The subtley, nuance, and insight at Pharyngula are really something. Something
absent, that is.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -abortion/ (sorry, I don't Freezepage)
All bolding & italics in the OP below are as in the original.
PZ Myers wrote:Don’t tell people how to feel about abortion
Stephanie Zvan quotes Massimo Pigliucci:
To decide to get an abortion is always (or, at least, should always be) a very difficult and emotional step, precisely because it has significant ethical consequences.
Why? Philosopher, examine your assumptions.
There is no particular reason abortion
should be difficult; it’s certainly less fraught than pregnancy. I could see saying that getting pregnant ought to be a difficult and emotional step — lots of commitment and responsibility involved — and that if you’ve made
that decision, ending a wanted pregnancy is rightly a very difficult step. But one you don’t want? That is going to be an obstacle to living your life well? That ought to be an easy decision, except, of course, for the weight of tradition and guilt artificially imposed on us.
So don’t try to dictate how women ought to feel about abortion. The hysterics lining the walkways in front of family planning clinics, waving their bloody signs, are not representative. The patients can be casual and unconcerned as is possible for a simple outpatient procedure. Or they can be distraught and hesitant. Those are their feelings.
<snip>
Man, that one sentence sure contains a lot of presumption that needs to be unpacked. Maybe we need a philosopher to puzzle it all out.
After this, all bolding was added by me. (But the red text is all PZ's own.)
First, let's take a look at the OP again and be inspired by the depths of PZ's understanding that no man should tell women how to feel:
...I could see saying that getting pregnant ought to be a difficult and emotional step — lots of commitment and responsibility involved — and that if you’ve made that decision, ending a wanted pregnancy is rightly a very difficult step. But one you don’t want? That is going to be an obstacle to living your life well? That ought to be an easy decision, ...
Chas Peterson weighs in in posts #1 and #2 and riles the horde all up; they're still pissed at him in mid-100's in the comment thread, see below.
Chas Peterson in #1 wrote:<snip>
As far as I can tell, the only assumption is that ethical issues are raised whenever something gets killed.
Ethical issues are not raised by failure to implant any more than ethical issues are raised by somebody getting struck by lightning.
Ethical issues are raised by somebody killing a puppy with a brick.
To some people, abortion seems more like somebpdy killing a puppy than somebody getting hit by lightning.
You can discount that attitude as based on ‘feelings’, but so is its opposite.
Dr. Dr. Dr. Pigliucci is explicit that he thinks that “logical, science-based, and rational arguments against abortion [are] ultimately unconvincing, or countered by better argumentsâ€.
Yeah, he prescribes correct feellings, with use of “oughtâ€. If that’s your beef, than OK. He shouldn’t tell women how to feel.
(Nobody reading this has any problem prescribing correct feelings about other issues, though. ...) <snip>
PZ clarifies:
PZ Myers, in #6 wrote:"To decide to get an abortion is always (or, at least, should always be) a very difficult and emotional step": that is an assumption. He doesn’t have any evidence for it. There isn’t even a logical reason why that should be true.
There are a couple people calmly trying to do a reality check on the horde:
blinncombs, in #50 wrote:Did anybody read the original post? It certainly doesn’t appear so. The reactive post from which the quote is taken is a total non sequitor to Pigliucci’s, but here we have PZ using this thinnest of gruel to accuse the MP of, ahem, failing to examine his assumptions. Oh sweet irony….
"You" means PZ in the post below:
mnb0, in #61 wrote:“That ought to be an easy decisionâ€
You left it to Angelina Jolie to tell how easy or difficult the decision was to have breast surgery was. Now you are the one telling women how to feel about abortion. This issue should be left to those people who actually had one or plan to have one (so totally not Pigliucci either). Last time I checked your photo I had the impression you don’t belong to that category.
nrdo, in #81 wrote:PZ, the quote above actually seems to be a bit of a misquote, since the original post says: ‘To decide to get certain types of abortion (say, last trimester) is always (or, at least, should always be) a very difficult and emotional stepâ€
Those familiar with the abortion issue understand that late trimester abortions are rare and almost always due to a medical problem that has ruled out a promising future for the mother and/or baby. But in the interests of fair discussion, we have to make it a point to go by what he actually said. <snip>
Several people around this point (including PZ) point out that MP edited his post; nrdo then agrees that MP was underhanded in doing so.
blinncombs, #88 wrote:53, 60: Actually, PZ (and Stacy), you focused on Ms. Zvan’s blatant *misquotation* of Pigliucci’s post. Here’s the original:
“ince abortion involves more than one life, and there is a marked difference in the consequences of a given decision for the two parties, the issue is thornier than others, and it ought to be so for secularists also. To decide to get certain types of abortion (say, last trimester) is always (or, at least, should always be) a very difficult and emotional step, precisely because it has significant ethical consequences. There is no equivalent to that in, say, deciding whether to allow gay couples to marry or not, as a moment’s reflection should make clear.â€
When you actually read Pigliucci’s post (you know, rather than just sniping at somebody else’s misquotation), it’s quite obvious that Zvan’s reply simply has nothing to do with Pigliucci’s original. Worse, it’s pretty clear that her post has precious little to do with any specific decision to have an abortion, and everything to do with a *possible* future complication of taking a drug for the treatment of migraines (which, she admits, probably doesn’t actually affect fetal development). So she agrees that, if she were to get pregnant while on propranolol, she would have an abortion.
In this vein, her remarks are quite revealing, because they unwittingly make Piglicucci’s point. She goes through a litany of the types of things that ethical people think about when considering matters of reproduction. This just proves that she agrees with Massimo that the “decision to abort†should be “the subject of serious consideration.†She shows her agreement by illustrating that very deliberation.
He's right; Zvan's moderately long post was about how her doctor said, if you get pregnant while taking this medication you might have to have an abortion, and Zvan said okay, so hey, see, abortion doesn't require any emotional input, and she'll use a whole post to tell you how unemotional she is or would be about it.
Zvan weighs in on the thread, severely chides blinncombs for telling her how she feels. People point out to blinncombs that MP changed the wording; blinncombs acknowledges, says oops but that doesn't really change it. On and on and on it goes. Now, a while later, Zvan has found it difficult to leave because blinncombs isn't backing down.
PZ in #136:
http://i.imgur.com/LHF7HAJ.png?1
:lol:
blinncombs in #160 wrote:PZ, the whole thread is a vent about Massimo dictating the terms of what women should feel. In what universe isn’t that fairly construed as a complaint about limiting women’s decisional autonomy?
I think it’s a nonsensical complaint based on a wholly uncharitable reading, but it’s still the dominant complaint.
Zvan can't let it rest; she has to try to eviscerate him with her rapier, uh, well, not "wit" that's for sure. And on and on and on it goes.
