Poland's abortion dilemma

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey:

If you're going to slap someone down, only to discover that they've already sidestepped your argument, the least you could do is acknowledge that they've done so. Do you not have anything to say about the evolution rebuttal?

I'm confused about this evolution rebuttal. I'll gladly discuss it if it were made more clear, his statement is perplexing and doesn't really have an 'argument' per say. Simply put, I don't get it. Care to explain Charles? I may even agree.

Further, I don't see Charles arguing that rape victims are net beneficiaries. I see him arguing that someone of a religious bent could choose to see the life resulting from a rape as God turning lemons into lemonade. Overcoming tragedy by turning it into a source of strength and thereby a means of coping with life's negative aspects is the goal of secular mental therapy, so why should it be argued away if the theraputic guidance is rooted in religious beliefs? Do you not see that as a double standard?

Now, as far as using the religious belief to justify a refusal to perform abortions - I'm personally against that. I simply am arguing that a religious viewpoint shouldn't exclude you from the debate.

I think a religious viewpoint does exclude you from the debate. If you can't defend your position on definitive ethical grounds, it's not valid. There is no real reason for anyone to listen to a religious argument if they aren't religious. Save it for theology.

[Charles Anthony]

In general, I am suggesting that we should make a concerted effort to think about different points of view with respect to the nature of life.

I'm confused about this evolution rebuttal. I'll gladly discuss it if it were made more clear,

That is fair.

First, it was in response to an initial statement "I don't think any pro-choice advocates claim abortion is a "guilt-free shedding of lifeless tissue"; it is recognized by the majority as a regrettable but necessary reality. That degree of subtlety is certainly not found in the more vocal members on other side of the issue," yadda yadda yadda -- go read the entire post for the rest it. I gave an example of subtlety among members of "the other side" that refutes this statement. It may be a different metaphysical explanation. It may not even be convincing. Nevertheless, it subtly recognizes that NOT having an abortion can be conceived as "a regrettable but necessary reality" too. It is disengenous to treat "the other side" as cold-hearted baby-savers. They actually do care about babies and mothers, alike, and they do so by appealling to the grace of God.

Second, it is not a rebuttal. It was an example to illustrate that without proof of anything, we can look at the same events and provide our own metaphysical explanation to reconcile it.

In the case of life, we can explain its nature through the theory of evolution. We can also explain it with an omnipotent deity. We can also look at how our coffee swirls in our mug for an explanation. Without proof, we will likely come up with our own explanations of things that are difficult to understand.

Third, I would like to address the vehemence in some posts within this thread. My comment was focussed to address those who feel under attack. The theory of evolution is no longer a theory: species change over time. What is still a theory is how much they have evolved: i.e. from where did the original single cells / proteins / sludge originate and did we come from them? That is still a leap of faith, yet it is valid. I recognize that religious people do impose their views (as do those the irreligious) upon others when it comes to public policy and law enforcement. However, one person's metaphysical EXPLANATION of an event does not threaten a different person's explanation of the same event. In other words, somebody's belief in evolution to explain the nature of life does not directly impose all aspects of the theory of evolution upon non-believers (except for when everybody votes). Likewise, atheists are already spared of God's intervention if they want it that way -- all they have to do is disbelieve. It is highly irrational for an atheist to feel threatened by the intervention of God. However, it is rational to feel threatened by the intervention of people who believe in God. Thus, we would be wise to understand different views.

I think a religious viewpoint does exclude you from the debate. If you can't defend your position on definitive ethical grounds, it's not valid.

Correct but it does not exclude you from voting. Thus, if all of the religious people out-numbered the irreligious people at the poll booths (or had all of the guns), there is no point debating, is there? What is rational or irrational is irrelevent. We have to understand different views.

[Black Dog]

Not to beat a dead horse, but how would you differentiate between different types of counselling services for the purposes of licensing?

If a counselling service (which AA is not) offers medical information (which PCCs do), I would expect some controls.

[BHS]

If a counselling service (which AA is not) offers medical information (which PCCs do), I would expect some controls.

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that both the legal and medical communities regard AA as a legitimate form of group therapy, to the extent that both communities advise and/or order individuals to attend the program? And that AA does present a quasi-medical view of addiction as part of that therapy?

[Black Dog]

How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that both the legal and medical communities regard AA as a legitimate form of group therapy, to the extent that both communities advise and/or order individuals to attend the program? And that AA does present a quasi-medical view of addiction as part of that therapy?

AA is for people who drink and want to stop. It's purpose is clear and unambiguous. I'm not sure they offer any sort of medical advice or diagnoses, so I think the comparison to PCCs is applens and oranges.

[BHS]

AA is for people who drink and want to stop. It's purpose is clear and unambiguous. I'm not sure they offer any sort of medical advice or diagnoses, so I think the comparison to PCCs is applens and oranges.

Your characterization of AA is correct, to my knowledge, but it's also irrelevant. I don't think that I've added ambiguity by pointing out that part of the AA philosophy includes a cherry-picked smattering of medical knowledge, and that both the legal and medical communities have been known to advise patients to seek counselling from that group.

Abortion is for pregnant and want not to be. It's elective. Counselling for people who are considering need not include a certifiable medical opinion of the patient's unique prognosis.

Again, since both groups are offering medically-based counselling (without genuine medical opinions) on subjects that are medical in nature, how can you argue that one group needs certification whereas the other does not?

[Black Dog]

Your characterization of AA is correct, to my knowledge, but it's also irrelevant. I don't think that I've added ambiguity by pointing out that part of the AA philosophy includes a cherry-picked smattering of medical knowledge, and that both the legal and medical communities have been known to advise patients to seek counselling from that group.

Does AA intentionally disseminate false information, medical or otherwise?

Abortion is for pregnant and want not to be. It's elective. Counselling for people who are considering need not include a certifiable medical opinion of the patient's unique prognosis.

I'm not talking about medical diagnoses. I'm talking about information (eg. that abortons increase the risk of breast cancer) that is demonstrably false which is used to influence people who are looking for help. These PCCs are about as ethical as opening up a rape counselling centre and advising victims that they had it coming for dressing like a slut.

Again, since both groups are offering medically-based counselling (without genuine medical opinions) on subjects that are medical in nature, how can you argue that one group needs certification whereas the other does not?

What medical advice is AA giving out?

[BHS]

Does AA intentionally disseminate false information, medical or otherwise?

Dunno. My guess is that in some meetings the membership is completely ethical in repeating what medical information they know, and in others they'll tell a newly dry member anything that it takes to keep them sober. True, this is pure conjecture on my part, but without a system of certification how can anyone prove otherwise?

I'm not talking about medical diagnoses. I'm talking about information (eg. that abortons increase the risk of breast cancer) that is demonstrably false which is used to influence people who are looking for help. These PCCs are about as ethical as opening up a rape counselling centre and advising victims that they had it coming for dressing like a slut.

Is anyone being advised or ordered to attend this counselling by legal or medical professionals? Or are people seeking it for their own piece of mind? What you're talking about here is curtailing free speech rights. If these counselling places are giving out medical information that is demostrably false, they should be held to account for that. Perhaps certification is in order, but you still haven't proven to me that AA shouldn't also be certified for the same reasons.

What medical advice is AA giving out?

Well, the first thing a newly dry person hears at an AA meeting is that they suffer from a disease (a diagnosis is presented). Then they are told that by strictly adhering to the proposed course of action (treatment) they can overcome this disease. This despite the fact that an actual diagnosis of alcoholism according to DSM IV requires a good deal more in the way of symtomatic behaviour than merely admitting you are an alcoholic. Adding to the first answer above, I'm pretty sure that the DSM IV definition of alcoholism isn't brought up at a lot of meetings.

[Black Dog]

Is anyone being advised or ordered to attend this counselling by legal or medical professionals? Or are people seeking it for their own piece of mind? What you're talking about here is curtailing free speech rights. If these counselling places are giving out medical information that is demostrably false, they should be held to account for that. Perhaps certification is in order, but you still haven't proven to me that AA shouldn't also be certified for the same reasons.

neither of us seem to have al that much info on how A works beyond the basics, so I'm not sure how we can have a detailed discussion. I'll leave it at his: I believe PCCs should require some form of certification or licencing. If AA fall sunder teh same cataagory, then licence it too. I don't really care.

Well, the first thing a newly dry person hears at an AA meeting is that they suffer from a disease (a diagnosis is presented). Then they are told that by strictly adhering to the proposed course of action (treatment) they can overcome this disease. This despite the fact that an actual diagnosis of alcoholism according to DSM IV requires a good deal more in the way of symtomatic behaviour than merely admitting you are an alcoholic. Adding to the first answer above, I'm pretty sure that the DSM IV definition of alcoholism isn't brought up at a lot of meetings.

Actually, the diagnosiss of alcholism is left entirely up to the alcoholic. Also, I don't think the AA definition of alcholic necessarily matches the strict medical definition of the term.

Look, here's how it breaks down: AA is for people who acknowledge they have a problem and want to seek help by working through there issues in a group setting with others who are experiencing the same problem. PCCs suggest or promise a full range of reproductive health services, when in reality, they often provide false medical information, make moral and religious judgments and show graphic videos or material that misrepresents abortion to coerce women into continuing a pregnancy. I see a profound difference between the two. Maybe AA should be licenced. But PCCs definitely should be.