Abortion in Animals

[Northern Light]

I found out recently that dogs can absorb pregnancies, even nearly-formed puppies. They do it for various reasons, like malnutrition or stress to the mother. Some research suggests it may also be autonomous (the mother can do it at will for whatever reason).

I don't have a fancy shmancy scientific link, but here's an interesting site:
Pregnant Dam Absorbing Fetus - Whelping and Raising Puppies

Apparently a few other animal species, like kangaroos, can do this too.

It makes me wonder... if humans could do this, would we even be having an abortion debate? The fact that humans need to seek an external resource for abortion means that it's a process that can be controlled and interfered with by other humans. The fact that women can't totally control their own gestation process gives opportunity for outside social forces to intervene.

Whether for or against abortion, maybe this has less to do with right to life, and more to do with the philosophy of control? Whatever humans can't control, they tend to not get involved in... but as soon as morals, ethics, politics, and decisions or choices become apparent, then society feels the need to form a verdict on it.

We do this with almost every aspect of human life.

So I ask this: if abortion couldn't be controlled, would we even care?

 

[joG]

I found out recently that dogs can absorb pregnancies, even nearly-formed puppies. They do it for various reasons, like malnutrition or stress to the mother. Some research suggests it may also be autonomous (the mother can do it at will for whatever reason).

I don't have a fancy shmancy scientific link, but here's an interesting site:
Pregnant Dam Absorbing Fetus - Whelping and Raising Puppies

Apparently a few other animal species, like kangaroos, can do this too.

It makes me wonder... if humans could do this, would we even be having an abortion debate? The fact that humans need to seek an external resource for abortion means that it's a process that can be controlled and interfered with by other humans. The fact that women can't totally control their own gestation process gives opportunity for outside social forces to intervene.

Whether for or against abortion, maybe this has less to do with right to life, and more to do with the philosophy of control? Whatever humans can't control, they tend to not get involved in... but as soon as morals, ethics, politics, and decisions or choices become apparent, then society feels the need to form a verdict on it.

We do this with almost every aspect of human life.

So I ask this: if abortion couldn't be controlled, would we even care?

There are also species that eat their mates, children or siblings given half a chance.

 

[minnie616]

I found out recently that dogs can absorb pregnancies, even nearly-formed puppies. They do it for various reasons, like malnutrition or stress to the mother. Some research suggests it may also be autonomous (the mother can do it at will for whatever reason).

I don't have a fancy shmancy scientific link, but here's an interesting site:
Pregnant Dam Absorbing Fetus - Whelping and Raising Puppies

Apparently a few other animal species, like kangaroos, can do this too.

It makes me wonder... if humans could do this, would we even be having an abortion debate? The fact that humans need to seek an external resource for abortion means that it's a process that can be controlled and interfered with by other humans. The fact that women can't totally control their own gestation process gives opportunity for outside social forces to intervene.

Whether for or against abortion, maybe this has less to do with right to life, and more to do with the philosophy of control? Whatever humans can't control, they tend to not get involved in... but as soon as morals, ethics, politics, and decisions or choices become apparent, then society feels the need to form a verdict on it.

We do this with almost every aspect of human life.

So I ask this: if abortion couldn't be controlled, would we even care?

Sometimes a human embryo is Reabsorbed back into a woman's body.
Usually it happens before she is aware she is pregnant.
But it is not unusual for women with ectopic pregnancies and their doctors to be aware when it happens in cases of ectopic pregnancies.

If a woman's body does not expel or reabsorb the embryo on its own, medical or surgical intervention is almost always necessary to end the pregnancy.

Watchful Waiting

If an ectopic pregnancy is caught very early, a doctor may elect to wait and see if the woman's body expels or reabsorbs the pregnancy on its own.

Ectopic Pregnancy Treatment | Everyday Health



Since an embryo can be resorbed in the woman's body, than obviously the embryo is not separate as born persons are.

 

[Lursa]

Whether for or against abortion, maybe this has less to do with right to life, and more to do with the philosophy of control? Whatever humans can't control, they tend to not get involved in... but as soon as morals, ethics, politics, and decisions or choices become apparent, then society feels the need to form a verdict on it.

We do this with almost every aspect of human life.

So I ask this: if abortion couldn't be controlled, would we even care?

Well those that like to make an appeal to 'natural' law or nature rarely seem to understand actual science, so the objective side doesnt often enter into their arguments.

Well, in nature, human and otherwise, many of those unborn are naturally miscarried. Such miscarriages are often the result of defect or stress. Biology acting on the female.

If those same defects or stresses are still present at birth, then the female may kill the newborn. Eat her litter, kill the defective one,abandon young, etc. This is done because those with less chance of survival also have less chance of passing on their genes and take up valuable resources, including from the mother.

Nature always selects for the reproductively mature over the juveniles. Juveniles have not yet reached their reproductive potential and as they are more vulnerable, have a much lower chance of survival. The female may sacrifice young that have much less chance of survival yet will take up valuable resources that she or others may need....in order to survive and reproduce in the future.

The mature adult capable of reproducing is always the better investment in nature.

In biology, see: crowd stress, embryonic/fetal adsorption (spelled correctly), spontaneous abortion.


Now, I can see how woman in our society may choose abortion for many of the same reason: to enhance her own survival, future, and have a better chance of successfully raising children in that future. And IMO she is also the better investment for society for all the same reasons as mentioned above....she's already there, healthy (apparently), participating in that society, has more potential to reproduce in the future.

While I dont base my arguments supporting pro-choice strictly on biology (but instead mostly on women's rights) the biological view does shed some light on the difficult decisions women must make and why they feel they must make them. For life...and future lives.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I found out recently that dogs can absorb pregnancies, even nearly-formed puppies. They do it for various reasons, like malnutrition or stress to the mother. Some research suggests it may also be autonomous (the mother can do it at will for whatever reason).

I don't have a fancy shmancy scientific link, but here's an interesting site:
Pregnant Dam Absorbing Fetus - Whelping and Raising Puppies

Apparently a few other animal species, like kangaroos, can do this too.

It makes me wonder... if humans could do this, would we even be having an abortion debate? The fact that humans need to seek an external resource for abortion means that it's a process that can be controlled and interfered with by other humans. The fact that women can't totally control their own gestation process gives opportunity for outside social forces to intervene.

Whether for or against abortion, maybe this has less to do with right to life, and more to do with the philosophy of control? Whatever humans can't control, they tend to not get involved in... but as soon as morals, ethics, politics, and decisions or choices become apparent, then society feels the need to form a verdict on it.

We do this with almost every aspect of human life.

So I ask this: if abortion couldn't be controlled, would we even care?

Well, yes and no. Humans don't absorb fetuses, it's true.

But they do miscarry, sometimes simply due to stress. So, six of one, half a dozen of another... That's basically "the abortion we can't control." And what's more, miscarriage is extremely common. It's estimated that 75% of all pregnancies miscarry, about half of those before the woman knows she's pregnant.

But all animals have a way of negating negative reproduction at will as well, if their assessment of their survival chances is not encouraging. For most, this takes the form of infanticide. It can for humans too. But we actually prevent some infanticide by making wilful choices before birth, and we always have.

There are natural abortifacient substances that weren't hard to come by in the environments in which we evolved, and are considerably safer than, say, pennyroyal. Still not as effective as our modern abortion medications, but did the job ok without a huge amount of risk.

Interestingly, we have also observed other higher primates seeming to use the same plants for the same purposes. So it's entirely possible we've been aborting this way for even longer than modern humans have been around.

But when we moved into non-native territories, obviously we had to either make due with what was there (which might have had more serious downsides, like pennyroyal did), or invent something else.

Beyond that, in natural environments, pregnancy was really rather uncommon. Humans have long childhoods and huge socialization needs, so we weren't designed to have many of them. Most women were infertile for years and years at a time, due to their fitness level and/or communal breastfeeding. So thwarting unsustainable reproduction wasn't as big of an issue to begin with. The changes in physiology caused by agricultural living upset all of that.

Our current social conditions have changed the reality of reproduction considerably, making it harder for women to control their fertility. That's not necessarily "how humans are." It's a consequence of our technological choices. And we correct that imbalance with artificial solutions, like contraction and modern abortion procedures (both of which are more effective than their natural counterparts, but still, the idea that women can control their fertility is certainly not new -- it was just harder to do for a while).

The question of how we treat abortion today, really, is less a question of nature and more a question of the imbalances caused by, and also corrected by technology.

 

[Lursa]

There are also species that eat their mates, children or siblings given half a chance.

Do you know the 'reasons' behind those things or do you believe they are driven by malice?

Come on...you told me that you know all about evolution.

 

[countryboy]

I found out recently that dogs can absorb pregnancies, even nearly-formed puppies. They do it for various reasons, like malnutrition or stress to the mother. Some research suggests it may also be autonomous (the mother can do it at will for whatever reason).

I don't have a fancy shmancy scientific link, but here's an interesting site:
Pregnant Dam Absorbing Fetus - Whelping and Raising Puppies

Apparently a few other animal species, like kangaroos, can do this too.

It makes me wonder... if humans could do this, would we even be having an abortion debate? The fact that humans need to seek an external resource for abortion means that it's a process that can be controlled and interfered with by other humans. The fact that women can't totally control their own gestation process gives opportunity for outside social forces to intervene.

Whether for or against abortion, maybe this has less to do with right to life, and more to do with the philosophy of control? Whatever humans can't control, they tend to not get involved in... but as soon as morals, ethics, politics, and decisions or choices become apparent, then society feels the need to form a verdict on it.

We do this with almost every aspect of human life.

So I ask this: if abortion couldn't be controlled, would we even care?

Oh look, another idiotic straw man to rationalize the slaughter of innocents. :roll:

 

[Lursa]

So I ask this: if abortion couldn't be controlled, would we even care?

I think this needs more foundation, because it's hard to imagine any actions on the unborn in any stage taking place without impacting the woman carrying it.

It reminds me of this constructed argument, which is only a surface observation/question, but does not examine the consequences of the implementation of any laws...or lack of them...at all:

Is the left only against abortion because of a woman's rights or if the woman's rights were not an issue, would they be for ending the life of a fetus anyway? If the left would say that it is ok to end the life of a fetus in an artificial womb then that means abortion doesn't really have anything to do with women's rights at all. It just means the left wants to kill fetuses whether they are in a woman or not.

It doesnt seem productive to discuss abortion on a level so abstract that it approaches fantasy. That's just IMO of course. But in the example above, I really dont even understand the purpose of the parts I highlighted in red. What is the foundation for wondering if strangers would want to kill other people's unborn (inside a woman or in an artificial environment)?

But perhaps you can expand on your question? (I find the biological aspects fascinating because that's my foundation and interest in education, but like I wrote, only tangential.)

 

[Moderate Right]

I think this needs more foundation, because it's hard to imagine any actions on the unborn in any stage taking place without impacting the woman carrying it.

It reminds me of this constructed argument, which is only a surface observation/question, but does not examine the consequences of the implementation of any laws...or lack of them...at all:



It doesnt seem productive to discuss abortion on a level so abstract that it approaches fantasy. That's just IMO of course. But in the example above, I really dont even understand the purpose of the parts I highlighted in red. What is the foundation for wondering if strangers would want to kill other people's unborn (inside a woman or in an artificial environment)?

But perhaps you can expand on your question? (I find the biological aspects fascinating because that's my foundation and interest in education, but like I wrote, only tangential.)

My question is a simple one. Is abortion about the right's of a woman or is it about wanting to have the right to abort a fetus if you don't want it anymore? If a woman's rights were not the issue (as in the fetus is growing in an artificial womb instead of a woman) would abortion rights activists still want to have the right to abort the fetus anyway? Would they feel any stronger sense of morality to the fetus or is it still just an unviable thing with no right to life so there's no reason not to abort it if you don't want it anymore. I really don't want to get into an argument about why someone would go to the trouble and expense of growing a fetus in an artificial womb and then at some point decide they want to abort it. There are reasons as to why this could theoretically happen. It's a hypothetical question but it is not that far out of the realm of possibility at some point in the future. I would really like to understand how the left feels about this but if the question has to be deflected and not answered then I really don't want to get into some long drawn out discussion on the subject, or even a short one. Is this merely a woman's rights issue or just an issue as to if you have the right to abort a fetus or not?

 

[Lursa]

My question is a simple one. Is abortion about the right's of a woman or is it about wanting to have the right to abort a fetus if you don't want it anymore? If a woman's rights were not the issue (as in the fetus is growing in an artificial womb instead of a woman) would abortion rights activists still want to have the right to abort the fetus anyway? Would they feel any stronger sense of morality to the fetus or is it still just an unviable thing with no right to life so there's no reason not to abort it if you don't want it anymore. I really don't want to get into an argument about why someone would go to the trouble and expense of growing a fetus in an artificial womb and then at some point decide they want to abort it. There are reasons as to why this could theoretically happen. It's a hypothetical question but it is not that far out of the realm of possibility at some point in the future. I would really like to understand how the left feels about this but if the question has to be deflected and not answered then I really don't want to get into some long drawn out discussion on the subject, or even a short one. Is this merely a woman's rights issue or just an issue as to if you have the right to abort a fetus or not?

Again...what reality...past, present, or future...is this remotely based on? Why would anyone want to do that? Has anyone ever stated they want to kill other people's unborn, besides the Pharoah in Egypt trying to prevent Moses from being born? (Actually I think it was King Herrod, but I digress)

I'm sorry but I dont understand the question and as such, it appears like some random fantasy. It needs a basis in reality, IMO, and that's the point I was trying to make to Northern Lights.

P.S. No one now has the right to abort anyone else's unborn. Pro-choice or otherwise.

 

[Lursa]

growing a fetus in an artificial womb

Wouldnt this unborn human have to be removed from the woman first? Would that be with her consent?

Who is legally responsible for this unborn human and what right does anyone else have to do *anything* with it besides that person or entity? You cant just kill other people's cats, for example. Or take their stuff. The unborn 'belongs' to someone.

Your 'hypothetical' cannot stand alone without context....it's not a yes or no issue.

 

[year2late]

Wouldnt this unborn human have to be removed from the woman first? Would that be with her consent?

Who is legally responsible for this unborn human and what right does anyone else have to do *anything* with it besides that person or entity? You cant just kill other people's cats, for example. Or take their stuff. The unborn 'belongs' to someone.

Your 'hypothetical' cannot stand alone without context....it's not a yes or no issue.

I cannot believe they keep bringing up artificial wombs in abortion debates. I have to wonder if there is some kind of intellectual disconnect on this issue. Do they realize that the procedure to remove the fetus would have to be essentially as invasive as a C-section to remove an embryo or fetus intact and viable. Let alone the enormous cost of maintaining an embryo/fetus in the artificial womb.

We actually had a person advocating artificial wombs on this board....and when I brought up the physical barriers and harm to the woman.....it was actually brought up that teleportation could be developed to aid in the process.:lamo I thought the comment was a joke. It wasn't.:doh

 

[prometeus]

My question is a simple one. Is abortion about the right's of a woman or is it about wanting to have the right to abort a fetus if you don't want it anymore?

It is about the unconstitutionality of laws that ban abortion and violate women's rights.

If a woman's rights were not the issue (as in the fetus is growing in an artificial womb instead of a woman) would abortion rights activists still want to have the right to abort the fetus anyway?

Carrying a pregnancy to term is only half of the equation.

 

[Lursa]

I cannot believe they keep bringing up artificial wombs in abortion debates. I have to wonder if there is some kind of intellectual disconnect on this issue. Do they realize that the procedure to remove the fetus would have to be essentially as invasive as a C-section to remove an embryo or fetus intact and viable. Let alone the enormous cost of maintaining an embryo/fetus in the artificial womb.

We actually had a person advocating artificial wombs on this board....and when I brought up the physical barriers and harm to the woman.....it was actually brought up that teleportation could be developed to aid in the process.:lamo I thought the comment was a joke. It wasn't.:doh

I actually think it's worth discussing so that people can see the benefits and barriers (in that hypothetical future).

I can see great advantages for couples/women that want a biological child but the woman cannot physically carry it, for example.

But as you point out, an artificial womb does not eliminate legal considerations, such as:

1) would consent be required before removing the unborn from a woman?

2) who is legally and financially responsible for the unborn during artificial gestation?

3) what happens to the artificially gestated when it is complete? (If there are no bio parents waiting or adoptive parents lined up)

 

[year2late]

I actually think it's worth discussing so that people can see the benefits and barriers (in that hypothetical future).

I can see great advantages for couples/women that want a biological child but the woman cannot physically carry it, for example.

But as you point out, an artificial womb does not eliminate legal considerations, such as:

1) would consent be required before removing the unborn from a woman?

2) who is legally and financially responsible for the unborn during artificial gestation?

3) what happens to the artificially gestated when it is complete? (If there are no bio parents waiting or adoptive parents lined up)

Exactly.

More than anything, I think the primary use for artificial wombs will be with women unable to maintain pregnancy. Who will shoulder that cost? That will be a major issue. Can you imagine the shear numbers of women who could benefit and the impact on health care insurance? The process would make the cost of IVF seem like chump change.

 

[Northern Light]

It's really unfortunate that nobody is really answering the question I posed in the OP and are instead devolving to the usual mindless abortion debate.

This is the last time I try to have a nuanced discussion about this topic. :shrug:

Have at it.

 

[Northern Light]

Well, yes and no. Humans don't absorb fetuses, it's true.

But they do miscarry, sometimes simply due to stress. So, six of one, half a dozen of another... That's basically "the abortion we can't control." And what's more, miscarriage is extremely common. It's estimated that 75% of all pregnancies miscarry, about half of those before the woman knows she's pregnant.

But all animals have a way of negating negative reproduction at will as well, if their assessment of their survival chances is not encouraging. For most, this takes the form of infanticide. It can for humans too. But we actually prevent some infanticide by making wilful choices before birth, and we always have.

There are natural abortifacient substances that weren't hard to come by in the environments in which we evolved, and are considerably safer than, say, pennyroyal. Still not as effective as our modern abortion medications, but did the job ok without a huge amount of risk.

Interestingly, we have also observed other higher primates seeming to use the same plants for the same purposes. So it's entirely possible we've been aborting this way for even longer than modern humans have been around.

But when we moved into non-native territories, obviously we had to either make due with what was there (which might have had more serious downsides, like pennyroyal did), or invent something else.

Beyond that, in natural environments, pregnancy was really rather uncommon. Humans have long childhoods and huge socialization needs, so we weren't designed to have many of them. Most women were infertile for years and years at a time, due to their fitness level and/or communal breastfeeding. So thwarting unsustainable reproduction wasn't as big of an issue to begin with. The changes in physiology caused by agricultural living upset all of that.

Our current social conditions have changed the reality of reproduction considerably, making it harder for women to control their fertility. That's not necessarily "how humans are." It's a consequence of our technological choices. And we correct that imbalance with artificial solutions, like contraction and modern abortion procedures (both of which are more effective than their natural counterparts, but still, the idea that women can control their fertility is certainly not new -- it was just harder to do for a while).

The question of how we treat abortion today, really, is less a question of nature and more a question of the imbalances caused by, and also corrected by technology.

The abortion procedure in modern medicine is more thorough has a higher safety rating than using natural medicines, though even in States that are making it really difficult to abort, we don't see an increase in the use of natural abortifacients. Maybe it's because the knowledge is lost or people just aren't doing their research. So modern medicine has become the de facto deciding factor in access to abortion, which is where my idea about control comes in. In the natural world I'm sure women abort through all sorts of means, in private, without really anyone knowing. A lot of natural abortifacients have harsh side effects too which might make one reluctant.

I also agree with you that in natural environments pregnancy was uncommon due to environmental factors and life stressors. We're still kind of dancing around my question though... which is that, if women had a biological mechanism for aborting at will, would we even be having this discussion? I mean, would we still have anti-abortionists trying to control it? Would we be forcing women to taken medications which prevent their inherent abortion mechanisms?

It's true that many pregnancies don't survive, but anti-abortionists are against elective abortion. If you're willfully terminating a pregnancy then it's murder. A pregnancy ending of its own accord is not murder. But even in a world where elective abortion is illegal, it's only punishable if we find out about it, and there's still the burden of proof to demonstrate that a woman actually did it. Without proof there's no case. My friend who worked in a hospital in South Africa said that Friday night was "abortion night" because women waited until the weekend to do it. They would use pen caps attached to coat hangers to scratch their uterus and cause bleeding, which was a medical emergency that required a D&C, which is de facto abortion if you're pregnant. Of course, nobody can prove that a woman did this to herself.

I don't think the state can ever have that much control over women's bodies, it just increases risk of death. Women will find other covert means.

 

[year2late]

It's really unfortunate that nobody is really answering the question I posed in the OP and are instead devolving to the usual mindless abortion debate.

This is the last time I try to have a nuanced discussion about this topic. :shrug:

Have at it.

This is an abortion board.

When somebody goes off on a tangent, and others follow....that is just the nature of the beast.

 

[Lursa]

Exactly.

More than anything, I think the primary use for artificial wombs will be with women unable to maintain pregnancy. Who will shoulder that cost? That will be a major issue. Can you imagine the shear numbers of women who could benefit and the impact on health care insurance? The process would make the cost of IVF seem like chump change.

Yes, but what does it cost to adopt that 'perfect white infant' now?


Of course I dont want it to be paid for by regular health insurance. That's 'elective.' Just like, IMO, any type of pre-natal or maternity care but no one ever agrees with me on that

 

[Lursa]

It's really unfortunate that nobody is really answering the question I posed in the OP and are instead devolving to the usual mindless abortion debate.

This is the last time I try to have a nuanced discussion about this topic. :shrug:

Have at it.

I asked for clarification in order to do so.

I very much respect a new angle on this issue.

 

[Lursa]

I don't think the state can ever have that much control over women's bodies, it just increases risk of death. Women will find other covert means.

IMO society and the state have never had that control over women's reproduction, as much as they've wanted to...and they have certainly wanted to.

But when it comes to considering control....where does it start? IMO, with people having sex. Yes? No? Maybe?

I think yes, and I note that since the dawn of time, people have had sex, no matter what the consequences. And in millenia, centuries, decades past, that *very often* involved disease, death, loss of social status, stoning, beating, incarceration, dangerously septic abortions, being disowned, exile, inability to get reputable employment, poverty, etc. And with all that....people (and many of those consequences involve men too) still have sex. No matter what. It is pretty much the strongest driving force in all living things, including people.

So I would think that 'control' in the present day, with more efficient birth control, more social acceptance of extra-marital sex, and safer, legal abortion, that it would be nearly impossible in any society...much less a free one. Even in the strictest Islamic societies, for example, they cannot stop people from having sex (or kids or abortions) out of wedlock.

IMO if control is the object of continued resistance to abortion, it is fairly subconscious in most people...those that do not like the direction that a less-sexually repressed society is taking. They, I think, believe it all stems from 'loose women.' :roll:

Great societal change can be scary for some and I'd agree all changes are not necessarily good. But it's very simplistic to just reduce it to blaming people for enjoying sex and thinking that forcing them to have kids they arent prepared for or cant afford, will change things. It wont. It never has.

I hope I have addressed your OP in a manner that you expected?

 

[Moderate Right]

It is about the unconstitutionality of laws that ban abortion and violate women's rights.

Carrying a pregnancy to term is only half of the equation.

So you are saying that abortion is strictly a woman's rights issue and if a female egg and a male sperm were united inside an artificial womb, creating a fetus, then the parents would not have a right to abort the child if they so choose, because it would not have anything to do with women's rights? By the way, I sincerely wish to know the left's answer, not trying to set up some kind of argument to go on and on.

 

[Lursa]

So you are saying that abortion is strictly a woman's rights issue and if a female egg and a male sperm were united inside an artificial womb, creating a fetus, then the parents would not have a right to abort the child if they so choose, because it would not have anything to do with women's rights? By the way, I sincerely wish to know the left's answer, not trying to set up some kind of argument to go on and on.

Parents have the right to do that now...they create embryos of their own eggs and sperm and have them stored. And they have the right to dispose of them as they see fit. Can you explain how your scenario is significantly different, esp. legally?

 

[Moderate Right]

Parents have the right to do that now...they create embryos of their own eggs and sperm and have them stored. And they have the right to dispose of them as they see fit. Can you explain how your scenario is significantly different, esp. legally?

So, finally, I think I have your answer. It really has nothing to do with women's rights. If you want to abort a fetus you should have the right to do it. So, in the end, it is not really a women's rights issue. That is just the first line of defense. Once we get past that you would still want to have the right to abort the fetus anyway. I just want people to be honest about their reasoning and not just blame it on women's rights out of convenience. Women's rights is just an easy scapegoat for wanting to abort a fetus that is not wanted.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The abortion procedure in modern medicine is more thorough has a higher safety rating than using natural medicines, though even in States that are making it really difficult to abort, we don't see an increase in the use of natural abortifacients. Maybe it's because the knowledge is lost or people just aren't doing their research. So modern medicine has become the de facto deciding factor in access to abortion, which is where my idea about control comes in. In the natural world I'm sure women abort through all sorts of means, in private, without really anyone knowing. A lot of natural abortifacients have harsh side effects too which might make one reluctant.

I also agree with you that in natural environments pregnancy was uncommon due to environmental factors and life stressors. We're still kind of dancing around my question though... which is that, if women had a biological mechanism for aborting at will, would we even be having this discussion? I mean, would we still have anti-abortionists trying to control it? Would we be forcing women to taken medications which prevent their inherent abortion mechanisms?

It's true that many pregnancies don't survive, but anti-abortionists are against elective abortion. If you're willfully terminating a pregnancy then it's murder. A pregnancy ending of its own accord is not murder. But even in a world where elective abortion is illegal, it's only punishable if we find out about it, and there's still the burden of proof to demonstrate that a woman actually did it. Without proof there's no case. My friend who worked in a hospital in South Africa said that Friday night was "abortion night" because women waited until the weekend to do it. They would use pen caps attached to coat hangers to scratch their uterus and cause bleeding, which was a medical emergency that required a D&C, which is de facto abortion if you're pregnant. Of course, nobody can prove that a woman did this to herself...

Well, one could argue we do have natural at-will abortion. Just because we do it using whatever's laying around doesn't make it unnatural. After all, we've probably been doing this since we were covered in fur. It's clearly a natural behavior.

But at any rate, I think it's the wrong question, because there is no evidence abortion ever was controversial prior to larger agricultural societies, and it still isn't in some societies. Not as in they decided it was ethically ok, but as in no one ever cared to begin with -- it's "women's business." So the real question is, why did that suddenly change when our survival model did?

And the answer to that, I think, is really pretty simple. In a survival model that relies on numbers and army strength to strong-arm what it wants from the next guy over, women are commodities, and them refusing to make more soldiers is social treason.

It isn't that the nature of human reproduction lends itself to this debate. It's that our technological and social choices lend themselves to this debate. Our nature is irrelevant; many societies have never cared about abortion, and ours didn't used to either before we made those choices. This debate exists because of the mere existence of women, not because of how their reproductive organs objectively function.

We're talking about a society that is an outgrowth of -- and still recovering from -- a model in which women are treated literally exactly the same as livestock. We've gotten a lot better over the past 1,000 years or so, but that baggage is still with us.

Even the anti's abort. Any clinician in an abortion clinic can tell you that. And that, perhaps, says something rather fundamental about what humans are.

There is no debate that women have a right to abort. Not really. Because when it comes down to it, a good number of the anti's will abort if they truly believe it is the better choice in their circumstances. When it comes down to it, we all know banning abortion doesn't reduce it, and yet that is the only solution anti's ever put forward, while offering absolutely nothing that could prevent more unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It's symbolic, not practical.

It has nothing to do with the fetus. There are dozens of examples I could use the make that point, but I'll just pick one of the most common ones: If it had anything to do with the fetus or its "personhood," then the vast majority of anti's wouldn't make exceptions for rape. That's like saying that if some guy assaults me, killing my own kid is admissible as self-defence. That makes less than zero sense if this is actually about the fetus.

And that's because it's not. What the debate is about what women's obligations are or aren't to society, sexually and reproductively. And that is a debate that happens with certain kinds of cultures, not certain kinds of reproductive processes.