Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

But I think a doctor should be able to decide; if they can't decide which is more likely to survive then they should work to save both until they are sure that one or other must die in order for the other to live, and then they should try to save the one most likely to survive.

Trying to reduce that to a binary on/off based purely on which one is a woman and which one a foetus doesn't make any sense to me; there is so much more to every situation than that.

When a medic says "50% chance" that isn't a mathematical probability. It's a best guess. What you think a medic should be able to say isn't really relevant. This means plenty of cases where you'll have to choose one or the other to give the best chance of survival.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

The probabilities are in the question. Please attempt to answer the question asked and not one which you'd prefer to answer.

That would be why I'd no interest in answering your first question but essayed the second; I don't find the probabilities in your first question credible.
I'm perfectly comfortable answering only questions I prefer to, thanks. I can't see any reason to attempt any others.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

When a medic says "50% chance" that isn't a mathematical probability. It's a best guess. What you think a medic should be able to say isn't really relevant. This means plenty of cases where you'll have to choose one or the other to give the best chance of survival.

Of course it's relevant; the medics best guess determines their course of action. You choose one or the other (when you have to) based on the best chance of survival.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Of course it's relevant; the medics best guess determines their course of action. You choose one or the other (when you have to) based on the best chance of survival.

That doesn't mean you aren't continuing to ignore the proposed case which definitely can and does exist where the medic can't decide who is more likely to survive and has to make a decision based on a preference for mother or baby.
Care to answer the question?

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

That would be why I'd no interest in answering your first question but essayed the second; I don't find the probabilities in your first question credible.
I'm perfectly comfortable answering only questions I prefer to, thanks. I can't see any reason to attempt any others.

Shrodinger would not be a fan of your inability to think through improbable events.

I'll complete the thought experiment from my perspective and if you wish to discuss I'll continue.

If there existed utter equivalence between the two entities (Woman & Group of Cells) then the highest expected value outcome would be to arbitrarily select either procedure A or B as there is no expected difference in value between outcomes.

However, if break the equivalence, we'd have the highest expected value outcome if we chose the procedure that guaranteed survival of the higher valued entity every single time.

This presents an interesting conundrum if we understand the logic process / math above (which is very simple) and in reality there is a bias towards one entity or the other in which procedure we'd chose, it's not difficult to entertain the idea that this suggests that we don't really hold the two equal.

Not a NSA agent

SW wrote: »

Two-thirds majority in Ireland want abortion decriminalized (Amnesty International/ Red C poll)

I wonder what they asked about the coosing to have an abortion question. I would have thought a lot of people would be fine with it in the first few weeks while few would be for it after 24 weeks.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Shrodinger would not be a fan of your inability to think through improbable events.

I'll complete the thought experiment from my perspective and if you wish to discuss I'll continue.

If there existed utter equivalence between the two entities (Woman & Group of Cells) then the highest expected value outcome would be to arbitrarily select either procedure A or B as there is no expected difference in value between outcomes.

However, if break the equivalence, we'd have the highest expected value outcome if we chose the procedure that guaranteed survival of the higher valued entity every single time.

This presents an interesting conundrum if we understand the logic process / math above (which is very simple) and in reality there is a bias towards one entity or the other in which procedure we'd chose, it's not difficult to entertain the idea that this suggests that we don't really hold the two equal.

I'll take you up on it.

Firstly, you are right to say (for most people anyway) "in reality there is a bias towards one entity or the other in which procedure we'd chose, it's not difficult to entertain the idea that this suggests that we don't really hold the two equal."
Even though the word "equal" is used in the Constitution.
But.... even if no real bias existed towards the mother's life, logically there is still a reason to act as if there were. Because the death of the mother could lead to the death of the foetus, but the same is not true the other way round.
The law does allow abortion of the foetus if it presents a risk to the mothers life. So that implies that in the final analysis, the equivalence does not exist. For some people this is due to the extra factor as mentioned above being applied, and for others the equivalence never existed anyway.

But on the other hand, when you say "However, if break the equivalence, we'd have the highest expected value outcome if we chose the procedure that guaranteed survival of the higher valued entity every single time".
That would seem to suggest abortion is a solution every single time. But it fails to acknowledge the lack of equivalence between all possible procedures. For example, suppose Procedure A guaranteed the survival of the higher value entity, but also the death of the other (lesser) entity. And Procedure B gave a 99% chance for the survival of both.
If you were to apply your mathematical logic to this, the answer would not be to choose Procedure A every single time.
To decide the highest value outcome would require further inputs; the relative values of the two entities would have to be known, as well as the relative risks.

BTW, the guy with the cat was called Schrodinger.

Brian Shanahan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This "group of cells" argument device is pointless. Adults humans are a "group of cells" too. It's just another actually meaningless phrase that people think they can take to mean whatever they like.

Wrong. For a significant part of the gestationary period of foetal development the proto-foetus is nothing more than a clump of undifferentiated and unspecialised cells, with absolutely no means for surviving except by essentially parasiting itself off its future mother

You cannot say the same about a living, breathing human being. By the time humans are born (which, by the way, are still the vast minority of impregnated ova) we are massively organised, with billions of cells which are minutely and beautifully specialised to very specific tasks, such as the varied tasks in seeing stuff, filtering out toxins from the blood, extracting oxygen from air, and then transporting that oxygen, neutralising invading pathogens, and so on.

There is no comparison between an early stage foetus and a new born infant, never mind a full grown adult.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

Neither can I access it. I'll assume its because this is a new poll, rather than some subterfuge. Nevertheless my opinion of Colm O'Gorman and Amnesty International has lessened recently. They did well on the marriage equality campaign, but I think that success has encouraged them to overstep the mark now by taking a partisan line on something that is a lot more multi-faceted.

What's multi-faceted about the simple fact that women should be allowed to terminate a foetus until viability if they so wish?

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What's multi-faceted about the simple fact that women should be allowed to terminate a foetus until viability if they so wish?

Well, yeah, either you believe it's permissible to force a woman to remain pregnant or you don't.

alaimacerc

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Wrong. For a significant part of the gestationary period of foetal development the proto-foetus is nothing more than a clump of undifferentiated and unspecialised cells, with absolutely no means for surviving except by essentially parasiting itself off its future mother

That's juxtaposing two (or possibly three) somewhat different things; foetal development is pretty far advanced in anatomical terms well before there's any prospect of viability. Though the latter is dependent on medical technology, so it's not a massive leap to imagine it will continue to move downwards.

By the time humans are born (which, by the way, are still the vast minority of impregnated ova) we are massively organised, with billions of cells which are minutely and beautifully specialised to very specific tasks, such as the varied tasks in seeing stuff, filtering out toxins from the blood, extracting oxygen from air, and then transporting that oxygen, neutralising invading pathogens, and so on.

God's abortions don't count, obviously. I am the deity, you are the supplicants, I outrank you! Though why we keep bringing religion into it -- on the A&A forum, mind you -- merely because of picket lines of bishops outside the parliament and primates thundering on about excommunication of elected representatives, I can't imagine.

That's less a matter of cell specialisation per se than of structure and organisation, which is indeed what the term "clump" is suggestive of. I doubt it's worth arguing the semantics of -- unlike more philosophically, biologically, or legally significant terms like "human being", "individual", or "person" -- but I'd be inclined to say that before neurulation, which occurs in the third week, you have what you might reasonably describe as a "clump". After that, you're more (albeit gradually) into "Look, Mrs Murphy, it's a... young vertebrate of some kind!" territory.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

But.... even if no real bias existed towards the mother's life, logically there is still a reason to act as if there were. Because the death of the mother could lead to the death of the foetus, but the same is not true the other way round.

But I think it's pretty clear that's not most people's -- nay, almost everyone's -- attitude at all. Imagine a case where termination leads to 0.99 probability of maternal survival, and 0 foetal survival, whereas continuing to delivery leads to 0.51 survival of both, and 0.49 death of both. Maximum "utility" under the "equal value" assumption would indicate the latter choice. How many people would consider it acceptable to criminalise the former choice? (Notwithstanding that 841,233 people on the face of it did...)

If you were to apply your mathematical logic to this, the answer would not be to choose Procedure A every single time.
To decide the highest value outcome would require further inputs; the relative values of the two entities would have to be known, as well as the relative risks.

I think from context, by "higher value" emmet was suggesting the woman's life being considered strictly more valuable than foetal life. You're assuming there would rather be some sort of weighting or trade-off: survival of one woman is "worth" two foetuses, or 1000 foetuses, or whatever number.

BTW, the guy with the cat was called Schrodinger.

That's Schrödinger (or Schroedinger), if we're going to nitpick German spelling. (A more significant difference that one, if anything, as both are orthographically feasible, but they would be pronounced differently.)

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's in their open letter. They want "at least" abortion for rape, incest, foetal abnormality. i.e. they'd like elective too.

I think you were on safer ground with your earlier "looks like" (which is at least justifiable by claiming an entitlement to a purely subjective reading -- though some might call that a little "weaselly" itself) than your "i.e." here. "At least" does not imply "more than". "More than" those cases does not imply "elective".

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

However I would not be inclined to disregard the mothers right to choose not to save her own life in favour of her childs, [...]

Is anyone? There's a movement for reproductive rights in this country. I'm not aware of one for reproductive coercion. Or at least, not from this direction.

obplayer

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's juxtaposing two (or possibly three) somewhat different things; foetal development is pretty far advanced in anatomical terms well before there's any prospect of viability. Though the latter is dependent on medical technology, so it's not a massive leap to imagine it will continue to move downwards.


God's abortions don't count, obviously. I am the deity, you are the supplicants, I outrank you! Though why we keep bringing religion into it -- on the A&A forum, mind you -- merely because of picket lines of bishops outside the parliament and primates thundering on about excommunication of elected representatives, I can't imagine.

That's less a matter of cell specialisation per se than of structure and organisation, which is indeed what the term "clump" is suggestive of. I doubt it's worth arguing the semantics of -- unlike more philosophically, biologically, or legally significant terms like "human being", "individual", or "person" -- but I'd be inclined to say that before neurulation, which occurs in the third week, you have what you might reasonably describe as a "clump". After that, you're more (albeit gradually) into "Look, Mrs Murphy, it's a... young vertebrate of some kind!" territory.

Because they force us to by insisting societies laws are built upon their beliefs. And then, when we object, they scream "we are being oppressed!"

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Neither can I access it. I'll assume its because this is a new poll, rather than some subterfuge. Nevertheless my opinion of Colm O'Gorman and Amnesty International has lessened recently. They did well on the marriage equality campaign, but I think that success has encouraged them to overstep the mark now by taking a partisan line on something that is a lot more multi-faceted.

Precisely what's "the mark"? If we were to take the UNHRC as the baseline of what "real" human rights are, Ireland would appear to be well ahead on their minimal requirements on same-sex marriage, and well behind on abortion.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

However obplayer has already engaged with me on the subject sufficiently to know that whilst I place equal value on both lives, where one life is likely to cause the end of the other, I will choose to save the mothers.

I can't speak for obplayer, but I certainly didn't see that one coming. Precisely what do you mean by "one life being likely to cause the death of the other"? Does this describe the chorioamnionitis and cancer treatment cases?

The net effect of this seems to me, too, to be "'equal' -- but not actually equal".

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Because am946745 was so clearly referring to an individual human life that responding to it with a line about the entirety of all life that may be considered human can only be a deliberate misconstrual.

Really? "Life" can only possibly here mean "an individual human life", even where used without any such qualification? I would say it's not "clear" at all -- the phrase is vague, ambiguous, and polemic. Though mostly, what it is is "incorrect".

"Life begins at conception" is not a defensible position. If it's taken to mean "vitality in general", it fails for one reason; if it's taken to mean "individual existence", it fails for another. As we've just pointed out in both cases, as so (very, very) often before. I think we're not under any particular obligation to construe one way or another, since it's not possible to fix the argument for them -- and it might be taken as presumptuous to try. A case analysis is possible, but is tedious to keep writing -- and one hates to think about as to reading it. It's hardly unreasonable to take the primary meaning of the word, and the "plain meaning" of the phrase, as the starting point.

I think an ultimately more productive line of advance would be to add the phrase to the "pro-life" version of the this page.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That doesn't mean you aren't continuing to ignore the proposed case which definitely can and does exist where the medic can't decide who is more likely to survive and has to make a decision based on a preference for mother or baby.
Care to answer the question?

Sure; the medic should decide who is more likely to survive and make a decision based on that, rather than on a preference for mother or baby.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Shrodinger would not be a fan of your inability to think through improbable events.

Not so much inability as unwillingness to be honest.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll complete the thought experiment from my perspective and if you wish to discuss I'll continue. If there existed utter equivalence between the two entities (Woman & Group of Cells) then the highest expected value outcome would be to arbitrarily select either procedure A or B as there is no expected difference in value between outcomes. However, if break the equivalence, we'd have the highest expected value outcome if we chose the procedure that guaranteed survival of the higher valued entity every single time. This presents an interesting conundrum if we understand the logic process / math above (which is very simple) and in reality there is a bias towards one entity or the other in which procedure we'd chose, it's not difficult to entertain the idea that this suggests that we don't really hold the two equal.

I appreciate you're attempting to 'solve' the proposition as a mathematical one... it just doesn't seem to work? It may be your phrasing,but I'm not seeing logical progression. For instance your first conclusion is 'that the highest expected value outcome would be to arbitrarily select either procedure A or B'. That doesn't make any sense; they have equal expected value outcomes because that's your premise. Neither has a highest expected value outcome, and a arbitrary selection hasn't been assigned any value at all in your premise.
I don't really know what you mean by 'break the equivalance', but if you mean decide that the two don't have equal value anymore, then you're simply abandoning your initial premise and starting with a new one. Concluding from your new premise that we don't really hold the two equal isn't a logical conclusion, it's a restatement of your new premise?

Anyways, I'm not convinced there's a mathematical/logical foundation for a moral position on the subject of abortion; it's an interesting notion that seems to falter in the face of people taking what is usually a sentimentally based approach.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I appreciate you're attempting to 'solve' the proposition as a mathematical one... it just doesn't seem to work? It may be your phrasing,but I'm not seeing logical progression. For instance your first conclusion is 'that the highest expected value outcome would be to arbitrarily select either procedure A or B'. That doesn't make any sense; they have equal expected value outcomes because that's your premise. Neither has a highest expected value outcome, and a arbitrary selection hasn't been assigned any value at all in your premise.

Are you familiar with proof by contradiction?

The equivalence follows from the assumption (equal 'value'), and the hypothesis (saving one but not the other). If you'd act differently (or more precisely, not regard the two as actually equivalent) in the hypothetical circumstance, then your values differ from those in the assumption. Therefore the assumption is false.

If you're unhappy with either the specifics of the particular thought experiment (which don't at all with the biology of pregnancy), or with the utility values being "tied" (and therefore leaving a remaining arbitrary choice), then consider instead my alternative hypothetical case, above, which avoids both.

Anyways, I'm not convinced there's a mathematical/logical foundation for a moral position on the subject of abortion; it's an interesting notion that seems to falter in the face of people taking what is usually a sentimentally based approach.

The problem isn't with sentiment per se; it's with expressing one set of sentiments in law, while holding a distinct set in fact. (A situation the SC and the legislature has eventually finessed us back out of, over and above the "ferry to England" and "medical profession winking heavily" remedies previously (possibly) available.)

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Is anyone? There's a movement for reproductive rights in this country. I'm not aware of one for reproductive coercion. Or at least, not from this direction.

I don't know. But if I mention it at least it preempts someone deciding I would on my behalf...

alaimacerc wrote: »

I can't speak for obplayer, but I certainly didn't see that one coming. Precisely what do you mean by "one life being likely to cause the death of the other"? Does this describe the chorioamnionitis and cancer treatment cases?

You didn't? How odd. I mean circumstances where the continuation of one life (generally that of the foetus) is a substantial threat to the continuation of the life of the other (generally the mother). I'm not sure there are many other ways to convey the meaning of that sentence to be honest. It would, I think, describe the circumstances that pertained when doctors decided to terminate the life of the foetus Savita Halappanavar was carrying, or the point at which a doctor could under current legislation recommend the commencement of chemotherapy for a pregnant woman.

alaimacerc wrote: »

The net effect of this seems to me, too, to be "'equal' -- but not actually equal".

The net effect is that both don't have equal chances to live, not that both don't have equal value.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Really? "Life" can only possibly here mean "an individual human life", even where used without any such qualification? I would say it's not "clear" at all -- the phrase is vague, ambiguous, and polemic. Though mostly, what it is is "incorrect".

Given that the full sentence was "Human life begins at conception", I don't think it takes a huge leap in comprehension to realise that am946745 is unlikely to be pointing out that the entirety of human existence springs from a single moment of conception. Playing on what it could mean might be entertaining in a mean spirited kind of way, but as I said, it adds argument to the argument without adding anything to the discussion.

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Life begins at conception" is not <..> this page

I'm not really interested in whether there's a good case for the argument to be honest; what could or should be a candidate for when life begins has already been presented and discussed on the thread in what I thought was a reasonably thorough fashion.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So here's a novel idea - and a number of posters may need to be sitting for this (not you Fred, it's just that you quoted a poster whose posts I have the pleasure of not otherwise seeing) - how about consulting the person whose life is on the line? :mad:

[RANT/on]
Do other people's minds really not boggle at the scenario where a living breathing person who has the misfortune (in Ireland) to have a particular set of genitalia is treated like an object the value of whose life is to be calculated in percentages by third parties, possibly in front of her very eyes?

We had "go tell that to the unborn" and "ask the fetuses what they want" earlier on - why not ask the bloody woman, FFS!! It'd be a lot easier than asking fetuses!!

I can't understand why there is so little empathy for the woman involved. I can only suppose the posters don't think of women as people really.

It's not as if they care about protecting "human life" created through IVF, so it can only be about controlling women. That is the long and the short of it, afaict.
[/RANT / off]

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; the medic should decide who is more likely to survive and make a decision based on that, rather than on a preference for mother or baby.

You've already been told that what you think a medic SHOULD be able to do is often impossible. Can you answer the question based on the facts in this universe?

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I appreciate you're attempting to 'solve' the proposition as a mathematical one... it just doesn't seem to work? It may be your phrasing,but I'm not seeing logical progression. For instance your first conclusion is 'that the highest expected value outcome would be to arbitrarily select either procedure A or B'. That doesn't make any sense; they have equal expected value outcomes because that's your premise. Neither has a highest expected value outcome, and a arbitrary selection hasn't been assigned any value at all in your premise.
I don't really know what you mean by 'break the equivalance', but if you mean decide that the two don't have equal value anymore, then you're simply abandoning your initial premise and starting with a new one. Concluding from your new premise that we don't really hold the two equal isn't a logical conclusion, it's a restatement of your new premise?

It makes perfect sense. There is no gain nor loss in choosing either procedure as the outcomes have the exact same expected value. You may arbitrarily choose whichever procedure using whatever method you wish. (Flip a coin for example). There is no optimum choice. Nor are there any non-optimum choices available.

Absolam wrote: »

Anyways, I'm not convinced there's a mathematical/logical foundation for a moral position on the subject of abortion; it's an interesting notion that seems to falter in the face of people taking what is usually a sentimentally based approach.

I'm not discussing anything about morals. I'm discussing the concept of equivalence. I'd like to focus on that.

recedite

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What's multi-faceted about the simple fact that women should be allowed to terminate a foetus until viability if they so wish?

The exact point of "viability" for a start.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Imagine a case where termination leads to 0.99 probability of maternal survival, and 0 foetal survival, whereas continuing to delivery leads to 0.51 survival of both, and 0.49 death of both. Maximum "utility" under the "equal value" assumption would indicate the latter choice. How many people would consider it acceptable to criminalise the former choice? (Notwithstanding that 841,233 people on the face of it did...)

I agree with all of the above. As emmet kept bringing up the subject of his overly-simplistic physics puzzle over numerous pages of this thread, I just thought it was time somebody solved it for him.

Absolam wrote: »

The net effect is that both don't have equal chances to live, not that both don't have equal value.

And this is exactly the Constitutional position.
IMO it should be shifted somewhat, to specify that the unborn have an almost equal right to life compared to the mother. That would not satisfy the pro-choice lobby of course, but it would get majority support. And the mathematical/linguistic pedants among us would also have reason approve.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

I'll take you up on it.

Firstly, you are right to say (for most people anyway) "in reality there is a bias towards one entity or the other in which procedure we'd chose, it's not difficult to entertain the idea that this suggests that we don't really hold the two equal."
Even though the word "equal" is used in the Constitution.
But.... even if no real bias existed towards the mother's life, logically there is still a reason to act as if there were. Because the death of the mother could lead to the death of the foetus, but the same is not true the other way round.
The law does allow abortion of the foetus if it presents a risk to the mothers life. So that implies that in the final analysis, the equivalence does not exist. For some people this is due to the extra factor as mentioned above being applied, and for others the equivalence never existed anyway.

But on the other hand, when you say "However, if break the equivalence, we'd have the highest expected value outcome if we chose the procedure that guaranteed survival of the higher valued entity every single time".
That would seem to suggest abortion is a solution every single time. But it fails to acknowledge the lack of equivalence between all possible procedures. For example, suppose Procedure A guaranteed the survival of the higher value entity, but also the death of the other (lesser) entity. And Procedure B gave a 99% chance for the survival of both.
If you were to apply your mathematical logic to this, the answer would not be to choose Procedure A every single time.
To decide the highest value outcome would require further inputs; the relative values of the two entities would have to be known, as well as the relative risks.

BTW, the guy with the cat was called Schrodinger.

The entire experiment is to discuss the presupposed notion that the values of the two entities are equal. Ie that their relative value is already known and fixed, as our Constitution so tells us.

recedite wrote: »

I agree with all of the above. As emmet kept bringing up the subject of his overly-simplistic physics puzzle over numerous pages of this thread, I just thought it was time somebody solved it for him.

Kept bringing up? Its a discussion thread. I'm not hitting and running here. I apologise if it bores you. Numerous pages is either hyperbole or you should probably change your viewing settings.

robdonn

recedite wrote: »

The exact point of "viability" for a start.

Something to be determined by medical professionals rather than politicians or the general public.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

... the Constitutional position.
IMO it should be shifted somewhat, to specify that the unborn have an almost equal right to life compared to the mother. That would not satisfy the pro-choice lobby of course, but it would get majority support. And the mathematical/linguistic pedants among us would also have reason approve.

This a really odd suggestion. Is there any actual logic behind it at all? The unborn have some rights but we don't know exactly how many or, more importantly, why some and not others?

Or is it just a way of admitting that the idea that the unborn should have the same rights as born people is in fact indefensible IRL situations, while hoping against hope that nobody will notice that "a little bit less equal but I'll be be one to dictate how much less" is an even less logical position to hold?