Abortion - Views?

Remove all ads!

They did, but no one had the cojones to call on that. Preparing on Polish ground something that's illegal in Polish law is a crime. It depends on the extent of preparation, but I suppose those guys could have been held accountable.

By far not. But if the child has no right to life just because its father raped the mother, then why do we let the father live? Logically?

Example? I can't think of any situation where directly killing the foetus is the only way to save the mother (not one of the ways) and a sure one (not a just-in-case means).

 

I was talking about situations when birth would jeopardize the heath or life of the mother.For god's sake there were such cases in which mother died at birth. And yes I know such situations cause my mother is a midwife.

And what did they prepared? They came to the port, took few women, went away from polish sea borders and did that which wasn't forbidden by international sea law. All LPR and MW could do was throwing eggs and acting like morons.

 

The human fetus is not a parasite.


Are we done now?

 

Having read those argument I must review myself about it. Guess I was little wrong here. Yet I don't this doctor nor the organization, so I don't know if this statement is supported by other medical authorities.
And yes, we're done now.

 

You know, you are a mod; you could just close the thread if you want the last word.

I'll accept your credentials on the argument that it is not strictly a parasite, but you have to admit that it displays a fair number of parasite-like tendencies. Certainly not enough to terminate a pregnancy solely on those grounds, but enough to make you think twice about whether you would really want to carry an unwanted child for nine months. It's a selfish (and rather sad) attitude, but a valid one nonetheless.

I also noticed that there are a lot of "generally", "usually", and "sometimes" in there, not to mention that points 4 and 5 contradict each other. 4b says the fetus is "isolated", while 5b says that the mother and fetus are "in close contact".

 

well, without bothering to read through the whole thread, i'm just going to say that i think abortion should be legal

 

To be honest, I can't even believe we're talking about a human baby as being a 'parasite'! Who brought that ridiculous idea into this?

 

A certain rogue doctor back in the sexual revolution days IIRC.

How about think twice if you should have sex? Except rape, of course -- but even lack of consent in the child's conception doesn't give a claim on its life.

 

Back on topic. Should abortion be legal or illegal?

Obviously there is a broad spectrum of opinion.

I think it boils down to when does the fetus become human?

If it is human from the moment of conception then IMO abortion should be illegal with no exceptions.

Yes, I know it has the potential to become a human being but when is that moment?

Medical science is able to keep premature babies alive earlier and earlier. During my life time it has moved back from a seven month birth to as little as four months.

I taught a boy born at five months. He was a pleasure to know.

Having had women (some married) come to me after having an abortion to discuss it I am not ready to sit in judgement on their motives. It is something that they will live with for the rest of their lives.

I can also remember the days of the coat-hanger abortions and the fact that those who could afford it could always go to another state or country for an abortion. It was the lower income women who got the back-room quacks.

Since this topic turns up periodically on this board I have given it serious thought.

If given the option of voting for or against abortion I think I would vote against it. This is not based on religious grounds but on the fact that from the moment of conception it is a potential human being. Opinions vary as to when it becomes a human.

If it is when it leaves the mother's womb and medicine can keep it alive then I think it might as well be considered human from the moment of conception.

 

Sorry Felinoid...Tal only made me a mod in a desperate attempt to make me play nice.

**wishes he'd thought of the whole "close the thread" thing**

As Beren already mentioned, abortion is the one issue where almost nobody is indifferent. I encourage everyone (including myself) to continue to be respectful of the opinions and feelings of others.

 

I'd just like to add a final little something on the parasite thing: there is a rare medical condition called "fetus within a fetus" (in latin), in which a twin gets trapped inside another. The trapped fetus "lives" within the other very much like a parasite - they are linked via veins. The trapped one usually doesn't develop a brain or a heart, but has limbs, hair and things like that. It can live inside the other for years. I saw a documentary on this on tv.

I'm not saying a fetus is a parasite, just pointing out that definitions aren't always, well, definite. The word parasite can mean many things, in the case of a normal fetus I'd say it's symbolic if anything.

As for the actual abortion issue...the "back room quacks"-argument is a valid one. One could argue that abortion being available legally would at least make it safer - just like handing out sterile needles to heroine addicts lessens the hiv risk. As it is *possible* to perform abortions primitively, legal or not, there's always going to be people doing it.

And yes, complications that make giving birth life-threatening to a mother do exist. I don't know all the terms in English, but for example a woman's anatomy can be such that yanking a fully developed baby out would be fatal. Certain heart conditions can make a c-section impossible to do.

As for the rape argument, it should be kept in mind that having an unplanned and unwanted baby will likely affect a person's life quite significantly and irrevokably. I've read about cases where impregnated rape victims have subsequently taken their own lives. And if your family practices "honor murders", as they call it, having an abortion secretly could indeed save your life.

As stated countless times before, it all boils down to the rights of the unborn vs the rights of the mother. It seems to me that only a fanatic has a straight and simple answer either way.

 

@ BA: Elephant. Room. Good call.

@ Chev:

Nowhere did I say it was morally "right" or neutral. I said that I believed it was unfortunately necessary. Nobody really "wins" when an abortion is performed. I agree that there are moral issues surrounding abortion. What I can't abide is allowing those issues to present the only obstacle to reaching a solution. That's not to say that it's unimportant - far from it. Once a foetus becomes viable outside of the womb, I believe there is a moral responsibility to carry it to term if possible (unless the life of the mother is endangered by it). As Nakia has correctly pointed out, that point of viability is becoming earlier and earlier.

In the longer term, I believe that preventive solutions (especially contraception) are much more desirable in a democratic country and that these should be advocated over abortion. However, that is a longer-term strategy, and even then, those will fail or be ignored some of the time.

Why place limits? Why not take it lightly? I should think that the answer is obvious - we are speaking of terminating a potential life, to say nothing of the effects it may have on a mother-to-be or those close to her. However, there is much more than a rights-contest that is relevant (at least, to me). It is not an easy decision, for anybody - but I would rather have a workable option in place which can balance the rights and responsibilities of those involved than to impose a blanket prohibition (or license, to be fair) based on an absolutist perspective. That's not fence-sitting; providing solutions to address identified social issues is proper governance.

 

What necessary for what? A person's death for another person's happiness?

Why? And why does "nobody" strangely seem to include the foetus?

And who's the judge of those? The mother? The abortion doctor? Since when does any of them have the authority of life and death which is nowadays denied even to sovereign states?

I.e. morals shouldn't interfere with reality and solution is death?

Why allow people to kill others so that they could avoid responsibility? The next step, authanising infants with severe impairments, has already been made. What now? Where does this all go? When will the first person become able to have ten children and euthanise five instead of giving up for adoption because such is the sovereign private decision of that person?

It makes more sense now that you address the foetus as neither a ready human nor a lump of cells but a potential human. Still, the potential being apparently already has a DNA, a blood group different from the mother's, early forms of internal organs. It's also able to suffer when it's being torn limb from limb. However, it is allowed to show bloody corpses of children from bombed countries but it isn't allowed to show bloody remnants of foeti as this could offend the delicate sensitivities of the pro-choice public.

What's next? after unwanted children and the possibility of legal guardians making euthanasia decisions, what other group of citizens is going to be deemed inconvenient and where else should we de-absolutise the basic moral imperative not to kill another?

What kind of solutions are those? Allowing mothers to kill their own children at will? Giving up on inconvenient values because of material conditions?

 

That would depend where you're living. In here it's most certainly allowed and I've seen several such pictures. Admittedly it's not pretty but then I would not want to see my own stomach being operated either.

 

I wish. Taking the bus home one day, I (and everyone else on the bus) had the unique pleasure of sitting thorugh a long red light at a very busy intersection with nothing to look at except just such a picture. (Which, BTW, was actually NOT from an abortion, but from an extraction of a baby already dead from unrelated trauma. I have no idea why they keep using it.) Add to that some jerk-off blaring at us through a mega-phone from 10 feet away and nobody got off that bus in a good mood, including the pro-lifers.

 

Chev, your last post does not do you justice.

Resorting to emotionality and a slippery slope position which borders on reductio ad absurdium is not going to deliver any kind of solution. Well, actually, it might, but only one which is utterly disrespectful of competing viewpoints or any other potential perspectives than your own. I understand you have a deep commitment to those values you are espousing; I would ask you to bear in mind that even though we don't agree on this issue, those of us who disagree with you are hardly gleeful proponents of baby-killing or euthanasia.

As I said (after grudgingly wading into this topic), I do not presume to argue on the basis of rights.

The simple fact is that, whether such procedures are legal or not, abortions will continue to be performed (and I include self-induced miscarriages in that category). Sadly, some people are wilful, stupid, reckless, irresponsible, or just plain unfortunate - these are the ones who will end up in the situation of having to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

Rights-based question. Whose decides what to do with their own body? The foetus may be a separate organism, but it's inseparably dependent on the mother and cannot survive outside the womb. Should its potential rights always trump those of its parent? I can see that we aren't going to agree on this one, Chev.

Morals alone should not dictate action or inaction when there is an identified issue that is much greater than just morality. Morals should not be cast aside, certainly - but absolutism (of any kind) is not a solution.

I've said before that I have my reservations about abortion, but my convictions alone are hardly grounds for dictating rights and policy to everybody else.

I've made my position very clear on this. Abortion is not solely an exercise in avoiding responsibility. And since it's been happening for centuries, it's hardly a slippery slope - if anything, it should be seen as a way to prevent even greater suffering.

I apologise for being so callous, but what is a greater sin: abortion, neonaticide or infanticide? Abortion, child abuse or killing a child in a fit of anger or frustration (accidentally or not)? They are all terrible things, things we should never promote, encourage or accept. I do not think that all abortions would, if carried to term, result in such crimes. Enough would be to render that question valid, and then we're getting into a qualitative analysis of suffering, which is ludicrous. Abortion, at least, can sometimes be excusable (at least, in my opinion).

Yes, I am aware of how horrendous abortion procedures can be. I forced myself to read the information in a link posted on the last such thread.

Depending on its state of development, yes and no. I will admit ignorance as to the capacity for a foetus at four to eight weeks to suffer as you believe possible. Once that capacity is fully developed, a foetus is probably viable; as I have already stated, unless there is a life-threatening emergency, I consider carrying that foetus to term to be a responsibility.

We've already de-absolutised that moral imperative. In fact, the whole concept of "just war" and self-defence draws on a principle that everyone's right to life is not absolute in all circumstances. That's somewhat facetious of me, I know (and the link is heavily biased, IMO), but I couldn't let it stand without challenge.

They're undesirable solutions, certainly. The sort of person who could do that so callously is one undeserving of sympathy, IMO. Of course, that's a long way from being representative, Chev. And again, to respond in kind: what kind of solution denies people - no, make that "women", not "people" - their freedoms based on an absolutist and inherently gendered perspective?

I have never, and will never, make a claim that abortion is a great thing, or something to be celebrated. It is not; in fact, in the best of all worlds, the issue would not exist. Sadly, "reality" has a tendency to get in the way. That reality requires solutions, as unpalatable as they may be. One can sidestep trying to reach a solution, as many do (on both sides of the debate), or one can look for a way forward. I believe I've made my views and position exceptionally clear.

 

For those folks who are agruing that abortion should not be allowed or should only be considered in the raest of cases, here is a glimpse of life that shows how far you are seperated from it. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion -

Abortions are sought for a number of reasons. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.31 million abortions in the US in 2000, and cases of rape or incest accounted for 1.0% of abortions in 2000. Women from 27 nations reported the following reasons for seeking an induced abortion:
25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% – Want no (more) children
3.3% – Risk to fetal health
2.8% – Risk to maternal health
2.1% – Rape, incest, other

 

As I have been saying all along, anyone that wants an abortion, should be offered financial and emotional support, before going through with the actual abortion.

The above figures shows the failings of government, and even worse, the victims family.

So when are those Pro-Life people going actually help pthese poor women, rather than condemn them as murders?

 

@Cuchulainn:

I'm not condemning anyone. We are discussing the act of abortion, not the scope of guilt of individual women, partners, doctors. I have always been in favour of providing some real help. I am not saying tangible help because that would fall in the economical conditions area which is a total absurd to decide human life upon. However, it's all nice talk but the reality is that help won't be accepted as an alternative to abortion. If it really were about being unable to support the child, it would be carried to term and given up for adoption. However, in some cases, people won't be comfortable with the thought their child lives and has been given up for adoption, so they prefer to eradicate the child instead. What's off the eyes is off the heart, as we say in Poland.

@Shrikant:

Should have postponed having sex. Their own career design is in no way superior to the child's life. One is true: a person who considers abortion because of the desire to postpone having children is surely not ready to be a parent.

So give up for adoption.

Partner sucks balls doesn't meant the child should be killed for it. Relationship problem? Should have married before having sex.

"Object to pregnancy"? WTF? Is she too fat for her bf now? No, sorry. People liking her less for being pregnant is not a reason to kill her child. Come on.

Sex didn't?

But still want sex? Why not kill one of the born children?

So if its health is at risk, let's kill it to solve the problem. Right. Spartans did that by leaving infants alone in mountains and forests with heels pierced to make sure.

First, think about that when having sex. Pregnancy is a natural consequence. Risk of health and taking away life... Right.

The child didn't rape the mother. Incest? She didn't know he was her father or brother when having sex with him or something?

@NonSequitur:

Solution purchased at what cost? Emotionality is not a great thing in debate but it's a nice humanity check in pondering your actions. Reduction ad absurdum is a fantastic reality check and history teaches that slippery slope always works.

Because the foetus isn't considered a human being? Most crimes, including Nazi and commie crimes, as well as crimes committed in the name of ideologies or, yes, religions, are nearly always packaged with the conviction that the victim isn't (fully) human and thus the crime is not really a crime and the offender would never commit said crime on a (full) human.

You cannot remove the right to life from the discussion of allowance of taking it away. By mere focusing on solutions you declare that the right to have the problem solved on the part of the mother, the society or whomever is superior to the child's right to life. You can artificially remove the child's right to life or the mother's "liberty" from discussion, but you can't escape rights altogether. The fine art of solving social problems is based on balancing competing rights.

Correct, but this doesn't mean they should be allowed to do what they want to. If you're stuck in a dead-end job and your immediate boss is mean, you aren't allowed to backstab him and move up the ladder one step. Why should a woman or a family be allowed to eradicate an inconvenient unborn child?

Who has the right to life? The mother's right to make decisions about her body doesn't outrank her child's right to life.

So she should kill it because of its weakness?

The rights are not potential. The right to life (call it freedom from being killed if you prefer) of one person outranks the other person's right to indisrupted career, not bitching boyfriend, not prevented partying etc etc.

Cast aside morals and what do we have? What are we? What is greater than good and evil? The almighty imperative of convenience?

But also in egoism and putting your convienience above other people's human rights.

But the intensity of the issue has been on the increase since the beginning of the process of legalisation of abortion. Sexual liberation started from no longer outlawing sex without marriage or even outside of it, then there was the whole social fight to make one night stands the acceptable norm, then gay lib, now what do we hear? Lower the age of consent. Zoophilia ban unconstitutional. Unban necrophilia even. I can easily see the age of consent being lowered and zoophilia penalties reduced if not lifted. Necrophilia would come down to who "owns" or has custody of the body, but who knows about the long term. Incidentally, the same sexual revolution propagated contraception as the norm, not something to be ashamed of, then abortion became a human right and a human baby a parasite. Came euthanasia, now there's also euthanasia of infants by parental request in Holland. What's next?

Erm, and then people will say that *I* am dragging religion into it.

But if you want a theological view, all three are materially grave sins against the commandment not to kill. With full knowledge and consent, a sin in a grave matter is a mortal sin. Murder is mortal. Abortion is mortal. Of course, infanticide is too. Unless, of course, there was a sufficient defect of will or knowledge at the moment of committing the act. Why asking?

Neither do I.

I can imagine a situation where the woman doesn't realise what she's doing or is coerced one way or another (including pressure by parents). While this hardly enables us to call her a murderer, neither does the fact that her own guilt is reduced allow us to tolerate the act. In short, let's use a parable: You see a person likely to kill another. Because of the mental condition in which he is, the person won't be charged or at least won't get any serious jail term. Do you still not prevent the killing just because the person won't be sentenced or will receive the kind of sentence you get for theft? The person being unable to accept full responsibility doesn't make the act any more permissible.

Fighting a war to defend yourself is different from a preemptive war. A preemptive war is still something different from simply eradicating the inconvenient human beings.

Still, we aren't discussing the method of punishing the people involved in abortions but the question whether abortion should be legal or not. Sympathy for their circumstances may be relevant in determining the scope of guilt, but not in deciding whether the act should be allowed. What does a long and careful deliberation change if, after it, the person decides her career is more important than the child's life? Or that she wants some justice for the rape, so she will destroy the resulting foetus. Whatever. Sometimes I think that those who simply go to the abortion clinic without thinking much, perhaps what they do is less evil? As it clearly looks like they don't realise what they are doing, whereas those who deliberate realise the kind of decision they are making?

 

Funny then, how more than more than a fifth quote financial reasons for the descision. If financial help was granted it may significantly reduce the total number. Are you aware of any groups that offer financial suport on a large scale basis? The Catholic Church in the US alone has a yearly income of around $7.5 Billion. Maybe some of that should be spent on supporting people who would otherwise choose abortion rather than the houses of Bishops. (The Bishop of Bostons houses raised over $100 million when sold)

Ah adoption. We've been here before. The over-whelming problem with your argument is that there are just not enough people willing to adopt.

I've asked before, and don't recall a response. Would you adopt rather than raise your own family?

If there were enough people willing to adopt, wouldn't it be preferable for them to take the estimated 100 MILLION (mid '90's estimate by the WHO and UNICEF) street children across the globe? Because I think their lives have a much greater need than the unborn.

http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/press/16-pdf3.pdf

I've never heard that concept before. Do you have any evidence what-so-ever for it? Any statistics?

[ October 13, 2005, 13:57: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]