Abortion

Remove all ads!

Well, since we're all clarifying our positions, I should say I never thought this thread was about whether abortion should be illegal and my responses have been simply in response to the question, of whether abortion, in and of itself, is good, bad, or neutral. I don't think outlawing abortion would make a difference- abortion is easy to induce, and will happen legally or illegally. My point is that it's a tragic thing regardless of whether it's legal or not. I think most of you arguing against me are actually as anti-abortion as I am, you just take an opposing stance in this particular argument because you don't want to see abortion criminalised. Or, because you don't want to see women who have had abortions treated like monsters, with which I agree 100%.

Viking, I am truly sorry that your friend was put in the position of making such a decision. I just hope that everyone involved - especially her family and the father of the child - treated her kindly and was open to hearing about all her feelings.

As for the issue that most of what I've been talking about is financial, that's because that's the issue I care about most, not because I don't realise there are occasionally abortions undertaken for medical reasons. No, people don't wave placards saying abortion is great, but whether you yourself are in that category or not, many people *do* recommend abortion to healthy pregnant women, and often make them feel guilty if they are "too poor" or "too young" and still want to try to be mothers. The father of the unborn child, the mother's family and friends, and "feminist" clinics, are most often the ones who do this. My opposition is to that point of view, not to any legal position. I think that anyone, particularly the father of the child, who tells a healthy pregnant woman that an abortion is the "right" thing to do, or reacts negatively to an announcement of impending motherhood, is quite frankly a pig. Maybe that does make me holier-than-thou but that's how I feel. And I've met enough of these "pigs" - male and female - to know they aren't the figment of a pro-life imagination.

[ December 07, 2002, 05:05: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

When abortion was illegal in germany, weman who wanted to abort just went to the netherlands (where the law allowed it) to get it done. Of course it was illegal but how will you control that? Just declaring it illegal or not doesn't solve the problem actually.

Now it's allowed in germany, under narrow circumstances (up to the 12th week), and only if you have consulted a certified counseling institution before. They manage to convince a high percentage to get the child and not to abort by explaining them where for example to find financial support.

Despite all weaknesses I like that approach because it is way better than to let weman do it illegally, then it would have been less likely that they stopped and eventually got the child.

****************************************

PS: I cannot proove it but, to counter a sentence I read earlier, I clearly remember that the typical woman who choses abortion has 1 child, is married and mid-30. I also remember that they usually didn't tell their partner what they were going to do. I don't believe in the 1-night-stand theory.

[ December 06, 2002, 09:57: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I don't think they should have a choice, unless it was a result from rape. You had sex, and got pregnant, its your own fault!

 

Abortion, like math said, is like killing a baby. ITS MURDER. And anyway if the gift of life is given then take it with arms dont kill it before you see it!

Padeen!

 

Laches, the analogy of the broken arm is a bad one for a very simple reason. The doctor who repairs your broken arm (which was a result of a bad choice on your part) is fixing something; the doctor who aborts your child (which was a result of a bad choice on your part) is destroying something. Plain enough?

The circumstances you described are tough. Personally, I agree with Sprite on #1. The circumstances of conception do not undermine the child's right to life.

As for #2 and #3, the true question is, could the fetus survive on its own at that point? If not, then it's not murder to abort the baby; it's medical triage. If it can, then you could simply deliver the baby and then make the necessary steps to save the mother's life.

 

Padeen, let me ask you something. Did you read the topic? DID YOU THINK?? Sorry.

 

Ezellohar,

The topic is "Abortion". Padine gave his opinion of abortion.

/edit - removed harshness.

[ December 06, 2002, 20:48: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

Whoopsies. Sorry.

Feels very embarrassed and urges others to continue the highly intelligent debate-thing

 

Many medical procedures destroy to help Cap, if you want, change it to smoking and cancer. In order to cure the cancer you destroy the cells. The analogy only fails if you assume that it is okay to destroy in one instance and not the other because what is being destroyed has inherent worth in one instance and not the other. That's what I was driving at. You must say that there is inherent worth in the fetus and not with the cancer cells and this is typically done by assigning a right to life to the fetus. That was my point.

 

Should've used a better analogy.

Anyway, point taken and agreed. Any comments on the rest?

 

Actually, there are people who wave placards around saying that abortion is a wonderful thing. In fact, Planned Parenthood is having a poster contest to celebrate 30 years of abortion in the U.S.

If you're under 18, Planned Parenthood wants you to get parental permission to enter the poster contest.

If you're under 18, Planned Parenthood also wants you to be able to have the skull of your unborn child crushed without your parents permission.

Free choice in poster contests now!

 

Actually, I think I do Cap but I'm a bit pressed for time and can respond more in depth later.

For now, your argument regarding the #2 and #3 analogy sounds like it comes, intentionally or not, from Judith Jarvis Thompson. JJT is a bloody smart philosopher who does a lot of work in metaphysics but also works in ethics and came up with one of the really really big pro-choice arguments.

She argues that abortion is still ethically okay even if we assume a fetus has a full right to life upon conception. She only justifies an abortion which does not do direct harm to the fetus but instead removes the fetus from the the woman so that the fetus is no longer using the woman's resources.

I'll tell ya JJT's argument, as much as I can remember, when I get more time but at first glance your depend on viability and seem to say that if the fetus isn't viable it would be acceptable to remove it in such a way that it wouldn't be using the woman's resources but not to do direct harm to the fetus. I think in trying to come up with a solution to the #2 or #3 analogy you may use JJT's argument style so you don't just justify abortion in those cases but in ALL cases as long as the type of abortion chosen doesn't do direct harm.

That's jumbled, sorry. Gotta run. I'd imagine info on JJT can be found on the web too.

 

Just a quick pointer on the viability issue -- note that I said this was a case of medical triage. In other words, if it's not viable outside the womb -- no abortion causes both mother's and child's death; abortion allows you to try to save the mother. This is not to say that you can remove the fetus for whatever reason you feel like, but only in life-threatening situations (hence the term triage).

 

Or if the woman was raped.

 

Edit-Eze, what Cap and I are talking about is if you accept that a fetus has a right to life then whether it is possible to EVER accept abortion. Thusfar, noone has offered an argument that if you believe there is a right to life abortion when there has been rape or incest is justifiable.

Looking back a bit, I thought about this a bit. I really don't think that if someone recommends an abortion they must be a "pig." First, I'd like to point out that women can and do recommend abortion as well so even if it does make you a "pig" it isn't limited to men. Second, I think that since there are plenty of reasonable people that see nothing immoral with abortion that it is entirely possible to suggest to a friend an abotion for purely altruistic reasons. Now, you can suggest an abortion because you're scared or don't wish the responsibility and maybe you want to say that makes them a "pig" but I see no reason someone can't suggest an abortion out of a genuine belief it would be best for his/her friend.

Capstone, regarding the triage analogy. I've never worked in one but the way I understand they work is that for example it is a way for an emergency room to determine who to treat first or who to treat at all if there are limited resources. My experience is admittedly limited to t.v. drama etc.

I don't believe triage circumvents the problems of either in most instances because of the way I understand most abortions take place. Imagining a battlefield I see how you might sort people out and due to limited resources not treat some who might be beyond help or where the odds of helping them are slim so that you may help those you can. But you don't kill those you can't help, you simply move on to helping others. Most abortions result in the direct harm to the fetus and it is the direct harm which takes the fetuses life. So, I think to use a triage analogy as justification the abortion would have to be of a type which does not cause direct harm -- I'm not sure about the feasiblity of this type of procedure.

Assume though that the abortion is of a type which does not do direct harm to the fetus -- in essence a delivery of the fetus even though it is not viable through cesarean or something of the sort. I think the triage analogy has problems addressing example #2 because the way I understand triage is that you separate based upon who you can help and who has the best chances of survival. In example #2 the fetus is in perfect health and if not aborted will live a long life but the mother is in mortal danger. By aborting the fetus dies and the mother has a chance at survival, I would think in the case of a triage you wouldn't knowingly sentence someone who would live for certain on the chance you might be able to help someone else.

With regards to example #3 I think it is a closer call and might turn on the specifics. I could think of circumstances where the life expectancy of the fetus might well be greater than that of the woman even if she is treated and vice versa. My initial reaction is that your triage analogy might work in some of those instances to justify an abortion but not in others. A woman who with treatment might have a 5-10 year life expectancy then might not be justified in aborting a fetus with a 10-12 year expectancy. A woman with a 2-3 year expectancy versus a fetus with a 5 year.

There is another big difference as well. It is a matter of who makes the decision. In the case of triage medical personnel make the decision based on who they can help the most. In the case of abortion the woman makes the choice on the basis of self interest vs. welfare of the fetus. I'm not sure how to factor that into the equation yet.

[ December 06, 2002, 22:28: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Er... in regards to the above -- if the mother is in mortal danger and the fetus is not viable outside the uterus, then the fetus is by definition in mortal danger. That's why I'm labelling a premature delivery (if you will) as triage -- the only way to help the mother is by allowing the fetus to die; it's not murder, as the child is going to die regardless of what you try to do to help. Incidentally, #3 is really just a subset of #2, so I'm making these statements in regards to the broadest set of circumstances.

To sum: if the mother's life is in danger due to the fetus, then deliver it and try to keep it alive if possible. If not, consider it a case of triage. This is typically a medical decision made by the doctors, so it would still not be an abortion, I suppose.

Also, I don't see terminal illness as necessarily the same as mortal danger, so examples with a few years or so life expectancy have no bearing on the matter.

 

Err... it's different though isn't it? Left on its' own the fetus isn't in mortal danger, it is only in mortal danger if there is an abortion. Or look at as one patient who would be in mortal danger if she wasn't hooked up to life support -- but she is. In order to treat another patient you have to unhook another patient who is on life support and will live a long and perfectly healthy life in order to treat the first patient and hope that the treatment will help her -- no guarantees. In a triage case the doctors don't put the patients in mortal danger by treating another they simply don't help both who are already in that condition.

Now, you may want to say it isn't really like taking a patient off life support because the fetus is using the woman's resources and not some independent resources. This supposes that simply because the fetus is implanted it doesn't follow it has a right to use the woman's resources. That's what Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument is and that's where I thought you were eventually headed.

And again, just to be clear, you say "if the mother's life is in danger because of the fetus" but that isn't what the examples suppose. They suppose the mother's life is in danger from something unrelated to the fetus.

Also, you say "if the mother is in mortal danger" and that also isn't really supposed by the examples in the way that you're using mortal danger either. You say that you don't consider terminal illnesses and life expectancy to be something which qualify as mortal danger so the woman's illness which must be treated quickly to give her the best chance of survival, like cervical cancer, isn't really mortal danger either. So, I'm not sure using 'mortal danger' like you are either the woman or fetus qualify as being in mortal danger. Does this change your analysis?

i understand that #3 is a subset of #2. It is designed that way. #1, #2, and #3 become increasingly difficult for many who feel the fetus has a right to life and they're designed that way.

I'm a tad drunk, hope thats understandable.

 

Sprite, yup, she had all the support rhe could wish for. No problem there. Just a very unfortunate set of circumstances. Thanks for the thoughts though.

Shralp, celebrating the fact that it's been legal for 30 years is not the same as proclaiming it as *GOOD*! It's in fact nothing like it, strangely enough. I do not agree with promoting abortion in any way, but I think (for reasons previously stated) it should be the choice of the mother. Personal opinion without a doubt. Still, consider the impact of it not being? [legal]

Please do not say: Lots of children would live! Lots of their mothers and their children wound't!

 

The lives of humans are cheap: why so much talk?

If someone stands in your way or inconveniences you, remove him/her. That applies to all the unwanted babies that are a burden to their mothers as well. If an abortion is what is needed for a person to get on with her life, why not?

My stand is pro-choice: if you cannot carry out your choice of action, someone stronger will have to carry out his/her choice of action upon you. Since the fetuses can't protest or follow through with their protests, flush em if you have to.

These are my thoughts. Flame me if you will. I just cannot abide those who try to force their moral code upon others: 'abortion is wrong because it's murder, we should ban it, etc etc.'

Life is cheap: make it cheaper for others so that yours is more valuable in comparison.

 

Once again, Shralp throws a frag into the hooch.

Shralpnel.

Hurts.