Abortion

Artist Hanged herself after aborting twins.

link

Way to go. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

"She had a long history of anxiety and depression. Despite my best efforts, she was not willing to see a counsellor after the termination."

---

Not exactly the best choice for a counter argument.

I didn't realise TuffStuff had made an argument. For all you know he could be commenting on the apparent lack of counsellors available.

Feeling defensive today? Not exactly an open mind.

I'm feeling defensive now :laugh4:

The article's headline is making a B line for suicide because of abortion. If she had had no prior mental health problems then the statement "Artist hanged herself after aborting her twins" could be assigned with far more accuracy. However the fact that there are other circumstances alluded to in the article means it wasn't just a case of abortion causes would-have-been mums to knock themselves off after removing the vestiges of being knocked up.

So as an argument for or against abortion it is more of a red herring.

=][=

As for rape, I don't think we should be awarding rapists with the gift of spreading their genes, that would just be a form of eugenics if it is enforced by the state. Iff the mother choses to have the child should she go to term. The state should not be forcing a victim to have or raise a child that is the result of someone else's criminal activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Not exactly the best choice for a counter argument.

---

It is void since there are no laws that enforce abortion of apparently normal fetuses, AFAIK. If some women commit suicide because of an abortion (I count 1 so far), then it is absurd to forbid abortion, let alone restrict it, because of that. People suicide over much.

Quote:

---

I'm feeling defensive now :laugh4:

---

any day :wink:

Quote:

---

The state should not be forcing a victim to have or raise a child that is the result of someone else's criminal activities.

---

Who said anything about raising children?

Again, I can't help but think that most people take this debate to extremes. They forget that giving birth does not equal raising a child, and that there is demand for adoption.

Besides, that argument "The state should not be forcing a victim to have or raise a child that is the result of someone else's criminal activities." is kind of irrelevant.

I think everyone here will unanimously agree, the state should not force people to have children with unknown criminals. However, the question is, does the child already exist as a being with rights in the womb? Because if it does, it's too late to choose wether or not to have a child, you already do.

We aren't allowed to kill orphans just because we don't have anyone who wants to raise them.

This is why I just don't get the rapist argument.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And here's me being defensive; I'm weary of that argument, bringing emotionally strong subjects such as rape into an argument where it's not really relevant isn't a good way to make an informed decision.

Well, the health of the mother comes first, if it's psychologically to hard to give birth after a rape which I can understand it should at least be optional, gut says no but I can see where they are comming from.

Ok, well that is at least an arguement for rape-abortion. The problem there though is who decides if she is psychlogically up to it

And this is the guise under which Abortion in the UK was introduced.

You need 2 doctors signatures saying that having the child will harm the mother.

If not abused, this would be the perfect system in my opinion.

The trouble is that one possible harm is phycological harm, which is perfectly valid, again, if not abused, but it is abused. Abortion now occurs pretty much on demand, with phycological being the reason used.


Now, they're trying to drop one of the doctors signatures, and increase the time limit on abortions.


On another note, Pape, what do you think of the arguments in this thread before the "woman hangs herself" post? In particular those I tend to subscribe to (:wink:) (The potential for life and the comparison with a comatosed man, and the problem with erring on the morally dangerous sides of grey areas such as when does a fetus become a human child)

In My Dishonourable Opinion (IDMHO).

I have said this in the past: "Men can decide if and when women have an abortion when women decide if and when men have a vasectomy."

So I take abortion arguments with a grain of salt as my role would be limited at most to support not the actuator.

I believe in evolution. Those who chose not to breed will steadily overtime remove themselves from the gene pool. Abortionists will quite possibly die out. I still think though that we should have a choice as individuals and not be bound by our genes or them being combined with someone else.

I think rape is a relevant argument as we should include all the possibilities on the table. Also starting with the more 'black and white' examples will help us give more information for the grey areas. Again I don't believe in eugenics, but if a women cannot abort a rapists child that is eugenics (an increase in frequency of a gene type associated with a trait due to government interference).

As we are not an underpopulated species facing extinction, I do not see any pressing moral force of society determining the rights of individuals.

However there is a point where a fetus is definitely capable of life outside the womb. It is at this point that we should have a definite no for abortions. I would say that anything beyond 13 weeks is probably wrong, but that is based on a qualitative feeling not a quantitative why and why not.

As for a man in a coma. Iff they are never going to recover should we be spending money on the individual or spreading it out for those who can recover... such as say a children's burn unit?

I see the eugenics argument. Again I think it stands alone well, (like the rape arguments) but doesn't combine at all with a concept of rights for an unborn child. That's imo the core of the argument. At which point should an unborn child recieve basic rights such as the right to life.

I think you're right about looking at the black and white cases. From a personal point of view, I'm very afraid of one end of the spectrum. It would weigh on my mind (if I were a doctor) to perform an abortion at at any point during pregnancy (see coma argument below). That doesn't mean I would ban it I don't think (again, see below). However I would be dead against performing late abortions.


The argument in my mind has two key points 1 - When does a fetus become 'alive' and 'human' enough to deserve 'human' rights? 2 - Is the potential for growth into human life valuable enough to assign the thing with potential some rights?

The first argument has me thinking about nerve impulses, heart beating and the actual development of the fetus. I tend to be conservative (I am generally on this issue) because I don't like grey area's when a human life might be at stake.

The second argument is the one I illustrated with the idea of a comatose man. It's not the idea of a comatose man who'll never wake up, but one who's predicted to wake up in 9 months.

If that man has no conscious nervous activity, then how different is he really from a newly concieved child? Obviously physically he looks massively different, but if artificially given nutrients and water, he will live a life in 9 months time. The analogy with a fetus is quite strong in that regard. I wouldn't dream of killing a man just because he has no thoughts (for now) and needs feeding through a tube for 9 months, and I would call those who do murderers. So why a baby being fed by a tube?

Obviously the analogy breaks down at some point, but nonetheless it does illustrate that in a similar (if not identical) situation, people attach a value to the potential for normal human conscious life. Perhaps because we can see and appreciate the existence of the comatosed man, and thus appreciate more that the tube feeding him is only temporary?

These are my thoughts, and why I (in general) tend towards the anti-abortion camp more than the pro-abortion camp. The only time I would feel truely confortable with abortion is in the case of potential harm to the mother.

Any pro-'abortion on demand'ists who can explain to me how I could reconcile my morals with abortion? Cmon, this is a debating forum :grin:

IMO the comatose-person analogy is flawed. A comatose man had lived a life before the 'coma'. He is, most definitely, inarguably, a person, while an embryo is in the grey area. They are not comparable.

Quote:

---

The argument in my mind has two key points 1 - When does a fetus become 'alive' and 'human' enough to deserve 'human' rights? 2 - Is the potential for growth into human life valuable enough to assign the thing with potential some rights?

---

1. I don't think that can be defined by law. I'm sure this point has been raised before, but if a foetus is considered human by 12 weeks, is an 11-week foetus automatically not a human being? It can be easy to judge when the foetus is near term, or if it's still a zygote, but borderline cases are messy. Where do we draw the line?

2. In my opinion, no. Gametes have potential for life, but I don't see anyone hankering or getting sentimental about them ('Johan' excluded :laugh4:).


I don't think a personal aversion to abortion should translate to supporting an abortion ban, just as you don't ban online pornography just because you think it's disgusting. I hardly need to point out that allowing abortion doesn't mean abortion is mandatory.

Choice, life is about making choices and taking responsibility for them.

Rights come with responsibilities too.

Human rights are social contracts. They do not automatically exist, if that was so we would not have to wrap them in laws and enforce them, there would be no way to avoid them if they were truly universal any easier then avoiding gravity.

As they are social contracts they can be given and taken away. I would prefer to see abortion used as a last option and only for health reasons or when the woman had no choice in the conception. But as I have already stated I would not want a committee of women deciding on having me neutered. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop: I bet I would be a lot more proactive in taking out the garbage if that was the case.

If we are arguing potential for human life we have to define when human life starts and more importantly at what point the potential could have been triggered. If we give a fetus human rights at the point of conception, why not the step before that and make all men mass murders and tissues to be redefined as genocide sites? :laugh4:

A bigger question is not just the right to life, but the right to live an unfettered one. A right to lifestyle so to speak. That is often what this debate greys into and sometimes depressingly so. The right of the mothers life (health) vs unborn and also the mothers right to lifestyle vs the unborn (life). It is a catch 22 do we want people using abortion as a regular option? Do those same people who use it on a regular option... do we want them breeding/raising children in the first place?

There are gahzillions of babies that never got born because x did not have sex when she could've gotten pregnant. That a certain DNA has gotten all the way to a fetus, only means that it is more of a human than those humans being only theoretical. The theoretical humans got nowhere, while the aborted reached fetus stage. It is really disgusting to assign human rights to a thing that does not think, and that will not be aware of its own existance until year(s) later.

If one is in coma and has no hopes of recovery, it is not murder of a person to unplug the life support since this "person" is not aware of his own existence and will never be so again. A person that is in coma, but may recover was, is not/may not , but can again be aware of his own existence; such that we would not talk about the same 'potential' as we can talk about when it comes to a fetus since this person already has a legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

...It is really disgusting to assign human rights to a thing that does not think, and that will not be aware of its own existance until year(s) later.

If one is in coma and has no hopes of recovery, it is not murder of a person to unplug the life support since this "person" is not aware of his own existence and will never be so again...

---

Respectfully: how do you (or anybody) know that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

There are gahzillions of babies that never got born because x did not have sex when she could've gotten pregnant. That a certain DNA has gotten all the way to a fetus, only means that it is more of a human than those humans being only theoretical. The theoretical humans got nowhere, while the aborted reached fetus stage. It is really disgusting to assign human rights to a thing that does not think, and that will not be aware of its own existance until year(s)

---

I am all in favor of euthanesia, but abortion no. Doesn't matter for me what it is, you can call your car the terminator if you want but it's still a car whatever you call it. But a car will never be anything more then a car but a fetus will grow into a human unless you do something that makes sure he/she not it won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I am all in favor of euthanesia, but abortion no. Doesn't matter for me what it is, you can call your car the terminator if you want but it's still a car whatever you call it. But a car will never be anything more then a car but a fetus will grow into a human unless you do something that makes sure he/she not it won't.

---

I don't quite follow your argument. How is euthanesia okay but abortion not? Maybe the old person might get a flash of insight that combines Einstein's theories into the Theory of Everything. Or invent a new flavour of cereal. You never know. He/she clearly has the potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

I don't quite follow your argument. How is euthanesia okay but abortion not? Maybe the old person might get a flash of insight that combines Einstein's theories into the Theory of Everything. Or invent a new flavour of cereal. You never know. He/she clearly has the potential.

---

It has to be a concious decision that's all. Someone who wants to be euthanesised has it. Coma, I say no but I am no expert on that, also such a thing as being braindead all gone anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Respectfully: how do you (or anybody) know that?

---

Well, from my own personal experience, I am not able to remember anything that happened to me when I was younger than 3-5 years old. One argument would though be maybe that the memory is just not working properly yet; but then again that would directly affect whether you are able to conceive your own existence or not.

Regarding the coma issue, the knowledge comes from brain scanning; one can check how active a certain region is by measuring blood flow. Whether recovery is possible or not, one can be 99,99% certain about in the most extreme cases, like Terri Schiavo, who had lost 50% of her brain mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I am all in favor of euthanesia, but abortion no. Doesn't matter for me what it is, you can call your car the terminator if you want but it's still a car whatever you call it. But a car will never be anything more then a car but a fetus will grow into a human unless you do something that makes sure he/she not it won't.

---

It's all about whether one should judge a book by it's cover or not. A human who died recently is not worthy of normal human rights, even though it certainly looks like a person and consist of literally everything that constitutes a human, but consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

---

You've got a point there mate.

And what about those woman who kill themselves while trying to get rid of a baby they got because they got raped three months ago by their uncle and they are 15 and living in a place where it's forbidden? What about the future of a child born of a single unwilling mom wo will hate the baby and make it responsible for whatever. Im' waaaaaaaaay more favorable to contraception, then abortin in special case and the most early as it is possible. But sometimes it's hard... I met two women who had to have an abortion (yes, Frag, I know it was technically possible for them to fall in love with the baby and raise it). Trust me, except maybe in case of a rape, it's painful, psychologically for the woman who does it. Really painful...

About the "while you think of people trying to have a child and who can't". Shall I eat like an ogre and have a heart attack at 35 because there are so many people starving out there and because I can eat a lot if I wish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Right, but that little piece of human "bacteria" has a genetic code distinct from both the mother and the father. Numerous traits are already determined.

---

Hmmm... What about viruses and bacterias, which have also a different DNA than yours and that you host unwillingly?

I don't think that speaking of "genetic code" so as to define "when we are allowed to get rid of something" is a good argument. I see what you mean, but considering this "when life starts", some could answer "at the creation, we're a whole".

Some close to god could, maybe, consider that if we're capable of choosing this, it's because god had planned that we could choose, don't you think?
(edited for typos)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

How? The smoke can't be going into the lungs.

---

Errr, through chemicals in the mother's blood exchanging with her child's blood through the placenta (is it called like this in english?). Tobacco does not hold problems with the lung, although this is the worst and most obvious one

Same as some substances give problems to a baby to be development, tobacco has flows as well for pregnant women...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

even though it certainly looks like a person and consist of literally everything that constitutes a human, but consciousness.

---

To be or not to allow, that's the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So due to practical reasons when people are old (aka thier "potential" is low) it's ok to not try to save them. If a foetus (or a child for that matter) has genetical defects (aka thier "potential" is low), is it then ok to not try to save them?

---

Wow. Good way of puting it. Very good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quirinus

1. I don't think that can be defined by law. I'm sure this point has been raised before, but if a foetus is considered human by 12 weeks, is an 11-week foetus automatically not a human being? It can be easy to judge when the foetus is near term, or if it's still a zygote, but borderline cases are messy. Where do we draw the line?

---

There it is. IMHO it's not a matter of should it be allowed or not, but rather, when, or under which circumstances does it have to be considered a crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It has to be a concious decision that's all. Someone who wants to be euthanesised has it. Coma, I say no but I am no expert on that, also such a thing as being braindead all gone anyway.

---

And then some people against euthanasia would say "yes, but right now this person is suffering too much to make a clear decision, and is not, roght now responsible". Tough point, unfortunately, which, again, brings to the "where's the limit", not the "should it be allowed, or forbidden"

Oooh, just a food for thoughts, in France a guy born with a severe handicap suited his parents for not aborting and bringing him into a life of unbearable suffering..... "Perruche" is the name if I'm correct. I remember that he lost the trial... Thank's whoever made that decision.... Now where are we going....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

To be or not to allow, that's the question.

---

Sex is stage one, fetus is stage two. A woman not having sex when she is not pregnant is obviously not allowing someone to come into existence. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caerfanan

And then some people against euthanasia would say "yes, but right now this person is suffering too much to make a clear decision, and is not, roght now responsible". Tough point, unfortunately, which, again, brings to the "where's the limit", not the "should it be allowed, or forbidden"

Oooh, just a food for thoughts, in France a guy born with a severe handicap suited his parents for not aborting and bringing him into a life of unbearable suffering..... "Perruche" is the name if I'm correct. I remember that he lost the trial... Thank's whoever made that decision.... Now where are we going....

---

Just a friendly piece of advice: use the multi quote function (the white sheet of paper next to the "quick reply" button). press it on each post you want to quote, and on the last post of your quotation press "quote" instead. Beware as it messes up the order of the quotes; but at least try stick all quotes in one post anyway such that the threads are easier to navigate through. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Just a friendly piece of advice: use the multi quote function (the white sheet of paper next to the "quick reply" button). press it on each post you want to quote, and on the last post of your quotation press "quote" instead. Beware as it messes up the order of the quotes; but at least try stick all quotes in one post anyway such that the threads are easier to navigate through. :bow:

---

Oh. OK, I didn't knew that it was a multiquote function, I thought that some painfully copied text in order to make one post. Thank's for the piece of advice...

Eller tack om du är viking! :viking:

How about this story - This seems to be less a question about whether or not Abortion is homicide - it clearly is. The question is; what is more valuable than human life? Here, the Yale art department has decided that Art is.

Abortion is homicide. Anyone who marginalizes this fight is an enabler.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse
Martine Powers
Staff Reporter
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.

Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.

"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."

Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups . Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group . said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.

Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."

Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.

"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.