Views on Abortion: A Comparison of Female Genetic Counselors and Women from the General Population

While literature characterizing individual genetic counselors’ abortion attitudes is sparse, the National Society of Genetic Counselors takes a clear stance for reproductive autonomy. To determine genetic counselors’ views, this study compared (1) genetic counselors’ abortion attitudes to those of women from the general population and (2) genetic counselors’ professional abortion attitudes to their personal abortion attitudes. Genetic counselors were invited to complete an online survey. Response rate was 44.3% (709/1,601). Compared to women from the general population, female genetic counselors were significantly more likely to agree abortion should be an option in all cases (p < .001). Controlling for other possible confounders, regression analyses revealed that being a genetic counselor, religious service attendance and age were significantly predictive of abortion attitudes. Although the vast majority of genetic counselors agree that abortion should be available, they are significantly less likely to personally consider abortion under all circumstances presented (p < .001), and the percentage of genetic counselors who would consider terminating in the case of a severe birth defect is similar to studies of other women.     

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION ON DEMAND

The paper presents a simple but novel argument against the idea of abortion on demand – i.e. the situation where a woman does not need to justify an abortion. Rather than arguing from a theory of the Right to Life of the foetus, which many would regard as controversial, the paper argues from the point of view that the foetus has a certain (intrinsic) value– simply because it is human. Since the destruction of something of value must be justified, it follows that the destruction of a foetus must be justified. This rules out abortion on demand. I believe that shifting emphasis from rights to values could make a major difference to the abortion debate and will make many people rethink their position on the subject.     

Acceptability in France of Induced Abortion for Adolescents

Background: This study investigated the factors affecting the acceptability in France of abortions. Method: 80 study participants from Toulouse and 124 from Metz judged the acceptability of abortion in 64 vignettes composed of five factors: 1) the adolescent's age (15 or 17.5 years), 2) the adolescent's plans to continue schooling or not, 3) the fetus' age (1, 2, 3, or 4 months), 4) the adolescent's parents' agreement or not, and 5) the agreement or not of baby's father. Results: Three clusters were noted: 1) abortion is never acceptable (8% of participants), 2) abortion is always acceptable (23%), and 3) acceptability of abortion depends on the circumstances (63%). In the majority cluster (3), all five factors had significant effects, but the fetus's age accounted for most of the variance (78%). Conclusion: Most subjects in this study judged, in accordance with French law, that the acceptability of induced abortion in minors depends on the circumstances and, in particular, on the fetus' age.     

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb?: Obstetric Ultrasound and the Abortion Rights Debate

This paper explores the rhetoric of obstetric ultrasound technology as it relates to the abortion debate, specifically the interpretation given to ultrasound images by opponents of abortion. The tenor of the anti-abortion approach is precisely captured in the videotape, Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb. Aspects of this videotape are analyzed in order to tease out the assumptions about the (female) body and about the access to truth yielded by scientific technology (ultrasound) held by militant opponents of abortion. It is argued that the ultrasound images do not offer transparent confirmation of the ontological status of the embryo and fetus. Rather, the window of ultrasound is constructed through a complex combination of visual and verbal devices: ultrasound images, photographic images, verbal argument, and emotional appeal.     

Social Judgment of Abortion: A Black-Sheep Effect in a Catholic Sheepfold

Abstract

French Catholic participants (N = 340) with high or low religious identification read 1 of 8 scenarios presented as an interview with a female target 2 months after she had had an abortion. The experimental device varied situational pressure (pressure vs. no pressure), the target's religious social identity (Catholic vs. neutral), and the consequences of abortion for the target (positive vs. negative). The participants then rated the acceptability of the target's decision. The participants judged abortion more negatively in the no-pressure condition. Moreover, the participants with high religious identification judged abortion more negatively than did those with low religious identification. In partial support of a black-sheep effect, the participants with high religious identification judged the Catholic target more negatively than they judged the neutral one in some conditions (pressure, negative consequences). In other conditions (no pressure, both positive and negative consequences), the participants with low religious identification judged the Catholic target more positively than they judged the neutral one.     

Benevolent Sexism in the Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP): A Case Study of Texas House Bill 2

Benevolent sexism takes a subjectively positive view of women in traditional gender roles, revering them as gentle, nurturing, and in need of protection by men. While studies show that people who express attitudes of benevolent sexism are willing to restrict women’s choices at an individual level, limited research exists on the impact of benevolent sexism in social policy. Using a single-case study method and benevolent sexism as a conceptual framework, I examined the introduction, passage, and legal defense of Texas House Bill 2 (TX HB2), a targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) law. HB2 was passed by the Texas legislature in 2013 and ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2016 case of Whole Woman’s Health et al. v. Hellerstedt. Primary source legislative and court documents were analyzed to explore whether and how benevolent sexism ideologies were reflected in the introduction, passage, and legal defense of HB2 as a TRAP law. Four themes emerged: The State has the Right to Protect Women, Women Need Protection from “Bad Players,” Women are Emotional, and Women are Mothers/Vessels. Results confirm that language consistent with benevolent sexism was used in the context of policy making to justify restricting women’s access to pre-viability abortion.

     

Revisiting the argument from fetal potential

One of the most famous, and most derided, arguments against the morality of abortion is the argument from potential, which maintains that the fetus' potential to become a person and enjoy the valuable life common to persons, entails that its destruction is prima facie morally impermissible. In this paper, I will revisit and offer a defense of the argument from potential.     

KILLING ON THE FRONTIER: MEAT EATING AS AN EXTREME CASE FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS

This article argues that killing animals for food represents an extreme case within Christian moral thinking comparable to Karl Barth's Grenzfall argument against such violent acts as suicide, abortion, killing in self‐defense, capital punishment, and war. This position is in contrast to the view of many environmental philosophers who hold human hunting to be comparable to animal predation. It also disputes the language of substitutionary sacrifice prevalent in some Christian discussions of meat eating.     

The Rights of Man: Libertarian Concern for Men's,But Not Women's,Reproductive Autonomy

Libertarianism enshrines individual autonomy as its central political principle, but it has been criticized for applying this principle selectively. Reproductive decisions can stress the concept of individual autonomy by placing into conflict the claimed rights of each biological parent to choose. Two studies (N₁ = 296; N₂ = 580) show that among U.S. participants, libertarianism is associated with opposition to women's reproductive autonomy and support for men's. Libertarianism was associated with opposition to abortion rights and support for men's right both to prevent women from having abortions (male veto) and to withdraw financial support for a child when women refuse to terminate the pregnancy (financial abortion). Adjusting for the association between libertarianism and conservatism, only the relationship with opposition to abortion rights was rendered nonsignificant. Mediation analyses suggest that hostile sexism may account for libertarians' selective support for men's and not women's reproductive autonomy.     

Religion and Attitudes Toward Abortion and Abortion Policy in Brazil

This study examines the association between religion and attitudes toward the practice of abortion and abortion policy in Brazil. Drawing upon data from the 2002 Brazilian Social Research Survey (BSRS), we test a number of hypotheses with regard to the role of religion on opposition to the practice of abortion and its legalization. Findings indicate that frequently attending Pentecostals demonstrate the strongest opposition to the practice of abortion and both frequently attending Pentecostals and Catholics demonstrate the strongest opposition to its legalization. Additional religious factors, such as a commitment to biblical literalism, were also found to be significantly associated with opposition to both abortion issues. Ultimately, the findings have implications for the future of public policy on abortion and other contentious social issues in Brazil.     

Wrongful Life and Abortion

According to theories of wrongful life (WL), the imposition upon a child of an existence of poor quality can constitute an act of harming, and a violation of the child’s rights. The idea that there can be WLs may seem intuitively compelling. But, as this paper argues, liberals who commit themselves to WL theories may have to compromise some of their other beliefs. For they will thereby become committed to the claim that some women are under a stringent moral duty to have an abortion: a duty that could, without injustice, at least sometimes be enforced by the state. WL theories in other words imply that some women will lack a right to choose, under which both the decision to abort, and the decision to carry the fetus to term, are protected against interference. The paper exposes a dilemma, then, for liberals who are committed both to (a) the rights of future people not to be subjected to a harmful existence, and (b) the rights of women to refuse an abortion.     

A critique to the significance of Gettier counter-examples

Usually, people think that Gettier counter-examples challenged the traditional tripartite definition of knowledge and fundamentally changed the characteristic of the contemporary epistemology. This paper argues that regard for Gettier counter-examples is exaggerated, because (i) the JTB definition is neither an important nor a comprehensive one that covers all knowledge. Moreover, the significance of Gettier counter-examples is limited. (ii) The source of Gettier counter-examples lies in one arbitrary judgment, two mix-ups, three false assumptions, and a misunderstanding about the JTB definition. __________ Translated from Fudan Xuebao 复旦学报 (Fudan Journal), 2004 (5)     

WHOSE RIGHTS,AND WHAT's THE DIFFERENCE? A CRITIQUE OF BETH SINGER'S “HUMAN RIGHTS: SOME CURRENT ISSUES”

Abstract: In this article I argue against the rights‐based framework defining the abortion debate, and do so by considering the views of Beth Singer, a philosopher whose work conveys a broadly pragmatist formulation of traditional rights‐based language. Although Singer's schema presents a fruitful vantage point from which to consider the abortion question through the discourse of rights, even Singer's use of the language of rights ultimately fails adequately to address the subject. I challenge Singer's view by taking up John Dewey's concept of reflective morality, elucidated in his 1932 Ethics.     

Measuring forgiveness: psychometric properties of a new culturally sensitive questionnaire: the Bolton Forgiveness Scale (BFS)

ABSTRACT

Forgiveness is a universal construct. A forgiveness measure should ensure good and diverse cultural representation and inclusivity in its development, validation and usage. The 15-item Bolton Forgiveness Scale (BFS) assesses dispositional forgiveness. Items came from interviews with 53 Nigerian and British people, existing scales and the research literature. Exploratory factor analysis with a student sample (n = 733) was followed by confirmatory factor analysis with a general sample (n = 2,017). This indicated a robust three-factor structure. Factors were, coming to terms and letting go (CLTG), developing positive feelings (DPF) and giving benefit of the doubt (GBD). Scale Validity was established and a new forgiveness definition emerged as a process that involves developing and strengthening the capacity to give benefit of the doubt that enables the offended come to terms with and let go of hurt with its negative affect thereby giving way gradually to positive feelings towards the transgressor.     

Genetic Testing Likelihood: The Impact of Abortion Views and Quality of Life Information on Women’s Decisions

Little is known about factors predicting the likelihood of choosing genetic testing in college aged women versus older women, including knowledge of quality of life (QOL) associated with a disorder. Using vignettes with female college students (Experiment 1: n = 257, mean age = 19.70 yrs) and female faculty/staff/alumni (Experiment 2: n _nulliparous = 83, mean age = 30.20 yrs; n _mothers = 53, mean age = 33.77 yrs), we examined the contribution of multiple factors to predicting genetic testing likelihood for cystic fibrosis. We investigated malleable situational factors (style of genetic risk presentation and providing QOL information including physical and social aspects) and stable dispositional factors (abortion views). Parity (i.e., prior births) was more influential in women’s genetic testing likelihood than was age. Greater acceptability of abortion for oneself and self-assessed knowledge following QOL information were predictors of higher testing likelihood for college students. Greater acceptability of abortion for another person was a predictor for nulliparous women. Abortion views moderated the effect of predictors for nulliparous women and mothers. Findings encourage genetic counselors to utilize QOL information to promote informed decision making through genetic testing.     

Where Do We Go from Here?

Beginning with the End represents an excellent collection of articles devoted to the thought of Wolfhart Pannenberg. This volume includes many of the most important thinkers in the science-religion dialogue and shows as well the importance and impact of Pannenberg's theology. This response addresses themes that surface in several of the articles: What is religion? What is science? What is theology? What is God? On some of these themes there is agreement, on others sharp disagreement. The conclusion also considers what this volume suggests about the future of Pannenberg's theology.     

Catastrophic Conditions in Couple Systems

SUMMARY

A presentation of case studies forms the focus for an exploration of the discovery of an abortion or adoption used as the management of an unwelcome pregnancy which occurred in the context of the marital system. Managing an impasse in the middle phase of therapy in each case led to the emergence of information which then allowed the therapist to work with the couple system to alleviate the core situation out of which presenting problems emanated. In these cases the unwelcome pregnancy had the potential to be cataclysmic to the couple system. Therefore, the possibility that a couple is concealing an abortion or an adoption should be considered by couples' therapists when there is little or no response to usual strategies for change. The reason for concealment is immaterial. What is paramount is that the therapist bring the event to the fore of treatment and work with a couple to put closure on what is generally an unresolved issue.     

De-idealizing Disagreement,Rethinking Relativism

Relativism is often motivated in terms of certain types of disagreement. In this paper, we survey the philosophical debates over two such types: faultless disagreement in the case of gustatory conflict, and fundamental disagreement in the case of epistemic conflict. Each of the two discussions makes use of a (largely) implicit conception of judgement: brute judgement in the case of faultless disagreement, and rule-governed judgement in the case of fundamental disagreement. We show that the prevalent accounts work with unreasonably high levels of idealization. We defend two claims. First, philosophical discussions of disagreement need to be de-idealized. Second, once a less idealized account of disagreement is available, both our conception of judgement and our understanding of relativism need to be revised. Our example is a case study in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer’s classic Leviathan and the Air-Pump (1985). This case study gives a less idealized account of disagreement that conceptualizes judgements as situated (rather than brute or rule-governed). We argue that this conception can and should be applied to cases of gustatory and epistemic disagreement. The payoff will be a reformulation of relativism in terms of rationally resolvable yet contingent disagreements.     

When Benevolence Backfires: Benevolent Sexists' Opposition to Elective and Traumatic Abortion1

Though gender‐role attitudes correlate with attitudes toward abortion ( Wang, 2004 ), past research has treated gender‐role attitudes as a unidimensional construct. The theory of ambivalent sexism ( Glick & Fiske, 1996 ) holds that attitudes toward women form 2 distinct ideologies; namely, benevolent and hostile sexism. The current study examined the relationship between these ideologies and attitudes toward elective and traumatic abortion in a sample of Internet users (N = 529). As expected, both benevolent and hostile sexism predicted attitudes toward elective abortion, but only benevolent sexism predicted attitudes toward traumatic abortion. These results remained robust after controlling for important demographic factors. Such findings highlight the importance of differentiating between hostile and benevolent sexism when predicting attitudes toward complex issues.