue that abortion is murder. Proponents of liberalized regulation of abortion hold that only a woman herself, rather than the state, has the right to assert control over what happens inside her body.[11] The various arguments are presented below.

Argument Side-by-Side

Arguments for the banning of abortion

Arguments for the legality of abortion

Abortion = murder

See also:Essay:Rationalwiki's abortion article

An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a foetus.[12][13] The terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.[14] There is no rational basis for distinguishing the fetus from a newborn infant; each is totally dependent and potentially a member of society, and each possesses a degree of humanity. It is not "scientifically incorrect" to call the embryo an unborn child[15], as virtually every human embryologist, every major textbook of human embryology and almost all medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

Only through mind-numbing stupidity could someone suggest that when human sperm and human eggs unite, life cycle may start but the start of "life" is something else. A life cycle describes the series of stages that an individual organism passes through until the time it produces offspring of its own. This series of stages is referred to as a life cycle because offspring pass through the same series before they produce their own offspring. As it's said in Encyclopedia Britannica: "Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle."[27]

Of course, when given the evidence that human life begins at conception, the proponents of abortion try to draw a distinction between human being and human person. But the right to life is based on a being's natural or inherent capacities. Drawing a distinction between human being and human person is saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But if the change was biologically inevitable from conception, then this change is not a change in essential nature, it must have been in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence or physical development, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life.

Think about yourself: You didn't really came from an embryo, you once were an embryo, likewise you didn't come from an adolescent, you once were an adolescent. And if your mother had had an abortion, she would have killed you. This "you" in question would have been an existing person with a valid claim to life.

Besides that, even if there was uncertainty as to whether the fetus has a right to life, then having an abortion is equivalent to consciously taking the risk of killing another person.

In a very real sense, "life" does not begin at conception since both egg and sperm are "alive". However, the potential for a new and distinct human being begins at conception. A pregnancy is defined as the implantation of a fertilized egg into the womb.[28]} This distinction is important since modern scientific research suggests that well over 50% and more likely 75-90% of all fertilized eggs are discarded before they implant. An abortion by definition ends a pregnancy. At least 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and mostly within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.[29] Following the pro-life logic, God allows anywhere from 25-75% of children to die before they are ever born. There has been a noticeable lack of campaigning directed towards stemming this appalling tide of infant death.

Whilst the start of the life cycle might possibly be best put at the point of conception the start of "life" is a far more complex issue. For example, given that the end of life is near universally measured as the cessation of meaningful brain activity, it is scientifically and logically valid to define the start of "life" as the start of meaningful brain activity. This viewpoint, which places the start of "life" at around twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception is as valid, in scientific and logical terms as any other.

However, for legal sakes, a line has to be drawn. Knowing full well the difficulties of the decision and the strongly felt feelings around it, in most countries that allow abortion, scholars and judges have come to work with viability as a common and discernible line, noting that before 20 weeks, a fetus' chances of survival outside the womb are nil. However well formed its little fingers, it can not be considered an independent entity in any meaningful sense. Realistic viability is attained at around 25 - 26 weeks[30] and few countries permit abortion after 24 weeks, except in cases of clear risk to the life of the mother.

Abortion damages women's health

Anti-abortion activists claim that abortion has serious health and psychological consequences for the woman. National Right to Life (whoever they are) emphasizes the risk of complications without presenting statistics on the frequency, though they admit that the vast majority are temporary and treatable. They claim that abortion increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy and doubles the risk of future sterility, and they claim that these risks increase with multiple abortions.[31] Andy Schlafly, who has degrees in engineering and law and teaches kids in a church basement, claims that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

National Right to Life claims "a growing body of scientific evidence that having an abortion can cause psychological harm to some women." They admit to a lack of information on the prevalence of serious psychological consequences, saying only that, "a Los Angeles Times survey in 1989 found that 56% of women who had abortions felt guilty about it, and 26% 'mostly regretted the abortion.'"[32]

There simply is no breast cancer link. See this article, by a real doctor (!). When used correctly under a doctor's supervision, only 7 deaths have been reported to the CDC since medical abortions were legalized. [33] According to Planned Parenthood, the risk of death in a medication abortion is 1 in 100,000 and that from an early vacuum aspiration abortion is roughly 11 times safer than carrying a child to term, the risk of which is 1 in 10,000.[34] They flatly dismiss any link to future childbearing difficulties.

On psychological issues, Planned Parenthood notes the lack of scientific proof for assertions of a widespread "post-abortion syndrome." They claim that the occurrence of long-term emotional problems is similar to that associated with childbirth.[35]

Pregnancy is a life changing event. Women will necessarily have serious medical risks and will endure serious pain and suffering carrying a child to term and giving birth. Yet no one proposes laws to stop pregnancy for "women's health" concerns. Women who are pregnant will necessarily face emotional and physical changes regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy. Women who give a child up for adoption may one day think it was the best decision, and may on a different day wish they had raised the baby. Women who have children may look at the life they live and have days they regret the whole thing. No one is cautioning them not to have children much less make it a law. Women who are pregnant and poor, risk their own life and and health as well as the baby's life and health - but the cries for help go largely unheard by the society at large. The only time "pro life" camp offers "health to the woman" as a national issue to be addressed is when abortion is the topic.

"Culture of Life"

Most pro-life arguments rest on the idea that a fetus is a full human being from conception, and that a fetus shares the same rights as any other human being. This argument is often linked to other "respect-for-life" issues such as euthanasia and the death penalty in advocating a "Culture of Life" to replace what advocates see as a "Culture of Death." These ideas were articulated in this form by Pope John Paul II in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae.[36]The Roman Catholic Church has declared the Church's near total opposition to the death penalty. [37]

The unthinking preference for quantity of life ignores any consideration of quality of life. Furthermore, many pro-life activists and politicians who use this language show a particular disagreement about the "sanctity of human life" when the life in question belongs to a felon or a foreigner. Of course, this simply makes them hypocrites but doesn't prove that their point is wrong.

As for what the Pope says, the Church has a long and distinguished history of taking a *hard* line (oftentimes, a hard, throbbing line) on the welfare of young altar boys, so the depth of its concern for the lives of children is suspect, at best. Also, they worship a Jewish zombie, so their fundamental sanity is questionable.

Comparative Rights

More than one person's rights are involved in a pregnancy. The “right to control one’s body” argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being, because in this case the "right to control my life" becomes the right to hurt and oppress others for my own advantage. The embryo also has the right to control of his or her body. The embryo has a right not to be killed.

In an unwanted pregnancy, someone's rights are going to be trampled. But the severity of that violation of rights must be taken into account. Which is a greater violation of rights - forced pregnancy and childbirth, or violent death? Privacy is never an absolute right, but is always governed by other rights. The right to live is superior to right to privacy. Birth has definitely life changing effects on a woman's life, but the one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him or her from ever exercising his rights. Therefore, the embryo's rights are violated by abortion to a much greater extent than the woman's rights are violated by pregnancy.

Pregnant woman usually continues with her social life and career, instead of becoming some kind of unanimous and passive life-support system for someone else. And it is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child.

Advocates of pro-choice generally believe that a human being's body is inviolable, and the state should not regulate it. Specifically, women should never be forced to be "incubators" for a fetus. Furthermore, adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion because it does not address the problem of unwanted pregnancy; abortion addresses the problem of unwanted pregnancy while averting unwanted parenthood.

Furthermore, comparing the rights of the embryo/foetus against those to the mother depends heavily on whether the embryo/foetus can be considered a person capable of having rights. For all the 'life begins at conception' arguments defining the start of personhood is far more complex and many authorities - especially non religious ones - place it beyond the limit for normal legal abortions at around 25 weeks.

Dismissing pregnancy as a "temporary inconvenience" which will hardly affect a woman's social life and career fails to understand the massive, life changing effects that pregnancy and parenthood have on a woman's life. Although it takes two to make a child it's always the woman who's left holding the baby. If this can be prevented before the embyo/foetus becomes a person then this could be said to be a positive outcome.

Constitutional arguments in United States law

Arguments in favor of a fundamental right of choice

  1. Women must have a fundamental right to bodily integrity, but this right must be balanced against the state's interest in the potential for life. This balance is resolved with the "undue burden" test (Casey).
  2. Women (and couples) have a right to privacy in intimate choices (Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut).
  3. Discrimination on the basis of biological markers inherent in biological sex is suspect under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and requires strict scrutiny (contra Geduldig v. Aiello, Michael M., which would have to be overruled for this argument to be valid). Otherwise, biological marker-based discrimination enforces stereotypes that the law frowns upon, as seem in U.S. v. Virginia. Further, this type of discrimination is subordinative, and the zeitgeist of the Fourteenth Amendment being anti-subordinative, must be immediately suspect.
  4. Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny (Eisenstadt) outline a fundamental right to consent in childrearing: this is how contraception is constitutionally vindicated. Disallowing abortion eviscerates this right, reading "consent" or "choice" where-ever a condom fails.
  5. Originalist/tradition-based counter-arguments ("no tradition of abortion in the U.S., therefore no right") are unavailing. First, tradition is a poor marker for objective reasoning, since the analysis of "tradition" is based on a conscious choice of what narrative to credit (Balkin, Tradition and Betrayal). Further, tradition may be unjust (Loving v. Virginia) and must be read with a level of "generosity" to ensure a just society (Levinson, Constitutional Faith).
  6. Textualist counter-arguments ("not in the text of the Constitution") are unavailing. Text is a poor marker for valuable meaning: reading text as complete in and of itself eviscerates cultural norms that the law is based on (Holy Trinity). Further, Constitutional text is written at a high level of abstraction: rights are defined broadly, not enumerated specifically (Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut), so rights may exist that lie in the "penumbra" of the specifically enumerated rights.

Arguments against a fundamental right of choice

  1. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, or privacy, or family planning. Further, the right is not fundamental to the national consciousness or deeply rooted in our history. Therefore, it is not a fundamental right (applying Glucksberg or Scalia's VMI dissent).
  2. Unborn babies must have a fundamental right to bodily integrity, and abortion infringes that right.

Biblical views

As ever, the Bible can be used to cut both ways on this issue, essentially resting on the issues of 'personhood'.

'Pro-life' groups cite the numerous injunctions against murder in both the New[38] and Old[39] Testaments, and argue that this forbids abortion - after all, the foetus was not convicted in a fair trial (it is not judicial execution, which many pro-life conservatives support), and it is not an act of war ( under which circumstances most Christians might accept killing), and thus it is murder. With the minimum age at which a foetus can survive outside its mother being pushed back further and further, in some cases past cut-off dates for abortion, such groups thus argue that foetuses are being aborted that could survive on their own (albeit with medical help) - to abort them, therefore, is murder, as mentioned above, and as Biblically prohibited. There is also a tenuous argument for distinct personhood before birth in Jeremiah 1:5[40], which states that 'before I formed you in the womb I chose you'; this is commonly interpreted by pro-life groups as implying separate existence before birth, but, given the context, is just as likely to refer to divine foreknowledge.


An argument has developed, on the other hand, that the Bible attaches less 'personhood' to foetuses and very young children. Exodus 21:22, a mere ten verses after the above injunction against murder, states that, if a man hits a woman, causing a miscarriage or premature birth, but no serious injury, he should be subject to a court-mediated fine from the woman's husband.[41] If this was the case, then the act of causing a miscarriage could not be construed as 'murder' (since compensation was not biblically allowed for murder[42]). This, while relying on a fair amount of extrapolation beyond the text itself, would seem to justify abortion, as it does not involve the taking of a human life. Furthermore, Numbers 5:11-31 seems to outline a priest-administered test for unfaithfulness, by administering an abortifacient 'bitter water' that would show if a woman had conceived (presumably out of wedlock)[43].


There is also some precedent for divinely caused abortions - Hosea 9:11-16[44] (in which Hosea prays for God to cause Ephraim's women to miscarry), for example.

Flying Spaghetti Monster views

It seems that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster takes no formal position.[45]


See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Different methods of abortion - NHS (terms specific to UK) [1]
  2. ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica:Abortion
  3. ↑ As can be seen on the website of prolifeacrossamerica.org
  4. ↑ Priests for Life/
  5. ↑ Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
  6. ↑ Kathryn Reed: Feminist, Prolife and Atheist
  7. ↑ Atheist revolution: Some Atheists Oppose Abortion Too
  8. ↑ LifeSiteNews: Even a "Raving Atheist" Can Be Pro-Life - Interview
  9. ↑ Judy Ferris: "Why should atheist be pro-life"
  10. ↑ Libertarians for Life
  11. ↑ As seen at Achewood
  12. ↑ Wikipedia: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.
  13. ↑ Merriam Webster dictionary: Abortion - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
  14. ↑ The Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, the developing human being is called an embryo.”
  15. ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica: "Embryo" - /.../ In humans the term is applied to the unborn child until the end of the seventh week following conception; from the eighth week the unborn child is called a fetus.
  16. ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 664: ”A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.” (Encyclopedia Britannica:pregnancy)
  17. ↑ Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2002, v 1, p 1290: ”Embryo. The developing individual between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. [...] At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.”
  18. ↑ Collier’s Encyclopedia 1987, v 9, p 121: ”The new individual is established at the time of fertilization, and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.”
  19. ↑ Keith L. Moore (a professor emeritus in the division of anatomy (department of surgery), former Chair of anatomy from 1974 to 1984 and associate dean for Basic Medical Sciences): ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.)
  20. ↑ William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)
  21. ↑ When do human beings (normally) begin? "scientific" myths and scientific facts, Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
  22. ↑ Scott Gilbert, Devlopmental biology: "Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. /... / The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes—the sperm and the egg. This fusion, called fertilization, stimulates the egg to begin development."
  23. ↑ Psychology and Life (the standard college text book), Dr. Floyd L. Ruch: “At the time of conception, two living germ cells—the sperm from the father and the egg, or ovum, from the mother—unite to produce a new individual.”
  24. ↑ Dr. Herbert Ratner “It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg.” (Quoted in Wikipedia)
  25. ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 611: “Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle.”
  26. ↑ Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), a new life begins.” Collier’s Encyclopedia 1987, v 9, p 121: ”The new individual is established at the time of fertilization, and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.”
  27. ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica: Life-cycle reproduction
  28. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy
  29. ↑ Miscarriage - NHS Direct [2]
  30. ↑ Premature babies - BBC News/Health [3]
  31. ↑ http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf13.html
  32. ↑ http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf14.html
  33. ↑ http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1785176
  34. ↑ http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/risks-and-side-effects.htm
  35. ↑ http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/risks-and-side-effects.htm
  36. ↑ http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM
  37. ↑ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html
  38. ↑ Matthew 5:21-22
  39. ↑ Exodus 21:12
  40. ↑ [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%201:5&version=NIV Jeremiah 1:15
  41. ↑ Exodus 21:22
  42. ↑ Numbers 35:31
  43. ↑ Numbers 5:11-31
  44. ↑ [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hosea%209:11-16&version=NIV Hosea 9:11-16
  45. ↑ Flying Spaghetti Monster - abortion

Appendix: List of peer-reviewed studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer

Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.


Appendix: List of studies showing no link between abortion and breast cancer

  1. NEJM 1997, 336, 81-5
  2. British Medical Journal 1989, 299, 1430-2
  3. Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 93-108
  4. Lancet 2004, 363, 1007-16
  5. American Journal of Epidemiology 1988, 127, 981-9
  6. British Journal of Cancer 1982, 45, 327-31
  7. American Journal of Epidemiology 1987, 126, 831-41
  8. International Journal of Cancer 1991, 48, 816-20
  9. European Journal of Cancer 1999, 35, 1361-7
  10. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2005, 59, 283-7
  11. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2003, 12, 209-14
  12. American Journal of Epidemiology 1983, 117, 35-45
  13. Epidemiology 2000, 11, 76-80
  14. International Journal of Cancer 2001, 92, 899-905
  15. Cancer Causes & Control 1997, 8, 841-9
  16. International Journal of Cancer 1996, 65, 401-5
  17. British Journal of Cancer 1990, 62, 122-6
  18. International Journal of Cancer 1993, 215-9
  19. Cancer Causes & Control 1995, 6, 75-82
  20. American Journal of Public Health 1999, 89, 1244-7
  21. British Journal of Cancer 1999, 79, 1923-8
  22. Epidemiology 2000, 11, 177-80
  23. Cancer Causes & Control 2000, 11, 777-81
  24. International Journal of Cancer 1998, 76, 182-8
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=484446"