CDZ Variation on "Thompson's Violinist" analogy with POLL

[320 Years of History]

Bumping this thread because I am still interested in reading any allegories or analogies that anyone else can come up with to illustrate these same points.

Frankly, I think Ms. Thompson's "violinist's" allegory works just fine.

From what I can tell, it seems you place the same value on the life of a fetus as you do on the life of a a born person. Now you may not like it, but the fact is that in an environment where individuals must make choices, the life of a fetus, or even a born infant, just isn't as valuable as that of a matured adult. As much has been empirically shown by Olof Johansson-Stenman & Peter Martinsson in "Are Some Lives More Valuable?" wherein they found that "the relative value of a saved life decreases with age in a pattern that is consistent with a discounted utilitarian model, with a pure rate of time preference of a few percent."

Look at the results they obtained and reported in Table 4. Looking at it, one sees the value of a life of a ten year old is less than that of a 30 year old, but more than that of a 50 or 70 year old. In other words, the value of a human, is lowest at the start and end of a human's existence.

Now I realize a lot of folks don't care to deal with the brutally empirical nature of studies such as Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson's, but the reality is that we must, and in fact we do apply the findings in a very practical way. It may not occur to many folks but findings such as those noted in the paper are exactly what actuaries use to determine life insurance premiums. Indeed, the lack of/indeterminate value of a fetus is partly why one cannot get life insurance for a fetus.

In the violinist allegory, the person is tied to the "Violinst " by a 3rd party and without any action of risk taking of their own.

Because of that, the Violinst allegory is much more comparable to a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from the risks taken in having consensual sex.

Isn't it?


Where is the component in the Violinst allegory that represents the assumption of a risk for pregnancy in a consensual act of intercourse?

The issue as goes the matter of personhood as argued from the pro-life standpoint is that I don't see that cabal standing up for the personhood right to life of all the people who actually have been born and who will die without a life contribution -- a kidney, blood, etc. -- from another living person. There are surely enough pro-life people in the world to keep all these people alive through donations every time one is needed. Why aren’t pro-lifers donating at heroic rates?

My observation is that is because pro-lifers don't actually care about life. They just care about fetuses. As best as I can tell, pro-lifers' care about a fetus' mere existence to the utter exclusion of all non-fetus' existence, sufficiency and happiness.

Once the fetus is born, pro-lifers -- not just you, every one of them with whom I've ever discussed this topic -- seem not to have given so much as a moment's thought about what happens to the child, parents, or society after the fetus "pops out" of the womb or because it did "pop out" and the parents had no alternative but to allow that to happen or what might have happened were it to have never "popped out" of the womb. I am observing the same in your refusal via multiple tacks to answer. You'll recall the questions and the reasons I seek answers to them from you are found here: CDZ - Abortion .

 

[Chuz Life]

Bumping this thread because I am still interested in reading any allegories or analogies that anyone else can come up with to illustrate these same points.

Frankly, I think Ms. Thompson's "violinist's" allegory works just fine.

From what I can tell, it seems you place the same value on the life of a fetus as you do on the life of a a born person. Now you may not like it, but the fact is that in an environment where individuals must make choices, the life of a fetus, or even a born infant, just isn't as valuable as that of a matured adult. As much has been empirically shown by Olof Johansson-Stenman & Peter Martinsson in "Are Some Lives More Valuable?" wherein they found that "the relative value of a saved life decreases with age in a pattern that is consistent with a discounted utilitarian model, with a pure rate of time preference of a few percent."

Look at the results they obtained and reported in Table 4. Looking at it, one sees the value of a life of a ten year old is less than that of a 30 year old, but more than that of a 50 or 70 year old. In other words, the value of a human, is lowest at the start and end of a human's existence.

Now I realize a lot of folks don't care to deal with the brutally empirical nature of studies such as Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson's, but the reality is that we must, and in fact we do apply the findings in a very practical way. It may not occur to many folks but findings such as those noted in the paper are exactly what actuaries use to determine life insurance premiums. Indeed, the lack of/indeterminate value of a fetus is partly why one cannot get life insurance for a fetus.

In the violinist allegory, the person is tied to the "Violinst " by a 3rd party and without any action of risk taking of their own.

Because of that, the Violinst allegory is much more comparable to a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from the risks taken in having consensual sex.

Isn't it?


Where is the component in the Violinst allegory that represents the assumption of a risk for pregnancy in a consensual act of intercourse?

The issue as goes the matter of personhood as argued from the pro-life standpoint is that I don't see that cabal standing up for the personhood right to life of all the people who actually have been born and who will die without a life contribution -- a kidney, blood, etc. -- from another living person. There are surely enough pro-life people in the world to keep all these people alive through donations every time one is needed. Why aren’t pro-lifers donating at heroic rates?

My observation is that is because pro-lifers don't actually care about life. They just care about fetuses. As best as I can tell, pro-lifers' care about a fetus' mere existence to the utter exclusion of all non-fetus' existence, sufficiency and happiness.

Once the fetus is born, pro-lifers -- not just you, every one of them with whom I've ever discussed this topic -- seem not to have given so much as a moment's thought about what happens to the child, parents, or society after the fetus "pops out" of the womb or because it did "pop out" and the parents had no alternative but to allow that to happen or what might have happened were it to have never "popped out" of the womb. I am observing the same in your refusal via multiple tacks to answer. You'll recall the questions and the reasons I seek answers to them from you are found here: CDZ - Abortion .

That's a very interesting rant. However, you have completely evaded my questions about the Violinist Allegory.

You said that you feel that it "works just fine" as a comparison to a pregnancy. . . but You have not explained why you feel it "works" any better than my own.

Like I said, in the 'violinist' allegory, the person is connected to the violinist by a 3rd party against their will.

Do you disagree that -THAT is more like a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from consensual sex?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Variation on "Thompson's Violinist" analogy with POLL'

It’s a variation of a confirmation bias fallacy, and the thread premise fails as a consequence.

 

[Chuz Life]

'Variation on "Thompson's Violinist" analogy with POLL'

It’s a variation of a confirmation bias fallacy, and the thread premise fails as a consequence.

Your unsupported allegation (poisoning the well) has been noted.

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you disagree that -THAT is more like a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from consensual sex?

In the context of the pro-life argument I do not find the nature and scope of the circumstances similar enough to rape that I can accept the dismissal of Ms. thomson's allegory on the supposed verisimilitude in deeds of her protagonist and that of a rapist.

I do not because in part most pro-lifers also don't either. Were it so that they did, they would not carve out the "in the case of rape" exception, and yet they generally do. How can one be supposedly pro-life yet say the value of life and the status of personhood hangs on whether that life was created by rape or willful coitus? That doesn't make any sense at all. If the point is that the life itself is the thing and that which has value and merit, it doesn't lose merit by the means of its creation.

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you disagree that -THAT is more like a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from consensual sex?

In the context of the pro-life argument I do not find the nature and scope of the circumstances similar enough to rape that I can accept the dismissal of Ms. thomson's allegory on the supposed verisimilitude in deeds of her protagonist and that of a rapist.

I do not because in part most pro-lifers also don't either. Were it so that they did, they would not carve out the "in the case of rape" exception, and yet they generally do. How can one be supposedly pro-life yet say the value of life and the status of personhood hangs on whether that life was created by rape or willful coitus? That doesn't make any sense at all. If the point is that the life itself is the thing and that which has value and merit, it doesn't lose merit by the means of its creation.

Wait. . . let me be clear on this.

You are saying that someone taking your body and connecting it to another person's body (the violinist) to keep them alive AGAINST YOUR WILL would NOT be tantamount to or analogous to RAPE?

Is that correct?

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you disagree that -THAT is more like a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from consensual sex?

In the context of the pro-life argument I do not find the nature and scope of the circumstances similar enough to rape that I can accept the dismissal of Ms. thomson's allegory on the supposed verisimilitude in deeds of her protagonist and that of a rapist.

I do not because in part most pro-lifers also don't either. Were it so that they did, they would not carve out the "in the case of rape" exception, and yet they generally do. How can one be supposedly pro-life yet say the value of life and the status of personhood hangs on whether that life was created by rape or willful coitus? That doesn't make any sense at all. If the point is that the life itself is the thing and that which has value and merit, it doesn't lose merit by the means of its creation.

Wait. . . let me be clear on this.

You are saying that someone taking your body and connecting it to another person's body (the violinist) to keep them alive AGAINST YOUR WILL would NOT be tantamount to or analogous to RAPE?

Is that correct?

In the context of the pro-life argument, that is correct. In general absent the pro-life argument, no it is not.

Why the difference? Context of course.

Quite simply, unlike pro-lifers, I'm not a moral absolutist.

"Is everyone who lives in Ignorance like you?" asked Milo. "Much worse," he said longingly. "But I don't live here. I'm from a place very far away called Context."
― Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you disagree that -THAT is more like a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from consensual sex?

In the context of the pro-life argument I do not find the nature and scope of the circumstances similar enough to rape that I can accept the dismissal of Ms. thomson's allegory on the supposed verisimilitude in deeds of her protagonist and that of a rapist.

I do not because in part most pro-lifers also don't either. Were it so that they did, they would not carve out the "in the case of rape" exception, and yet they generally do. How can one be supposedly pro-life yet say the value of life and the status of personhood hangs on whether that life was created by rape or willful coitus? That doesn't make any sense at all. If the point is that the life itself is the thing and that which has value and merit, it doesn't lose merit by the means of its creation.

Wait. . . let me be clear on this.

You are saying that someone taking your body and connecting it to another person's body (the violinist) to keep them alive AGAINST YOUR WILL would NOT be tantamount to or analogous to RAPE?

Is that correct?

In the context of the pro-life argument, that is correct. In general absent the pro-life argument, no it is not.

Why the difference? Context of course.

Quite simply, unlike pro-lifers, I'm not a moral absolutist.

"Is everyone who lives in Ignorance like you?" asked Milo. "Much worse," he said longingly. "But I don't live here. I'm from a place very far away called Context."
― Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

You are fast losing the clarity that you usually have in your posts and answers.

Why are your being so evasive today?

Just a few posts ago, you said;
"...Well, as I stated elsewhere in the forum, I believe that responding to inquiries with thoughtful answers is a way to show respect for both the questioner(s) and other audience members, especially when the topic is one that matters greatly to anyone in those two groups."

I would much rather be talking to that guy.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why are your being so evasive today?

Evasive? I've not evaded your questions. Moreover, I'm not the one who won't directly answer the questions posed to me and responded to them, not with a direct answer, but instead by saying, six ways to the sun, that my answers/thoughts don't matter and rhetorically asking what is to come of it were I to answer.

I gave the most thoughtful answer I have to give to the question you asked, one that requires a "yes" or "no" answer. I provided the conditions under which my answer is "yes" and the ones for which it is "no." How much more clarity can there be?

“For you often learn more by being wrong for the right reasons than you do by being right for the wrong reasons.”
― Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

 

[Chuz Life]

Why are your being so evasive today?

Evasive? I've not evaded your questions. Moreover, I'm not the one who won't directly answer the questions posed to me and responded to them, not with a direct answer, but instead by saying, six ways to the sun, that my answers/thoughts don't matter and rhetorically asking what is to come of it were I to answer.

I gave the most thoughtful answer I have to give to the question you asked, one that requires a "yes" or "no" answer. I provided the conditions under which my answer is "yes" and the ones for which it is "no." How much more clarity can there be?

“For you often learn more by being wrong for the right reasons than you do by being right for the wrong reasons.”
― Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

Do your really not see the difference between asking me to give a detailed speculation of what I think the punishments polices should be following the criminalization of abortion. . . and me asking you to clarify YOUR OWN ALREADY MADE CLAIM that you don't see the forced connection by a 3rd party of one person to another as being analagous to RAPE?

You evaded and you hedged and you know it as well as I do.

Furthermore, I did give you the basis for my answers in the other thread and you know that I have.

I believe that any laws that are made following the criminalization of abortion should be CONSISTENT with all our other laws about the murder of a child.

What part of that is unclear to you?

 

[320 Years of History]

Do your really not see the difference between asking me to give a detailed speculation of what I think the punishments polices should be following the criminalization of abortion. . .

??? I didn't even have a presumption that the mitigating actions you'd note would be punitive in nature. The questions I asked don't even presuppose that they would be.

You evaded and you hedged and you know it as well as I do.

I did not evade answering. I don't have a better or more accurate representation of my thoughts in answer to your inquiry other than to say "sometimes," and I gave you the circumstances under which I will answer "yes" and under which I will answer "no."

If you were to ask me, "Is it okay to run a red light?" I'd also answer "sometimes."

 

[jwoodie]

The issue as goes the matter of personhood as argued from the pro-life standpoint is that I don't see that cabal standing up for the personhood right to life of all the people who actually have been born and who will die without a life contribution -- a kidney, blood, etc. -- from another living person. There are surely enough pro-life people in the world to keep all these people alive through donations every time one is needed. Why aren’t pro-lifers donating at heroic rates?

My observation is that is because pro-lifers don't actually care about life. They just care about fetuses. As best as I can tell, pro-lifers' care about a fetus' mere existence to the utter exclusion of all non-fetus' existence, sufficiency and happiness.

Once the fetus is born, pro-lifers -- not just you, every one of them with whom I've ever discussed this topic -- seem not to have given so much as a moment's thought about what happens to the child, parents, or society after the fetus "pops out" of the womb or because it did "pop out" and the parents had no alternative but to allow that to happen or what might have happened were it to have never "popped out" of the womb. I am observing the same in your refusal via multiple tacks to answer.

I am surprised that you would resort to such fallacious argumentation, starting with irrelevant character assassination of those with whom you disagree. In addition, your cavalier description of birth as simply "popping out" of the womb actually blurs the distinction between born and unborn, by which most "pro-choice" people defend late term abortions. Please enumerate your "unanswered" questions and I will be happy to respond to them.

 

[320 Years of History]

The issue as goes the matter of personhood as argued from the pro-life standpoint is that I don't see that cabal standing up for the personhood right to life of all the people who actually have been born and who will die without a life contribution -- a kidney, blood, etc. -- from another living person. There are surely enough pro-life people in the world to keep all these people alive through donations every time one is needed. Why aren’t pro-lifers donating at heroic rates?

My observation is that is because pro-lifers don't actually care about life. They just care about fetuses. As best as I can tell, pro-lifers' care about a fetus' mere existence to the utter exclusion of all non-fetus' existence, sufficiency and happiness.

Once the fetus is born, pro-lifers -- not just you, every one of them with whom I've ever discussed this topic -- seem not to have given so much as a moment's thought about what happens to the child, parents, or society after the fetus "pops out" of the womb or because it did "pop out" and the parents had no alternative but to allow that to happen or what might have happened were it to have never "popped out" of the womb. I am observing the same in your refusal via multiple tacks to answer.

I am surprised that you would resort to such fallacious argumentation, starting with irrelevant character assassination of those with whom you disagree. In addition, your cavalier description of birth as simply "popping out" of the womb actually blurs the distinction between born and unborn, by which most "pro-choice" people defend late term abortions. Please enumerate your "unanswered" questions and I will be happy to respond to them.

If, to gain the full context and history of the conversation that led to the questions, you want to get to the original post, click here. The questions I asked are found in the blue italicized text below.

What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

And finally we come to the part of the discussion that I find most important. I needed to do some reading before engaging on this because as someone who doesn't approve of making abortion illegal, I hadn't looked that deeply into the credibly presented consequences of unwanted pregnancy and birth, even as I know being unwanted has to "suck big time" for kids born to that status. That said, I also knew the spectrum of negative risks had to include mental health issues for both parents and children as well as financial issues for both. Lastly, I'm of the mind that upon entering this world, all that the child's parents could have or should have done really is a moot point. The child is "here" and that becomes what it, its parents and society must address.

One certainly cannot, but one can identify the possible outcomes -- indeed in crafting policy, one has a duty to anticipate the potentially fatal and other harmful ones and preempt them -- and plan for them, at least the most heinous among them, accordingly. Responsibly governing and managing interpersonal conflict leaves no room for "playing the ostrich" and/or isolating one's own aims as regards one party to the complete exclusion of the aims of another.

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?
  • FWIW, below are some of the reference materials that drive my questions:
    • Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
      
    • Born Unwanted: The developmental effects of denied abortion -- The link if for a summary of the study. I have looked and cannot find a free version of this book; however, it may be available for free (ebook download or pdf) here...I don't know. I do know the title is among those they have.
      
    • The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Teen Childbearing
      
    • Unwanted Pregnancy and Associated Factors Among Nigerian Women -- This papers is referenced not because I think Nigerian women are the point, but because I see the human condition as being constant regardless of where one lives. Obviously, I recognize the difference between the societal factors affecting Nigerians and those affecting Americans. Many individual motivators (emotional and physical) affecting women as mothers, however, are certainly not different.
      
    • Pregnancy Intentions and Happiness Among Pregnant Black Women at High Risk for Adverse Infant Health Outcomes
      
    • The Consequences of Unintended Childbearing
      
    • Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status
      
    • Abortion, unwanted childbearing, and mental health

 

[Chuz Life]

The issue as goes the matter of personhood as argued from the pro-life standpoint is that I don't see that cabal standing up for the personhood right to life of all the people who actually have been born and who will die without a life contribution -- a kidney, blood, etc. -- from another living person. There are surely enough pro-life people in the world to keep all these people alive through donations every time one is needed. Why aren’t pro-lifers donating at heroic rates?

My observation is that is because pro-lifers don't actually care about life. They just care about fetuses. As best as I can tell, pro-lifers' care about a fetus' mere existence to the utter exclusion of all non-fetus' existence, sufficiency and happiness.

Once the fetus is born, pro-lifers -- not just you, every one of them with whom I've ever discussed this topic -- seem not to have given so much as a moment's thought about what happens to the child, parents, or society after the fetus "pops out" of the womb or because it did "pop out" and the parents had no alternative but to allow that to happen or what might have happened were it to have never "popped out" of the womb. I am observing the same in your refusal via multiple tacks to answer.

I am surprised that you would resort to such fallacious argumentation, starting with irrelevant character assassination of those with whom you disagree. In addition, your cavalier description of birth as simply "popping out" of the womb actually blurs the distinction between born and unborn, by which most "pro-choice" people defend late term abortions. Please enumerate your "unanswered" questions and I will be happy to respond to them.

If, to gain the full context and history of the conversation that led to the questions, you want to get to the original post, click here. The questions I asked are found in the blue italicized text below.

What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

And finally we come to the part of the discussion that I find most important. I needed to do some reading before engaging on this because as someone who doesn't approve of making abortion illegal, I hadn't looked that deeply into the credibly presented consequences of unwanted pregnancy and birth, even as I know being unwanted has to "suck big time" for kids born to that status. That said, I also knew the spectrum of negative risks had to include mental health issues for both parents and children as well as financial issues for both. Lastly, I'm of the mind that upon entering this world, all that the child's parents could have or should have done really is a moot point. The child is "here" and that becomes what it, its parents and society must address.

One certainly cannot, but one can identify the possible outcomes -- indeed in crafting policy, one has a duty to anticipate the potentially fatal and other harmful ones and preempt them -- and plan for them, at least the most heinous among them, accordingly. Responsibly governing and managing interpersonal conflict leaves no room for "playing the ostrich" and/or isolating one's own aims as regards one party to the complete exclusion of the aims of another.

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?
  • FWIW, below are some of the reference materials that drive my questions:
    • Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
      
    • Born Unwanted: The developmental effects of denied abortion -- The link if for a summary of the study. I have looked and cannot find a free version of this book; however, it may be available for free (ebook download or pdf) here...I don't know. I do know the title is among those they have.
      
    • The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Teen Childbearing
      
    • Unwanted Pregnancy and Associated Factors Among Nigerian Women -- This papers is referenced not because I think Nigerian women are the point, but because I see the human condition as being constant regardless of where one lives. Obviously, I recognize the difference between the societal factors affecting Nigerians and those affecting Americans. Many individual motivators (emotional and physical) affecting women as mothers, however, are certainly not different.
      
    • Pregnancy Intentions and Happiness Among Pregnant Black Women at High Risk for Adverse Infant Health Outcomes
      
    • The Consequences of Unintended Childbearing
      
    • Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status
      
    • Abortion, unwanted childbearing, and mental health

Why are you still trying to derail my thread with this? Your questions do not have anything to do with the allegory, analogy, topic of this thread.

 

[jwoodie]

The issue as goes the matter of personhood as argued from the pro-life standpoint is that I don't see that cabal standing up for the personhood right to life of all the people who actually have been born and who will die without a life contribution -- a kidney, blood, etc. -- from another living person. There are surely enough pro-life people in the world to keep all these people alive through donations every time one is needed. Why aren’t pro-lifers donating at heroic rates?

My observation is that is because pro-lifers don't actually care about life. They just care about fetuses. As best as I can tell, pro-lifers' care about a fetus' mere existence to the utter exclusion of all non-fetus' existence, sufficiency and happiness.

Once the fetus is born, pro-lifers -- not just you, every one of them with whom I've ever discussed this topic -- seem not to have given so much as a moment's thought about what happens to the child, parents, or society after the fetus "pops out" of the womb or because it did "pop out" and the parents had no alternative but to allow that to happen or what might have happened were it to have never "popped out" of the womb. I am observing the same in your refusal via multiple tacks to answer.

I am surprised that you would resort to such fallacious argumentation, starting with irrelevant character assassination of those with whom you disagree. In addition, your cavalier description of birth as simply "popping out" of the womb actually blurs the distinction between born and unborn, by which most "pro-choice" people defend late term abortions. Please enumerate your "unanswered" questions and I will be happy to respond to them.

If, to gain the full context and history of the conversation that led to the questions, you want to get to the original post, click here. The questions I asked are found in the blue italicized text below.

What would banning abortion achieve? One of the most compelling arguments for legalization was that abortion was going to be available whether we legalized it or not. Would we revert to that condition, where back alley abortion clinics and the ever present coat hangers will start to fill the roles carried out currently by abortion clinics and doctors?

"No one can know the future for certain."

And finally we come to the part of the discussion that I find most important. I needed to do some reading before engaging on this because as someone who doesn't approve of making abortion illegal, I hadn't looked that deeply into the credibly presented consequences of unwanted pregnancy and birth, even as I know being unwanted has to "suck big time" for kids born to that status. That said, I also knew the spectrum of negative risks had to include mental health issues for both parents and children as well as financial issues for both. Lastly, I'm of the mind that upon entering this world, all that the child's parents could have or should have done really is a moot point. The child is "here" and that becomes what it, its parents and society must address.

One certainly cannot, but one can identify the possible outcomes -- indeed in crafting policy, one has a duty to anticipate the potentially fatal and other harmful ones and preempt them -- and plan for them, at least the most heinous among them, accordingly. Responsibly governing and managing interpersonal conflict leaves no room for "playing the ostrich" and/or isolating one's own aims as regards one party to the complete exclusion of the aims of another.

• What, however, is your proposed solution for or mitigation of the fact that if/when abortion be illegal, there will be folks who want one and undertake to use the "hanger approach" or some similarly harmful means to get it?
• Surely you know that Canada and Cuba, along with some 50+ other nations, offer abortions to folks who have the money to pay for them even if they lack insurance that will do so. So...
  • How do you see the matter of abortions becoming "wealthy options" if it becomes impossible to obtain a legal one in the U.S?
  • What are your proposals for addressing the likelihood that were, in the U.S., medically performed abortions illegal, unwanted children would be largely, maybe only, born to folks who have insufficient financial means to purchase one, which given the price right now in the U.S., basically means poor people?
  • To the extent that any of your proposals be enhancements of existing mitigations, what do you cite as the reasons/evidence that they can will perform more effectively than they do now at assuaging the negative effects of being born unwanted?
  • FWIW, below are some of the reference materials that drive my questions:
    • Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
      
    • Born Unwanted: The developmental effects of denied abortion -- The link if for a summary of the study. I have looked and cannot find a free version of this book; however, it may be available for free (ebook download or pdf) here...I don't know. I do know the title is among those they have.
      
    • The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Teen Childbearing
      
    • Unwanted Pregnancy and Associated Factors Among Nigerian Women -- This papers is referenced not because I think Nigerian women are the point, but because I see the human condition as being constant regardless of where one lives. Obviously, I recognize the difference between the societal factors affecting Nigerians and those affecting Americans. Many individual motivators (emotional and physical) affecting women as mothers, however, are certainly not different.
      
    • Pregnancy Intentions and Happiness Among Pregnant Black Women at High Risk for Adverse Infant Health Outcomes
      
    • The Consequences of Unintended Childbearing
      
    • Consequences for Children of Their Birth Planning Status
      
    • Abortion, unwanted childbearing, and mental health

I asked you to enumerate, not bloviate. That means numbering concise questions and identifying them with question marks. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you disagree that -THAT is more like a rape pregnancy than it is a typical pregnancy that results from consensual sex?

<snip>

How can one be supposedly pro-life yet say the value of life and the status of personhood hangs on whether that life was created by rape or willful coitus?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

I agree. That doesn't make any sense at all to me either.

However, that which you just described is not the basis for nor the logic behind the "rape exception" either.

If the point is that the life itself is the thing and that which has value and merit, it doesn't lose merit by the means of its creation.

It's clear that you don't know or understand any of the Legal / Constitutional arguments for the rape exception to a ban on elective abortions.

It's interesting that you have raised this topic because my analogy / allegory was actually intended to help explain the rape exception at some point when there was more of an understanding of the point being made here (in the op).

 

[320 Years of History]

However, that which you just described is not the basis for nor the logic behind the "rape exception" either.

Okay, I'll bite. What is the basis/logic for the rape exception?

 

[Chuz Life]

However, that which you just described is not the basis for nor the logic behind the "rape exception" either.

Okay, I'll bite. What is the basis/logic for the rape exception?

You weren't being baited but I would gladly give you the Constitutional arguments for the rape exception if you were already onboard with the personhood issue.

Because we are still so far apart on that and because you haven't been very receptive about the points made in this allegory. . . I don't feel like wasting my time with the rest.

 

[320 Years of History]

However, that which you just described is not the basis for nor the logic behind the "rape exception" either.

Okay, I'll bite. What is the basis/logic for the rape exception?

You weren't being baited but I would gladly give you the Constitutional arguments for the rape exception if you were already onboard with the personhood issue.

Because we are still so far apart on that and because you haven't been very receptive about the points made in this allegory. . . I don't feel like wasting my time with the rest.

I just want you to give or point me to a solid logical (not emotional) argument that presents the case for the rape exception. I know I can find one, but I want to read the one you think is most logically rigorous.

"Okay, I'll bite" was offered as a figure of speech, not to indicate I inferred that you were baiting me. Apologies if I misled you in that regard.

 

[Chuz Life]

However, that which you just described is not the basis for nor the logic behind the "rape exception" either.

Okay, I'll bite. What is the basis/logic for the rape exception?

You weren't being baited but I would gladly give you the Constitutional arguments for the rape exception if you were already onboard with the personhood issue.

Because we are still so far apart on that and because you haven't been very receptive about the points made in this allegory. . . I don't feel like wasting my time with the rest.

I just want you to give or point me to a solid logical (not emotional) argument that presents the case for the rape exception. I know I can find one, but I want to read the one you think is most logically rigorous.

"Okay, I'll bite" was offered as a figure of speech, not to indicate I inferred that you were baiting me. Apologies if I misled you in that regard.

Like I said, it's not worth it when we can't even agree on the points I am trying to make with my allegory.