Philosophy Now Forum

Since we are having a thread or two about abortion, so I thought I would add an extra one.

I was talking to a Pakistani colleague some time ago, and he was puzzled as to why abortion is even an issue in Canada.

So, he said, an unmarried teenage girl gets pregnant. Its not like people will throw rocks at her and spit at her parents, they way they do in his country. Besides, almost any family in Canada could afford to feed an extra baby, so why is this seen as such a big problem anyway, in a society where everyone is fabulously wealthy (by Pakistani standards). He has heard of parents actually kicking out their daughters who got pregnant, and was totally horrified and baffled by that.

He was also baffled by the fact that people who are most against abortion are also most against any sort of social assistance for single mothers.

His question was, "What the fuck!?"

I had no answer for him, beyond telling him that just as Pakistani society is fucked up in its own way, our society is just as fucked up, only in a different way.

Hi Gustaf

I have made a Google search: http://www.google.no/search?q=reasons+for+abortion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

I also have chosen to add the link: http://family.jrank.org/pages/2/Abortion-Reasons-Abortions.html.

I'd say that extremely few abortions are truly necessary, but I'm in favour of those carried out still the same. People should be given the best possible environment when they come to life.

Cheers!

The reason why Gustaf at least IMO, is that obortion is a identity issue both ontologiocally and culturally.

People construct their social identity mostly from the social group they most identify with and will rationalise and support whatever that group says. This has been historically true and nothing has changed.

For many religious conservatives esp in the US that means they are automatically against abortion and 'progressive' sexuality. I'd also throw in the work of Jonathan Haidt "Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe" on purty and authority.

But this goes for Liberals and to a certain degree many Western persons who likes to think of themselves as a modern civilised being. For them to be modern is to give and support female rights and equality, sexual rights etc . Now since byandlarge the people who oppose this are religious plus oppose gay rights, preogressive sexuality etc it is easy not to be too critical of anything your side has to say, especially when it appears so obvious that they hold incorrect views. Also, since the majority of the Liberal academic philosophers think us ontologically Persons and not organisms, which BTW that only persons has the highest moral worth; all these things seem to make their stance obvious.

Neither side on the street corner level tend to question their sides position and so, for many US conservatives they run with abortion automartically because of their religious views and against resourcing single mothers because political ideology; that's what their social identity group does.

Throw in social and cogntive biases and there you have it. On many subjects people don't reason, they rationalise whatever their social group says and damn the inconsistencies.

Why else can a US conservative oppose abortion yet refuse to fund single mothers, poor families or even universal health care saying they cannot afford it, yet spend billions on weapons systems and bank bailouts?

Abortion is not wholly safe.

Multiple abortions do have an effect on the health of a woman.

People do support abortion as a form of birth control; it is called the 'morning after pill'.

What you describe is true of the US Southern Baptists and their ilk - who unfortunately represent Christianity for many people.

What you describe does not hold true for the position of the Catholic Church.

Psycho ... I don't think the morning after pill can really be classified as a form of abortion. What is there to abort? Granted, there may have been fusion between two cells but there is nothing which even resembles human life at that point. We may as well call masturbation a kind of pre-emptive abortion, given that it cannot result in conception.

No-one here has yet considered abortion in cases of rape. When we use the term 'pro-life' we tend to mean that the life of the child is paramount. What of the life of the mother? We talk of life as opposed to death, but what about quality of life? Conception via rape is not chosen, but rather forced upon someone. Even once the child has been born the memory of the incident remains (and the child may learn that it is the product of such an encounter). When we talk about the importance of life over death, we overlook the kind of life someone has in favour of 'bare life' - a basic existence.

Abortion is not 'necessary' in cases such as these. However, I find it difficult to understand how we can denigrate a woman who decides, after becoming pregnant through rape, to abort.

Abortion, then, is necessarily when something that you recognise as human life is aborted?

So in the foetal stages wherein it resembles creatures from our evolutionary history it is not human, but once it looks sufficiently cute it becomes abortion?

Where are you drawing your line in the sand, and to what end?

Psychonaut: So in the foetal stages wherein it resembles creatures from our evolutionary history it is not human, but once it looks sufficiently cute it becomes abortion?

NS: I've yet to see a "cute" baby. (myself excepted, of course)
The fetal stage begins with the 9th week, and it resembles an ugly human from the 10th week until puberty for some, and til death for most. If we had to wait for cuteness to occur, there'd never be any abortions.
All those pre-human critter shapes occur during the embryonic stage

ala1993: I don't think the morning after pill can really be classified as a form of abortion. What is there to abort? Granted, there may have been fusion between two cells but there is nothing which even resembles human life at that point.

NS: I'd have to agree with Psychonaut, since the morning after pill is "a procedure to terminate a pregnancy" (Webster). Form a zygote (one celled human genotype) inside a woman, and you've got yourself a pregnancy. We all know humans can vary widely in their cell count, so I don't see any sound reason to call anyone with more cells than another person, 'more human.' Nor should one's form be more determinate of one's humanity than their genotype.

[b]Non Sum[b], whats with all the Webster? Did you get some form of radical brain surgery?

NS: Are you saying that I have a, "radical brain"? Besides, any surgury performed on my brain would have to be called, 'micro-surgery.' Which brings us (kicking and screaming) back to my lexicological Jones, and its cerebral (in my case) necessity.

Meanings are private and subjective obects simmering in our brains, but communication requires that they conform to objective rules, as Wittgenstein rightly insists. We require a constantcy in measure, or my idea of a meter, and your idea of meter, won't meet. Philosophic discussion, in particular, requires that we, not only be on the same page, or line, but agree on each word. The yardstick for words is predominantly a dictionary. And it is my belief that we cannot have too much lexical precision in achieving clarity, and for resolving imagined controversy.

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." (Lewis Carroll)

A dictionary is a good starting point for discussion about what each party means by a word, but it is no ending point.

If we were to follow dictionary definitions then we may as well throw away much of philosophical work, which has been the attempt to strike deeper than this.

Communication does not require that words conform to objective rules, not by any stretch, such is the death of communication. Communication requires clarification and understanding of the seperate subjective meanings. We may use the same word, but if we can understand that we use the word differently then we can begin a discussion regarding each of our concepts, rather than becoming confounded by the conflation of the two due to their sharing of a signifier.

This is what I endeavor to do when discussing things with other people, such that while I may mean one thing by 'cheese' and another person means another thing by 'cheese' we can then, for example, refer to 'cheese1' and 'cheeseA', and so be clear about how we may both be correct in what we say about cheese, even though the two things said may superficially appear mutually exclusive.

There is often hostility to this. The only reason I can see for this is that the hostile person wishes to prove themself right and everyone else wrong, which I can only assume means they are an ass.

To address my point about the morning after pill; firstly, the strangest claim: a foetus does not have to be sufficiently 'cute' - however, to argue that the state of development the day after conception (or in the first few weeks of pregnancy) is somehow equatable to the foetal stage is like claiming that the first sprout that will eventually become a tree is, in fact, already a tree.

However, this is the core of the abortion debate - at what point do these cells become 'human'? I would argue that if there is such a point it is not to be found in the first week. Following from this, whatever is being terminated is not a person - the term 'abortion' generally refers to the termination of a person, therefore any action which leads to the termination of the cellular development during the first few days of pregnancy (which itself cannot usually be reliably established during this time) is not 'abortion'.

On an aside, I'd like to agree with Psycho regarding his comments on dictionary definitions. A dictionary tells us how a word is used in common speech (and sometimes also in more esoteric contexts); however, it does not give us an exhaustive account of the possible uses of the word - this is one of the things philosophical enquiry can do.

Given this, perhaps it is hasty of me to base an argument on what is a common, rather than exhaustive, understanding of the meaning of 'abortion' (termination of unborn human life) in this context. However, the 'abortion debate' - at least on the anti-abortion side - tends to hinge on the claim that the unborn entity is a person, a human. Perhaps we could use 'abortion' to mean any intended termination of any stage of unborn life; if we do this, we risk equating something which does not even resemble human life with the life we deem to be worthy of protection. If we do this, we are not only extending the use of the term 'abortion' but also 'life' - we must then ask why the life of the mother is considered secondary to that of the child, why mere existence is taken to be of greater importance than quality of life.

Lastly, I think the title of the original post should perhaps read 'when might abortion be justifiable?' The term 'necessary' has mechanical connotations and leads us to think of abortion as a means to some greater end.

Psy: A dictionary is a good starting point for discussion about what each party means by a word, but it is no ending point.

NS: It is often an excellent starting point, and can also serve as a fine ending point in many of the debates where nothing divides the sides except for the (mis or differing) taking of a term. It is never my intention to have Webster carry the whole load of a complex argument.

Psy: Communication does not require that words conform to objective rules, not by any stretch, such is the death of communication. Communication requires clarification and understanding of the seperate subjective meanings.

NS: There can be no "clarification nor understanding" so long as each participant resorts to private meanings. Not anymore than we can play chess with each of us holding strictly to our own version of the game's rules.

ALA: A dictionary tells us how a word is used in common speech (and sometimes also in more esoteric contexts); however, it does not give us an exhaustive account of the possible uses of the word

NS: Actually, a good, up to date, dictionary can be quite exhaustive, especially when used in conjunction with a Fowler's Usage, and the appropriate encyclopedia. An individual's private useages can do nothing to advance communication, and a great deal to subvert it. A good debate, like a duel, should begin with an agreement on terms. But, no one attends a duel, after agreeing to its terms, thinking that the hard part is over.

ALA: to argue that the state of development the day after conception (or in the first few weeks of pregnancy) is somehow equatable to the foetal stage is like claiming that the first sprout that will eventually become a tree is, in fact, already a tree.

NS: I've granted that a zygote is not a foetus, nor is it an embryo (see a dictionary). They are indeed, different stages in 'human' development. Note, that these stages are not canine stages, but 'human' stages. This is because we differentiate dog from human ultimately, and scientifically, via its genetic endowment. A tree at its sprout stage is no less a 'tree' than if it has accummulated billions of additional cells.

Are you taking the position that cell count is the final determinate concerning one's humanity? Are fat people more human than are the skinny? Is there a specific number of cells requisite to achieve humanity, and if one is short a single cell, they are sub-human and to be equated with a tree sprout?

I am completely unfamiliar with this apparently 'general' way of referring, I thought that general usage was the aborting of the course of a pregnancy, which begins at conception.

There are plenty of people (myself included) that think a fertilised egg constitutes a 'human', though certainly not a 'person', as personhood is something which can be possessed by non-humans, and involves some capacity for self-identification, which does not occur until some time after birth.



I find this reasoning muddied. The word 'tree' specifically refers to a stage in the life-cycle of certain species. I would not call a redwood seed a tree, but I would certainly say that it is an example of the redwood species. If there were some imperative not to destroy any members of the redwood species, then this imperative would lead me to not destroy redwood seeds.

I agree that those who are against abortion generally try to identify the fertilised egg as human as an attempt to extend to them the protection of an imperative against destroying human life, and that perhaps the difference in our usages of the word 'abortion' and 'human' may be acting to obfuscate any common understandings we may have that underly the terminology, and which can act as a basis for debate on this topic.

When it comes right down to it though, I do not think it is a 'womans right to choose'. A child is not the sole produce of the mother. If a man decides he doesn't want to have a baby then the mother can go ahead and have the child, and he pays alimony. If a woman decides she doesn't want to have a baby then the man can do nothing but stand by and watch as his chances of having a child are destroyed.

I do not think that when either just the father or just the mother wants the child to come to term that it should be aborted. The child should come to term and be given to the parent who wants it, the other parent having no legal obligation to assist in its rearing.

In the case of neither parent wanting the child then there are stages at which abortion may be justified, but given that there is a huge waiting list for adoption I do not see abortion as necessary or desirable in these circumstances.

I do not think we can ever really identify some metaphysical cut off point at which the development is sufficient to prohibit abortion, and before which abortion is valid.

Perhaps the answer is that there is no proper answer and all we can do is muddle along as idiots.

Hi NS



I'm afraid this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree. A dictionary can never make for an ending point to a discussion, not a constructive one anyway. The only such ending point is the pomposity of an ass declaring himself the victor because he has a dictionary which says the same, or something similar, to what he says. I'm sure he may feel secure in such a 'victory' but he has achieved nothing other than the deepening of his own ignorance.



I told you precisely how it can be done earlier. Perhaps you weren't listening?

EXAMPLE:
A recipe called 'Mr.Pilkington's Cheese Based Savoury Snack Foods' calls for the use of cheese.
Bob says that he quite likes using feta in the recipe.
Mary says that feta isn't cheese, as it doesn't come from a cow, and so the end product does not qualify as 'Mr.Pilkington's Cheese Based Savoury Snack Foods'.
After discussion it transpires that mary prefers to use the term 'cheese' to refer only to coagulated cow's milk, while Bob prefers to use the term to refer to any coagulated milk.
They agree, for the purposes of their current discussion and in order to avoid a semantic loggerheads, to refer to Mary's notion as 'Cheese1' and Bob's notion as 'CheeseA'.
They both agree that feta makes for a good end product, but Mary insists that it is a variation on 'Mr.Pilkington's Cheese Based Savoury Snack Foods', and not 'Mr.Pilkington's Cheese Based Savoury Snack Foods' itself.
Eventually they contact Mr.Pilkington who clarifies that in the recipe he had intended to mean only coagulated cow's milk, though he prefers to use the term 'Cheese' to mean 'CheeseA', the ambiguity was simply an oversight. He thinks that Bob's variation on his recipe is good, but not the genuine article as he had intended it, which involves only the use of 'Cheese1', or as he prefers to call it 'Cow's Cheese'. The three carry on a discussion of cuisine that carries on over an extensive period of time by correspondance. They are soon able to drop the reference to 'CheeseA' and 'Cheese1' because they are capable of seeing beyond the way they personally use the terms, and capable of understanding that it is not just the term which defines the meaning, but also its source, so Mary has no problem in understanding that when either Bob or Mr.Pilkington refer to cheese they mean any coagulated milk while Bob and Mr.Pilkington understand that when Mary says cheese she does not mean anything other than coagulated cow's milk.

Your analogy to chess, is flimsy, at best.

A signpost pointing east does not point to the same place as another signpost that points east, if it is 20 miles north.



Apparently you think the terms have already been decided for us, by the good people at Webster's. Your analogy to a duel would be confirmation of my position, not yours.

French has a central authority defining the proper usage of the language; English does not. Anyone who adopts such an authoritative pose is a charlatan; a veritable Emperor Norton.