Should abortions be allowed?

[AgnosticBoy]

With the Supreme Court taking aim at abortion rights, I think we should also be revisting the practice itself.

Should abortion be allowed? Why or why not?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Should abortion be allowed? Why or why not?

In general, I can say that I would want science informing me on this issue. I know politically, the issue is framed as being it's the woman's body so it should be her choice. But if she's carrying a sentient human, then that's where I draw the line. It is no longer just the woman's body, but there's also another life inside of her.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's some interesting take on abortion which factors in consciousness. Article from two PhD philosophers, Dr. Nathan Nobis and Dr. Kristina Grob.

The most important information about the development of fetuses is when they become conscious or aware, or when they become able to feel anything. Scientific evidence suggests consciousness likely emerges, at the earliest, after the first trimester, at least three or four months into pregnancy. (To review this research, search the US National Library of Medicine at PubMed.gov for fetal pain and fetal consciousness.4) Consciousness develops after most abortions occur, so most abortions do not affect conscious, feeling fetuses.

Concerns about consciousness and feeling in fetuses are most important for them because they are fundamentally what’s most important for us. Consciousness enables us to have and experience anything good in life, and it is necessary for anything bad to happen to us also: without a point of view, things can’t get worse for us.

If people “end” when their consciousness permanently ends, then it seems that people don’t yet exist before there is a consciousness. Rocks aren’t conscious, plants aren’t conscious, and that’s why they lack rights. Minds matter, and so the fact that embryos and early fetuses completely lack minds—due initially to the absence of a brain and nervous system, and later due to these not being sufficiently developed to support consciousness—is what’s morally significant, not whether fetuses have heartbeats, or can move, or even respond to stimuli, if those responses aren’t genuinely felt by the fetus.

 

[Bill]

I think it is propaganda to use the term "unborn child" during the first trimester. It evokes strong emotion without any need to provide supporting evidence. We could, conceivably, use the identical term for all human ova: and look what a tangle of legalities that would cause.

As an agnostic, I need a stronger case to be made against abortion other than the theist's opinion "I believe that my scripture forbids it".

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think it is propaganda to use the term "unborn child" during the first trimester. It evokes strong emotion without any need to provide supporting evidence. We could, conceivably, use the identical term for all human ova: and look what a tangle of legalities that would cause.

As an agnostic, I need a stronger case to be made against abortion other than the theist's opinion "I believe that my scripture forbids it".

Agreed. I like to catalogue the propaganda of the Left and that of conservatives!

I think the Christian theist would make more inroads if they focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies to begin with. For instance, making good choices in sex partners, using contraceptives, etc.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Didn't think about this good point either regarding pro-lifers:

People who oppose abortion often call themselves pro-life. However, the only life many of them are concerned with is the life of the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus. They are much less concerned about the life of women who have unintended pregnancies or the welfare of children after they’re born. In fact, many people who call themselves “pro-life” support capital punishment (AKA the death penalty) and oppose child welfare legislation.

- Planned Parenthood

 

[2Dbunk]

As an Atheist, I lump human life in with all the rest of life on this planet -- and it is precious. And that's the way the courts and legislators in a secular country should view it -- their decisions and attitudes should be divorced from mish-mashed ecclesiastic concerns.

We are not an endangered species! Women should have the right to choose! And the religiously afflicted long-noses should keep their proboscises out of other people's business. Legislatures, and now the courts, are subjugating us to their own views of morality. In a free Democracy, morality is a relative thing -- not law, as these lying conservative Supreme Court Justices should know!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

To add to some nuanced issues to my post on consciousness and abortion...

On another site, one member posted that consciousness does not arise until after birth...

My response:
This actually all depends on how you define consciousness. Unfortunately, some utilize different standards or definitions of consciousness to support different viewpoints. Also, different researchers reach different conclusions, and perhaps their views are influenced by ideology (pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion). We can say that a newborn is fully conscious some time after birth. That part is not disputed. But does the fact that the fetus can react to sensory stimuli and show facial expressions count as some level of consciousness? It’s certainly more activity than a rock.

Let’s look at fetal pain for instance,

In 1979, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defined pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.” The IASP further noted that “Pain is always subjective” (IASP, 1979, 250).

The two-part IASP definition requires both a sensory and an emotional experience of pain. While the sensory component is not in question, the requirement for pain to have a self-reflective emotional component has been disputed, as it excludes the possibility of pain not only in the fetus, but also in the infant, the toddler, and the cognitively impaired (ACP 2021; Bellieni 2019; Raja et al. 2020).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00243639211059245

Another source says this:

Evidence Synthesis Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing.

And ends with saying this..

Over the last several years, many states, including California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Virginia, have considered legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions that the fetus feels pain and to offer fetal anesthesia. This year, Arkansas and Georgia enacted such statutes.1,2 Currently, Congress is considering legislation requiring physicians to inform women seeking abortions 20 or more weeks after fertilization (ie, 22 weeks’ gestational age) that the fetus has “physical structures necessary to experience pain,” as evidenced by “draw[ing] away from surgical instruments.” The physician must also offer anesthesia or analgesia “administered directly” to the fetus. Physicians who do not comply may be subject to substantial fines, license revocation, and civil suits for punitive damages.3

Source: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

That’s scary because it seems that we’re not sure about the existence of fetal pain. I would not make a decision that could involve pain unless I was certain that there would be no pain. So my conclusion is the same, no abortion after the first trimester.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

As an Atheist, I lump human life in with all the rest of life on this planet -- and it is precious. And that's the way the courts and legislators in a secular country should view it -- their decisions and attitudes should be divorced from mish-mashed ecclesiastic concerns.

We are not an endangered species! Women should have the right to choose! And the religiously afflicted long-noses should keep their proboscises out of other people's business. Legislatures, and now the courts, are subjugating us to their own views of morality. In a free Democracy, morality is a relative thing -- not law, as these lying conservative Supreme Court Justices should know!

I agree with your sentiment but I draw a different conclusion when it comes to the religious. I also don't want the religious trying to control people's lives based on their Scripture, but at the same time, I don't mind that they at least offer their opinion. If the secular can offer their opinion on morality, then so should the religious. What I don't want is the religious thinking they have a special moral status or power.

 

[2Dbunk]

AB wrote in post #2:
In general, I can say that I would want science informing me on this issue. I know politically, the issue is framed as being it's the woman's body so it should be her choice. But if she's carrying a sentient human, then that's where I draw the line. It is no longer just the woman's body, but there's also another life inside of her.

My reply:
Your sources seem to indicate that consciousness occurs after the first trimester But what about abnormal fetal development like autism, abnormal limb development, etc.? These may occur in the second trimester. Unless one is the child's mother, her spouse or very close relative, the decision is between them and their assigned Maker. It should not be incumbent upon you, me, the legislators or the courts to make that decision for the woman!

As an Atheist, I lump human life in with all the rest of life on this planet -- and it is precious. And that's the way the courts and legislators in a secular country should view it -- their decisions and attitudes should be divorced from mish-mashed ecclesiastic concerns.

We are not an endangered species! Women should have the right to choose! And the religiously afflicted long-noses should keep their proboscises out of other people's business. Legislatures, and now the courts, are subjugating us to their own views of morality. In a free Democracy, morality is a relative thing -- not law, as these lying conservative Supreme Court Justices should know!

I agree with your sentiment but I draw a different conclusion when it comes to the religious. I also don't want the religious trying to control people's lives based on their Scripture, but at the same time, I don't mind that they at least offer their opinion. If the secular can offer their opinion on morality, then so should the religious. What I don't want is the religious thinking they have a special moral status or power.

But they DO think they have a special moral status or power. If you ask most any one of them, they will tell you that their God and religion comes before the nation's laws. As an American secularist, you should consider not giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore!