Women of the world: think of yourself as a box. LGM has the video.
Are you surprised that Catholics might think of you as some kind of holy receptacle? Hope not.
This is an argument I’ve heard a few times: if there’s even a chance that life starts at conception (whatever that means), then we should err on the side of caution and prohibit abortion. My answer is: who are we taking care of here? A fetus that might be alive, or a real woman who is alive, and whose quality of life will be messed with by forced childbirth?
But there’s something else to add to the equation that I haven’t yet heard. My work in machine learning deals a lot with probabilities. I use computer algorithms to classify text, and I hope the computer sorts the text into the right bins. But I don’t just want to know what answer an algorithm gives me. I also want to know how likely that answer is to be right. It’s not enough to say what might somehow be possible. I want to know some likelihoods. So let’s add that into the mix: how likely are the various parties to be right?
The pro-choice side: Claims that women are alive. Pretty good evidence for this. Very likely to be correct.
The pro-life side: Claims that there’s a chance that a just-conceived fetus might be alive as a separate being, like you’re alive. I suppose there might be a small chance. But how often have religions been right before? Well, let’s just say they don’t have a great track record. They’ve gotten so many things wrong, including heliocentrism, evolution, the age of the earth, language, geography, astronomy, and more. And they get things wrong because of their methods. They start from beliefs, and ignore contradicting evidence. And it’s all true if you feel it’s true. Why should they be right this time, when their methods haven’t improved in thousands of years? So while it’s good to be cautious in uncertain conditions, we have to take into account the likelihood that our caution is justified in view of the expense to real live people.
This ‘just in case’ argument is convincing to some people because of the minimax principle. Because humans are usually risk averse, we try to avoid bad outcomes rather than go for good outcomes. This argument takes advantage of uncertainty, in the interest of a socio-political agenda. And so, as always, religions find and exploit our congitive blind spots.
20 November 2007 at 3:50 am
I’m going to come right out and say that the music on this video really @#%$’s me.
How do you define being ‘alive’ anyway? That’s the ultimate question.
Can we really consider two cells to be life?
Sure! they divide.
Yeah, and so does cancer.
But these cells differentiate to form life!
So, you’re saying that it’s actually pre-life?
NO!
Sure you aren’t.
Point is, by the time they start differentiating into cells that actually form parts of tissues and organs you’re way past conception.
Abstinence could be considered a form of contraception then. Hell, if my egg has the possibility of being alive and I choose not to have sex, then aren’t I preventing it from ending up as a sprog? Because that would kind of be anti-conception right? so contra-ception… It’s contrary…
On that note, I wonder where the word ‘conception’ is derived from. ‘concept’?
20 November 2007 at 6:04 am
com +
capio capere cepi captus – “I take/capture”
-> conceptus “taken in and held”
Finally, an occasion where speaking latin is actually useful!
20 November 2007 at 3:09 pm
I still think that the bottom-line is that we, at this point, lack the capacity to present empirical evidence that a fetus, at whatever time, is or is not alive. We might never have this ability, as the definition of ‘life’ is at the crux of it, and that seems more philosophical than scientific. This means that all we can have, at this point and maybe ever, is belief. So, I think, the question is really ‘are we entitled to force our beliefs upon others, or to force others to behave in a way that conforms to our beliefs?’.
Idealistically, I answer no. However, this ideal is rarely reflected in the actual workings of the world. And it’s hard to align to logical principles when your beliefs lead you to interpret other people’s actions as murder. I mean, really, what does it say about someone if they can?
20 November 2007 at 10:28 pm
I would have a lot more sympathy for the Catholic position if they told Catholics they could not join the armed forces. Catholic priests in America have told people to search their consciences if they consider voting for a candidate who is pro-choice. How about searching consciences if they consider voting for someone who is pro-war?
The issue about abortion has nothing to do with concern for life and everything to do with a desire to control women and women’s bodies. I personally would have found it nearly impossible to have an abortion but I’d defend a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body every time.
The religious right are all in a froth in the UK about proposed laws enabling lesbians to have IVF (officially without a man) saying that it’s wrong because it discounts the role of the father. As if they care – they are the ones who force single women to have children when they don’t want to thereby creating loads of children without fathers. Religion is synonymous with doublethink.
21 November 2007 at 8:49 am
I disagree with the common assumption that pro-lifers (and perhaps anyone who associates abortion with murder) base their reasoning on religious doctrines or a need for control. Some of us (and I say ‘us’ because I’m far more pro-life than pro-choice, I just choose not to force my beliefs upon others) really are concerned about the possibility of lives being taken. And some of us are otherwise very (lowercase) liberal and are atheists who never received a significant degree of religious indoctrination.
In assuming that you understand the opposition’s points of view and motives, and then making value judgments based on those assumptions, misses some important points. And assuming additional points of view based on that (e.g. that they’re the same people who are against lesbians getting IVF) takes the miss a few steps further. Citation please?
And while we’re talking about a woman’s right to abort her baby (which I uphold *only* because I prioritize my belief that you can’t impose your beliefs upon others above my belief that abortion is closer to murder than not… for now), why doesn’t anybody ever bring up a man’s right to raise a child he fathered if he wants to? Shouldn’t the father have *some* say in whether his child is aborted, if he wants it?
Of course, if I’ve misunderstood, please clarify and let me know.
21 November 2007 at 10:01 am
I don’t assume that all pro-lifers are religious.
Au contraire; Shockingly (for those who know me), I’m pro-choice and have received extensive religious indoctrination.
But I’ll admit that it does fit my prototype somewhat of pro-lifers(probably because I know so many religious people and they all argue with me).
And I think you make a good point about the father having a say. But I’d stand strong with my view that it’s her body. BUT if he’s willing to take care of the kiddy, and she’s willing to carry the pregnancy to term, I think that’s great.
21 November 2007 at 8:35 pm
If anyone in this posting doesn’t understand that the pro-life agenda is completely dictated and dominated by the conservative religious right then they just have their heads in the sand and don’t understand who through up the straw man of “abortion as murder” in the first place.
Please read about the struggles of the feminist movement to get women the right to control their own reproductive lives. You as women will never have any kind of equality if you don’t have that basic right over your own bodies.
21 November 2007 at 10:54 pm
Thanks Jeffrey – saved me the effort!
No I don’t think men have a say if it means forcing a woman to undergo a potentially dangerous and highly intrusive biological process. As Daniel is intimating in his comment (at least I think I’m reading that correctly) that is the ‘woman is merely a vessel’ philosophy which casts women into a (at best) subservient role and (at worst) subhuman status. That is only a few steps away from rape.
Here’s your citation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7101810.stm
If you want an interesting feminist read by a theologist then I highly recommend Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology.
22 November 2007 at 12:37 am
How did I just know you were going to have a copy of ‘Gyn/Ecology’ on your bookshelf?
I’d like to echo some of the commenters. If it were about preventing abortions, the Religious Right would be all for contraception and sex education, but they’re not. The ‘pro-life’ movement isn’t about preventing abortion. It’s about punishing women for making sexual choices they don’t approve of.
The Republican Party in America is full of people who are up to all kinds of shenanigans, but who are hateful of other people’s sexuality. (Rights for me, but not for thee.) Of course they’re going to want to regulate things they feel threatened by. Throw in some good ol’ Christian theology to convince yourself that your view is God’s view, and that’s one potent brew.
22 November 2007 at 2:47 am
Yeah I realise that the pro-life side of things is driven and controlled by religious institutes and the people in them. But, as I hope I said properly, not all pro-lifers are religious. Just as not all religious people are pro-lifers.
I don’t think I agree that the pro-lifers are all about punishing women for making sexual choices that they don’t approve of. But, I do the further up the religious ladder you go. Say they’re the head of a church, I can see that being their motivation. But if you’re just one of the patrons, who’s not that involved and of ‘lower status’ their pro-lifeness is justified to themselves as being 1) Because that’s what God believes and/or 2) They really think/have been led to think that two cells really is life. But I think you actually meant the people up top who are controlling the movement. If so, yeah sure.
And it makes me damn angry that they think they have right to punish women for having sex. *shakes fist at them*
23 November 2007 at 12:34 am
You impress me, Daniel – have you read it? Sadly I don’t have a copy on my shelf – the copy I read so many years ago was lent to me. I read it when I was 20 years old (in 1976) and it literally changed my thinking forever – about women and about language amongst other things. I don’t agree with all of her analysis but it is a wonderfully provocative read.
Rebecca – I wonder if you and I mean the same thing by pro-lifer? I would see the term as being used about someone who actively campaigns against abortion rather than someone who has a personal stance but understands that others do not share their views and do not feel the need to impose on others. (In the latter case there is no need to align yourself with a movement)
Yes lots of pro-lifers aren’t religious but I’d still suggest that they are likely to be patriarchal, misogynistic, ideological or some combination of them. No one who cares about women’s rights is likely to be a campaigning pro-lifer unless they really haven’t encountered any form of feminism.
I have a personal aversion to abortion and find it hard to imagine a scenario where I would terminate a pregnancy but would not for a second call myself ‘pro-life’. That is simply an emotive term coined to cast being pro-reproductive rights as pro-death or pro-murder.
23 November 2007 at 1:44 am
The boys’ mom has a copy. I tried reading it once for the word games, but I think it was too non-linear for me. Or I was insufficiently committed.
I think we’re talking about two different groups of people here:
1) People who are lobbying for the legal system to restrict access to abortion, and people who sympathise with that view. And I was going to say the same thing as you, snoke. I think the hypocrisy and disdain for women’s rights goes all the way down to the rank and file.
2) People who think, “You know, I’d rather there not be quite so many abortions.” Among which I count myself. I’d love there to be fewer abortions, but through better education and contraceptives, not through legal curtailment.
23 November 2007 at 2:35 am
I cannot agree that all campaigning pro-lifers have those attributes, Snowqueen. Simply because, people aren’t all viewing the abortion debate in the same way. You and I may see Feminism and Pro-choice as inextricably linked, and sure they can’t ignore the females choice in the matter as being overridden. But for some the motivation is that they think that it’s murder. Instead of seeing it as a punishment or a deterrant for females to make certain decisions about their sexual relations, they are just anti-murder. People don’t all have the same education, or the same motivation, or the same background and experience. It seems impossible to me that all campaigning pro-lifers could all share those traits, or views that contribute their own beliefs. To them it’s not about removing a woman’s right, it’s about giving the child rights. Which brings us straight back to square one.
And in saying that, I still can’t agree that it goes all the way through the ranks; as you say Daniel.
Oh well, I agree to disagree.
23 November 2007 at 5:16 am
You may be right.
24 November 2007 at 12:37 pm
“they are just anti-murder” – sorry I can’t agree – that analysis is just too simplistic. *They* might think they are ‘just anti-murder’ but you as an intelligent young woman shouldn’t be accepting that at face value. How many of them are anti-war? Even the use of the term ‘murder’ is designed to be emotive. There are many forms of killing and not all are designated as ‘murder’.
Like Daniel I wish there were fewer abortions but I don’t feel the need to call women and doctors ‘murderers’. What is ironic is that those who are anti-abortion are also so often those who are against sex education in schools.
‘Child’s rights’? – a human isn’t a ‘child’ until it’s born – again referring to an embryo or foetus as a ‘child’ is an emotive trick. I lost a pregnancy at 8 weeks due to it being ectopic. I didn’t grieve for the embryo (though having seen its heartbeat on a scan a few hours before it was removed to save my life was pretty heartbreaking) – I grieved for the loss of the imaginary child. In ethical matters one has to be very clear what is emotion and what is reason and that is why I’d rather trust such matters to philosophers (professional ethicists) than to the religious and those who would manipulate our emotions through an unexamined ‘morality’.
That may sound harsh, but we cannot return to backstreet abortions or force children to be born to unwilling mothers (how good is that for the child’s rights?). Abortion is still the lesser of two undesirable outcomes – it’s not some simple black and white decision.
24 November 2007 at 1:47 pm
Woah woah woah, slow down there.
I never said that ‘they’ were right.
I never said that Doctors who perform abortions were murderers.
I never said what my definition of a child was.
And I was not debating whether or not abortion should be legal.
Here’s the two sentences I think you had the most problem with:
“But for some the motivation is that they think that it’s murder. Instead of seeing it as a punishment or a deterrant for females to make certain decisions about their sexual relations, they are just anti-murder”
“To them it’s not about removing a woman’s right, it’s about giving the child rights”
I think saying that ‘murder’ is just an emotive word is really splitting hairs.
“‘Child’s rights’? – a human isn’t a ‘child’ until it’s born – again referring to an embryo or foetus as a ‘child’ is an emotive trick” This is what I’m talking about. ‘They’ don’t see it the same way. This is your view. ‘They’ actually think that it is a child! And whether that’s because they’re uneducated, unintelligent or whatever the hell you want to throw at them, that is their motivation for campaigning. (I’m excluding of course a huge cut of the pie here). I’m saying they’re not ALL the same. Is that too difficult to concede?
I’m sorry you thought my analysis was too simplistic, I’ll try to increase my vocabulary, or maybe it’s just that you think if I haven’t delved deep enough into their reasons and that’s why I don’t agree with you.
My argument was simply that we shouldn’t jam every campaigning pro-lifer into the same box. I merely tried (being the operative word) to give them a voice here. Because if there is one thing that I hate it’s the categorisation and stereotyping of people.
Maybe I’ll try to sum it up one more time, in one sentence:
Not all campaigning pro-lifers all have the same attributes, or are religious, or are campaigning because they believe that women should be punished/deterred from making particular sexual decisions. Some truly believe that an embryo/fetus/two-celled zygote is a child which should have rights and that abortion is murder and should be treated as such.
24 November 2007 at 10:08 pm
Rebecca – I’m sorry if you thought I was attacking you personally in some way – it may be the written medium or it may be the cultural differences or something else – but I certainly did not think that *you* thought they were right, murderers etc. I did get that you were trying to put an alternative interpretation. I was putting forwards the reasons I think their arguments don’t stand up even in the terms you presented. I didn’t mean that your analysis was simplistic, I was pointing out why I think theirs is. I don’t know what your personal views are as you haven’t made those clear!
Anyway please don’t take any of this personally – I am a grumpy old feminist academic, I’m 51 years old and enjoy a good argument – I meant what I said about you clearly being intelligent and if I came across as suggesting otherwise, I apologise.
25 November 2007 at 4:37 am
Snowqueen, Yeah I did take it as a personal attack, thanks for clearing that up. Sorry for getting so angry haha, my response didn’t have to be as snippy as it was. *shakes your hand*
25 November 2007 at 8:59 pm
🙂
I don’t mind you being snippy by the way – I like a woman who speaks up for herself.
Do visit at my homepage any time.
26 November 2007 at 1:30 am
Thanks for the invite 🙂
I’ll be sure to take you up on it.