Considering the legal framework for abortion

Threads addressing issues such as abortion have a tendency to closure for much the same reasons as constructive debate on legislation tends towards failure - entrenched positions. I would like to see if we can revisit the topic in a rational manner and - whilst consensus might prove beyond reach - move towards a proposed legislative framework that the majority might support. I'm not seeking to address right and wrong so much as how we deal with abortion in law.

To set context, I would note that to my understanding, a major battleground for legislative evolution is the United States, where the political framework is failing on so many fronts that require compromise. In this, the Backroom perhaps represents a similar microcosm. There may be other administrations that suffer the same paralysis - it would interesting for contributors from those countries to outline the specific challenges. I shall no doubt, approach the problem from a somewhat Europe-centric point-of-view.

My own personal position is this:

1) I believe that the foetus has rights as a human being from conception and that morally, abortion is wrong. I would like to see the end of abortion as an option for dealing with unwanted pregnancies. This is a position partly rooted in my Catholic upbringing and the Church's teachings, but also my wider belief in human rights derived from a belief in the sanctity of same developed outside any specific religious framework.
2) I believe that a woman has the right to control and choose what happens with her body and that whilst the foetus is resident and dependent on that body and her choices, there exists a potential conflict of rights. Whilst the adult woman is completely responsible for the well-being of any foetus she carries, she is correctly the decision maker in regard to that foetus. No-one else can exercise this choice on her behalf, least of all a government. Whereas from position (1) above, I contend there is a moral responsibility that the woman ought to undertake, my moral viewpoint (particularly as a man) cannot bind her since we are considering an entirely dependent being. I also recognise that throughout history, whether legal or not, if a woman so chooses, an abortion will happen. Indeed, such loss happens spontaneously as well as by deliberate action. Thus there is a pragmatic recognition of the real world that must be taken into any account: A woman has choice whether government grants a legal right or not.
3) I am, by inclination and practice, a conservative (though perhaps not in the modern political sense) and a believer in small government where administrations interfere as little as is practical in the lives of their citizens. Therefore, I have an instinctive aversion to legislation which seeks to enforce social moralities, particularly those that rely on religious grounds as there are so many religions and so much inconsistency in their advocacy. Equally in my book, conservatives are by nature pragmatic and recognisant of both personal responsibilities and those of the wider state should it advocate or impose a position by law. Extreme positions are by definition radical, and thus one should avoid extremist or fundamentalist options.

So, as with the wider debate, there is a conflict between my personal views. In my ideal solution, the starting point is to address unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Appropriate provision of transparent, comprehensive sex education (and wider educational achievement) for all must be a starting point, along with a consistent moral framework from both religious and secular authorities that explains and teaches - but does not hector or demand - the responsibilities inherent in sexual relationships. One cannot legislate human behaviour, but one can inform and set an example. (It goes without saying that I am not a fan of current sexual mores, which I would view as irresponsible at best - but it is not for me to legislate my views, but hope that others might come to agree with me through example and data).

Given that in any society, not everyone is going to adopt a set position, unwanted pregnancies will still occur. I would like to see the state encourage and incentivise adoption, so that more women might choose to go to term knowing that their child will be quickly taken into a new family and given the chance of a good life. I find it insane that we spend so much money on IVF treatments and the like when we also abort many viable children. Adoption should be seen as a great good, and a first choice. A loving, positive choice that women may take - when I take my position as pro-choice, this is one of the choices I should mean. I find it unconscionable that many pro-life proponents tend to portray a great deal of concern for the foetus, but very little commitment to the fate of the child once born. Yes, this probably means state taxes (given that my preferred solution through charities tends not to get a great deal of private funding - which is odd, given the numbers of those who profess pro-life attitudes).

Failing the above, there is no way a civilised society can condemn women to backstreet butchers armed with knitting needles, and therefore a legal method of abortion must be available. As noted above, my proposed compromise to the conflict of morality and pragmatism is viability: abortion should be freely available up to the age of consistent viability plus two weeks (which on current understandings is about 24 weeks I believe). It is at this point that the foetus - now able to survive on its own more often than not - acquires rights that can be guaranteed without the consent or agency of the mother - in other words, it becomes a viable human being. Those rights pertain prior to this point in theory, but are unenforceable, and thus moot. There should be very few cases where the choice to abort the foetus cannot be made within that early period of time, therefore any later term abortions would have to be decided only through the intervention of a judge, and that rarely. The presumption for any later term application for an abortion would be that the child now has the right to life and should be brought to term.

So, to summarise: Legislation should be pro-choice (i.e. the choice resides with the woman and solely with her, with no requirement for her to justify her decision to anyone) with abortions legal until the 24th week. Past that, any application would be granted only on judicial review with the default position that the child has full human rights. Concurrent with this, adoption should be made considerably easier and incentivised through tax allowances for the new parents.

This is not very far from the position taken by most European governments. Roe vs Wade appears to have hamstrung any such approach in the US legislature, as the pro-choice lobby hangs on to the ruling for grim death lest the equally determined pro-life lobby use any movement to outlaw abortion altogether.

I'd be interested in other people's views as to how they resolve the inherent conflicts, preferably without throwaway lines about religious stricture or secular immorality - the right to life is something we should consider very carefully and consistently, whether it be for a foetus, a soldier, a death row inmate, or indeed, for any moment of the human condition.

I would agree that 24 weeks is a sensible date at the moment. If survival rates in terms of mortality AND morbidity were to drastically improve this would need to be reviewed. Past this point I agree that it should be a review. I would prefer it were to be undertaken by a panel of experts relevant to the case - be that Psychiatrists, Obstetricians or Gynaecologists etc. Viability of the foetus is something for the panel to decide on - as I would hope that in a lot of these cases the whole point is that there was some massive medical condition meaning that they were a dud - e.g. microcephaly.

Post 24 weeks it can survive more often than not with massive support by a specialist team of experts and a lot of medication and devices. They are far from independent - but then even at term babies would survive hours without their parents providing warmth and sustenance.

There are enough children not being adopted without adding more to the market. I do not think that the state should be there to subsidise this. Adoption should be made easier, however. Same sex couples? Fine. Ones without children? OK. Over 40? Why not.

I note that in your example the father is as always completely excluded from either moral or legal rights. His input isn't even mentioned beyond that of a sperm donor, be that a one night stand or the fact the couple had been trying for children for a length of time. No need to justify her decision to him either. The usual take on equality - all equal, but women have some areas that are of course theirs alone - as is taking a baby to term based upon a failure of contraception from a one night stand. This is one area of conflict that I am afraid I do not have any workable framework for, but I am surprised that you didn't even mention it.

On a completely tangential issue, "the right to life" is a very modern construction which is paid lip-service to by the majority of the world's population. It is inconsistently applied based on time, place, wealth and even ethnicity. I disagree that any organism has the "right to life", and like any other right it is something that is gained and can also be lost.

~:smoking:

here is my position:

1) the fetus is a living human being, this is not under discussion
2) the fetus is only alive because the woman's body is directly sustaining it, therefore, even considering point 1), the woman has the ultimate right to decide she does not wish her body to continue to take part in that situation.
3) nobody is saying that an abortion is a good or desirable thing, but even if it is can be found distasteful by some people that does not invalidate 2)
4) in order to reach a desirable balance point between 2) and 3) abortion by choice of the woman or due to rape should happen as soon as possible, both for medical safety reasons and to avoid harming susceptibilities in the society. (first trimester, 10 weeks...or similar value)
5) an abortion due to health risks to the mother outranks point 4) and can take place at any point in the pregnancy if deemed absolutely necessary in medical terms.

Point 5 is a minefield of potential problems. The easiest one is "mother will kill herself due to depression if pregnancy continues". Other one is what is the percentage is 95% chance of mother will die? Or 80%? Or what about not mortality, but morbidity. Loss of a leg OK? One eye? Both? Who draws the line - and can the doctors get sued for all manner of things whichever decision they reach?

~:smoking:

I am very close to this debate personally because my mother tried to abort me but the doctors would not let her because I was 2 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Point 5 is a minefield of potential problems. The easiest one is "mother will kill herself due to depression if pregnancy continues". Other one is what is the percentage is 95% chance of mother will die? Or 80%? Or what about not mortality, but morbidity. Loss of a leg OK? One eye? Both? Who draws the line - and can the doctors get sued for all manner of things whichever decision they reach?

---

in the US or in non litigiously crazy country? sorry couldn't resist :P
but really, it's kinda true...it's just not a reality I am familiar with....over here "the doctor said the mother would die unless this was done" works just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

I note that in your example the father is as always completely excluded from either moral or legal rights. His input isn't even mentioned beyond that of a sperm donor, be that a one night stand or the fact the couple had been trying for children for a length of time. No need to justify her decision to him either. The usual take on equality - all equal, but women have some areas that are of course theirs alone - as is taking a baby to term based upon a failure of contraception from a one night stand. This is one area of conflict that I am afraid I do not have any workable framework for, but I am surprised that you didn't even mention it.

---

Only a short intervention on this specific issue :bow:
I do not see why there would ever be a dilemma.
At most one could ensure a widely accessible and very simplified legal procedure where the couple would agree on the need for consent of both parties in regards to the fate of an eventual embryo resulting from their relationship.
It is the only possible solution acknowledging a male’s right to safeguard the existence of his potential offspring through his own choice.
Bar this type of pre-emptive legally binding agreement, the male completely waves off any rights by default, even if the father, once the pregnancy is underway, offers to raise the child on his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I am very close to this debate personally because my mother tried to abort me but the doctors would not let her because I was 2 years old.

---

I... was that a joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I... was that a joke?

---

He's deadly serious. His mother was HUGE! That's a longer gestation period than an elephant!

I personally know a couple that faced that 1% situation where the pregnancy really would put the mother's life at risk. Something to do with her anemia, don't know all of the details. Anyway, they're super-devout Catholics, and they tried to get their priest in on the decision. He tagged out, unable to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. "This is one of those nightmare scenarios," was all he'd say.

In the end they aborted and saved the mother's life, but it's still a tough subject for them.

Their priest is fully aware of the abortion, and still serves them communion. Gotta say that the Catholic Church seems very heterodox about who can and can't get the wafers and wine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

He's deadly serious. His mother was HUGE! That's a longer gestation period than an elephant!

---

http://www.talkweather.com/forums/pu...lt/rimshot.gif

And that was the comedy stylings of Vladimir, a round of applause please ladies and gentlemen, he will be here all week.
now we will have a short intermission until our next comedian.
please tip the veal and try your waitress!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I personally know a couple that faced that 1% situation where the pregnancy really would put the mother's life at risk. Something to do with her anemia, don't know all of the details. Anyway, they're super-devout Catholics, and they tried to get their priest in on the decision. He tagged out, unable to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. "This is one of those nightmare scenarios," was all he'd say.

In the end they aborted and saved the mother's life, but it's still a tough subject for them.

Their priest is fully aware of the abortion, and still serves them communion. Gotta say that the Catholic Church seems very heterodox about who can and can't get the wafers and wine.

---

Super-devout? LOL - they're fairweather Catholics. Being religious is easy when it involved eating fish and attending a religiously themed social club. They ditched their beliefs when things got tough, after trying to hand off all responsibility to the Priest.

If the church wants to have hard lines on issues they should stick to them. Ergo, they should have kept the child and accepted God's will should one or both of them die; the Priest too should accept that this is his position on the subject. If he can't do this, he's backing the wrong religion.

~:smoking:

I'd like to start by thanking Banquo for an excellent kick off.

Now, in general I agree with our venerable Senior member. A fetus should be given human rights from the moment of conception. I must therefore be explicit in saying that abortion is, I believe, a form of homicide, when you abort a fetus you are ending the life of a human being, no matter how imature. We should not think that simply because the fetus is largely or completely dependent on the mother for sustinence and survival it is any less an individual being. A newborn is only slightly less dependedent, and a child only somewhat less than a newborn. No one would consider that "baby" or "child" denote lesser being than adults, only less developed ones. It follows that the fetus is also a human being, the only reason this is not obvious is because it resides within the skin of another human being, even so it is not "inside" in the sense of being inside the mother any more than it is "inside" a blanket once it is born, it is still a seperate entity, not a mere cancer to be cut out.

If you accept the above premise then the question becomes "is homocide ever morally justifiable"? Clearly some people believe it is, they advocate execution, euthenasia and honour killings. However, I believe it is NOT, under any circumstances ever. This does not mean I would damn a man for killing another man to protect his daughter from rape, or one soldier for killing another in battle, but "forgivable" is not the same as "justifiable". One of the weaknesess in modern Liberal thought is that in the absense of a compassionate God to forgive your sins all thoughts and actions must be permissable if they are to be allowed - if you cannot be forgiven in teh aftermath you must be justified in the action itself. I believe this lack has warped the moral debate in the West, where once we forgave we now seek to excuse, and this shift is particularly damaging with relation to the issue of abortion because women are now required to feel "ok" about an abortion, that it was "the right thing" where once they could have been consoled with "you had no other choice". This goes a long way to explaining the rising number of abortions since it was first legalised in the West, about 50 odd years ago in most places, because if it is "ok" to adopt a child with sever brain damage maybe it can be ok to adopt a child you don't want, and therefore will not love.

It would not be "ok" to kill a newborn because of post-natal depression, it is not ok to abort a fetus because you don't want it, it should not be allowed in most circumstances. Having said this, it is a fact that some women will decide that they do not want to go through a pregnancy, even if the resulting child can be quickly found a loving home, and for the sole reason that they will seek an abortion regardless the procedure should be legal up to a certain date, if only to prevent an influx of butchered women to hospitals after illegal procedures. multiplication of misery and harm is not an acceptable side affect of a policy instituted for moralistic reasons. I dissagree with Banquo that 24 weeks is an acceptable cut off point. If we cannot bear to slaughter animals without stunning, we cannot hunt vermin for the suffering we might inflict we cannot kill a defenceless human being with a functioning nervous system. I therefore submit that the point at which the fetus exhibits basic brain activity is the civilised cut oof, and I further submit that a woman who has not taken the decision to abort after missing three menstruations has in effect already made the decision not to abort and should not be allowed to revisit that decision having made it once. As the situation stands there is far too much scope for sudden abortions motivated by volatile emotions, such as those in a break up, which have nothing to do with the child or the mother's long term feelings. In such cases there is potential for a woman to make a decision she will regret for the rest of her life which can never be undone.

Such decisions are made, and they have tragically predictable emotional consequences.

Forgive me, I have more to say.

I cases where the issue is medical the decision to abort or not should be made by the doctor, based on his estimation of the likely survival of child and mother. No parents, as in Lemur's case, should ever have that decision inflicted upon them. There should be specific legal protection for doctors in this situation.

In other situations the decision should primarily be the mother's, but she should not have sole rights in the case where sex was consensual. When two adults exgage in consentual sexual congress they do so in the full knowledge that their is a posibility of conception, if they did not realise this they would not be competent to give consent. this being so, both man and woman have already decided to chance the posibility of concieving, the woman should subsequently be allowed to make that decision again independantly because the fetus is not solely of her body, it is equal parts the flesh of the father and the mother, and the law should aknowledge this. All the current inequality between fathers and mothers is the result of the law's basic blindness to this simple fact, both man and woman are equally but uniquely necessary for the creation and nourishment of a child at all stages of its development. Reform should begin at conception. In the case of rape, where the woman was prevented from giving here consent this determination does not apply.

To sumarise, abortion for genuine medical reasons should be legal, otherwise selective abortion, subject to exhaustion of all other options, should be legal at a point no later than that at which the fetus can be considered to have rudimentary awareness. The legal recourse to selective abortion should be considered an act of charity to the woman in question, and this should not be inferred to confer a "right" to abort the unborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

...

---

Oh come on BQ! Starting a thread like this just as I am going crazy studying for my midterms! Do you want to see me fail my classes? :P
lol, I will exercise self-control, I will exercise self-control, I will...

Excellent post by PVC, I'll not drag down this side of the debate by posting anything else...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

We should not think that simply because the fetus is largely or completely dependent on the mother for sustinence and survival it is any less an individual being.

...

I cases where the issue is medical the decision to abort or not should be made by the doctor, based on his estimation of the likely survival of child and mother. No parents, as in Lemur's case, should ever have that decision inflicted upon them. There should be specific legal protection for doctors in this situation.

---

If I read this right...in a case where there is a choice between:

A) 40% chance of death for the mother. Guaranteed survival of baby.
B) Abortion.

You would say: A? Because they both weigh equally and the 100% > 40%.

I think that's very wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

If I read this right...in a case where there is a choice between:

A) 40% chance of death for the mother. Guaranteed survival of baby.
B) Abortion.

You would say: A? Because they both weigh equally and the 100% > 40%.

I think that's very wrong.

---

Why? Is one person's life worth more than another's?
Honestly, I believe that abortion should be illegal other than in cases where a mother has a 50% or greater chance of dying. In those cases where you have two equally valuable and important lives with an equal chance at life or death, I think it should be the mother's choice to decide what will happen.
Dammit, just when I promised that I would not get involved. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Why? Is one person's life worth more than another's?
Honestly, I believe that abortion should be illegal other than in cases where a mother has a 50% or greater chance of dying. In those cases where you have two equally valuable and important lives with an equal chance at life or death, I think it should be the mother's choice to decide what will happen.
Dammit, just when I promised that I would not get involved. :P

---

Is that what you'd want if it was your wife?

If you are sticking with "both lives equal" then you can't make 50% the cut off. At 90%, that's still less than 100%. And at a 100, you flip a coin, because there's no difference? That's nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Is that what you'd want if it was your wife?

If you are sticking with "both lives equal" then you can't make 50% the cut off. At 90%, that's still less than 100%. And at a 100, you flip a coin, because there's no difference? That's nonsense.

---

That is what I would want for my child, and that is what I would want for my child if I was a woman carrying it as well. Children are a large responsibility; human life in your care. It is not something that should be entered into lightly or without love. I think most men and women out there would give their life for their children. Is it right to kill a baby who has ~100% chance at life when you have a <50% chance of living as well - to sentence that baby to a 100% chance of death so that you can enjoy a 100% chance at life even though it is likely that you will live? There are always risks with all pregnancies, and with proper medical treatment it is very rare that someone dies giving birth. You have to be aware of the risks when you enter into something like that. You make the choice to take that risk, whereas the child had no say in the matter. She did not choose to be brought into the world or to create a risk for anyone. The long and the short is that a baby is the responsibility of its parents, and parents need to take that responsibility seriously. If they cannot handle the responsibility, then they simply should not go creating life.

EDIT: I was my mother's third baby and her pregnancy had complications. She was warned that keeping me posed a risk to her, but she did it anyway. I came out with an umbilical cord choking me and with my mouth and nose clogged, but I lived because she considered the life she created to be important. If she didn't make that choice, I would not be alive to have this conversation. My mom survived and was mostly none the worse for wear. Maybe that prejudices me; maybe it gives me a stronger appreciation for parental responsibility and respect for life. You cannot just kill a baby whenever there is a possible complication or risk. When your life is in serious danger (like I said 50% or greater), I can understand people making that choice (no matter what they choose I can respect that), but if your chances of living are greater than your chances of dying, it is irresponsible, bordering on immoral to sentence the baby you chose to bring into the world to death.

If a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception, then I've half killed more children than there are in this country. I'm pro-Abortion, we've been over this subject enough times that quite frankly I don't really care to rehash it for the millionth time. Yay, you saved the babies life... now let it live a life of being unloved and uncared for. Congratulations for being so moral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

If a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception, then I've half killed more children than there are in this country. I'm pro-Abortion, we've been over this subject enough times that quite frankly I don't really care to rehash it for the millionth time. Yay, you saved the babies life... now let it live a life of being unloved and uncared for. Congratulations for being so moral.

---

A) You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living. B) Who is advocating not loving or caring for their children?

A.) Quite Frankly, Yes I do. I am talking from a position of personal experience. How dare you enclose people's thoughts, feelings, and situations into a "Yes" or "No" box. It isn't that simple.
B.) Maybe you haven't been to many children's homes.. maybe you should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

and that is what I would want for my child if I was a woman carrying it as well.

---

A rather cavalier statement to make when you are not a woman and have never been pregnant.

Quote:

---

Children are a large responsibility; human life in your care. It is not something that should be entered into lightly or without love.

---

And yet you think a mother should be legally obligated to risk sacrificing her life for the unborn child, meaning it would grow up without a mother to take responsibility and care for it. In situations where there is no father in the picture, this seems particularly inconsistent. Children are a large responsibility . . . which you should just hope someone will accept on your behalf.

Quote:

---

I think most men and women out there would give their life for their children. Is it right to kill a baby who has ~100% chance at life when you have a <50% chance of living as well - to sentence that baby to a 100% chance of death so that you can enjoy a 100% chance at life even though it is likely that you will live?

---

I hope you're right, and that most men and women would be prepared to give their lives for their children. I'm sure that at least a great many are. But should the government tell them that they have to? Is it really a sacrifice if you're forced to do it, anyway? Again, it's very easy for a man, who will never face this risk, to decide that others should be required to give up their lives for the things he cares about.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this point at all, Vuk.

Ajax

edit:

Quote:

---

You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living.

---

As I noted above, that sounds an awful lot like what you yourself are doing, though only on a probabilistic level.

edit 2: As far as other posters' contributions, I find BG's and PVC's arguments both very compelling. I think this is a very tangled and morally difficult question, and I have been unable to fully determine my own thoughts on the matter. I shall definitely be considering your posts as I leave my thoughts on this to continue fermenting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

A.) Quite Frankly, Yes I do. I am talking from a position of personal experience. How dare you enclose people's thoughts, feelings, and situations into a "Yes" or "No" box. It isn't that simple.
B.) Maybe you haven't been to many children's homes.. maybe you should.

---

How dare I? I'm sorry, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to disagree with you. Spank me why don't you?
Talking from personal experience? Did you read what I wrote? You having participated in decision making that led to an abortion means you had the power, not the right. Many people can do things they have no right to do.
People come from messed up homes? What the heck else is knew? Does that mean that they are not worthy of life? Some of the greatest (and happiest) people in the world have come from messed up homes. I know a lot of people who have been extensively neglected and abused by their parents, including many of my best friends and my sister-in-law. Ask any of them if they are glad they have life, and can tell you with 100% certainty that their answer will be yes. Who are you to play God and dictate whether someone completely innocent lives or dies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

A) You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living.

---

No one is saying that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

B) Who is advocating not loving or caring for their children?

---

No one said that either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

How dare I? I'm sorry, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to disagree with you. Spank me why don't you?
Talking from personal experience? Did you read what I wrote? You having participated in decision making that led to an abortion means you had the power, not the right. Many people can do things they have no right to do.
People come from messed up homes? What the heck else is knew? Does that mean that they are not worthy of life? Some of the greatest (and happiest) people in the world have come from messed up homes. I know a lot of people who have been extensively neglected and abused by their parents, including many of my best friends and my sister-in-law. Ask any of them if they are glad they have life, and can tell you with 100% certainty that their answer will be yes. Who are you to play God and dictate whether someone completely innocent lives or dies?

---

Whatever man. Maybe you should consider that we're not all cardboard cut-outs, don't ever presume to know others.

I'm out of here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

A rather cavalier statement to make when you are not a woman and have never been pregnant.


And yet you think a mother should be legally obligated to risk sacrificing her life for the unborn child, meaning it would grow up without a mother to take responsibility and care for it. In situations where there is no father in the picture, this seems particularly inconsistent. Children are a large responsibility . . . which you should just hope someone will accept on your behalf.


I hope you're right, and that most men and women would be prepared to give their lives for their children. I'm sure that at least a great many are. But should the government tell them that they have to? Is it really a sacrifice if you're forced to do it, anyway? Again, it's very easy for a man, who will never face this risk, to decide that others should be required to give up their lives for the things he cares about.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this point at all, Vuk.

Ajax

edit:

As I noted above, that sounds an awful lot like what you yourself are doing, though only on a probabilistic level.

---

Because I am not a woman and have never been pregnant I cannot know that I would be willing to risk my life for and sacrifice for someone I love? I have been in situations before where I have had to put my life at considerable risk to save a family member. I can say with certainty that I would put everything on the line for them, and I know for a fact that they would put everything on the line for me. It is not cavalier; it is family. You have a responsibility to your family. You have a responsibility for the safety. My dad died when I was 14 and I had 3 younger brothers and two older sisters who looked up to me in many ways for the security and leadership that he used to provide. I was put in a position where I was largely responsible for the safety of my family if any should happen, and I was committed to fulfilling that responsibility, even if there were risks. I am not saying I am a great person (as I said, I know anyone in my family would put it on the line for anyone else in the family), but simply that I do not have to be a woman to understand what it is like to risk one's safety or one's life for their family.
I had no choice in being born into my family, but still felt a responsibility toward them. If someone doesn't think they can handle that responsibility, they simply do not have to get pregnant!

You would not be forcing people to sacrifice (pregnancies with a high chance of harm or death to a woman are extremely rare), because they would choose to get pregnant or not. You would simply be forcing them to take responsibility for the life they create. To reiterate, if they do not want the responsibility, they do not need to create the life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

No one is saying that.

No one said that either.

---

Actually, the response I quoted said the first thing, and accused me of saying the second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

Whatever man. Maybe you should consider that we're not all cardboard cut-outs, don't ever presume to know others.

I'm out of here.

---

I know we are not all the same, but we ARE all born innocent and deserving of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I know we are not all the same, but we ARE all born innocent and deserving of life.

---

Life and innocence doesn't preclude Anencephaly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

Life and innocence doesn't preclude Anencephaly.

---

That is an extremely sad thing that is beyond our control. Is your argument then that because disease indiscriminately kills that humans should become discriminant killers? If not, then I really do not see your point. Adults can get deadly diseases, does that mean then that we have the right to kill whoever we want?

Hello gang :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Honestly, I believe that abortion should be illegal other than in cases where a mother has a 50% or greater chance of dying.

---

That's nonsense. Even if we'd concede that abortion in the absence of any danger towards the carrier's life should be illegal on moral grounds, accepting the fact that a human being should be forced to risk one's life, even marginally, to save another is preposterous. It is unconscionable to deny personal option in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

In other situations the decision should primarily be the mother's, but she should not have sole rights in the case where sex was consensual. When two adults exgage in consentual sexual congress they do so in the full knowledge that their is a posibility of conception, if they did not realise this they would not be competent to give consent. this being so, both man and woman have already decided to chance the posibility of concieving, the woman should subsequently be allowed to make that decision again independantly because the fetus is not solely of her body, it is equal parts the flesh of the father and the mother, and the law should aknowledge this. All the current inequality between fathers and mothers is the result of the law's basic blindness to this simple fact, both man and woman are equally but uniquely necessary for the creation and nourishment of a child at all stages of its development. Reform should begin at conception. In the case of rape, where the woman was prevented from giving here consent this determination does not apply.

---

A reasoning from the wrong vantage point. Creation and nourishment of a child do involve the father. Getting a pregnancy to term does not, biologically. The female is the sole carrier, with all the physical and mental issues it entails. She is the only one who can award a male rights onto her body. To re-quote a point I made earlier:

At most one could ensure a widely accessible and very simplified legal procedure where the couple would agree on the need for consent of both parties in regards to the fate of an eventual embryo resulting from their relationship.
It is the only possible solution acknowledging a male’s right to safeguard the existence of his potential offspring through his own choice.
Bar this type of pre-emptive legally binding agreement, the male completely waves off any rights by default, even if the father, once the pregnancy is underway, offers to raise the child on his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Now, in general I agree with our venerable Senior member. A foetus should be given human rights from the moment of conception.

---

Nope, it should not. Or you'll need to to simply accept that something kills 10-35% of the total population (spontanious abortion/miscarriage). Minor detail, but that's something that happens that's completely unacceptable for any other population group. There is a difference for foetuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

One of the weaknesess in modern Liberal thought is that in the absense of a compassionate God to forgive your sins all thoughts and actions must be permissable if they are to be allowed - if you cannot be forgiven in teh aftermath you must be justified in the action itself.

---

OT, but since I red the old testament a bit yesterday. Who is this compassionate God you talk about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This goes a long way to explaining the rising number of abortions since it was first legalised in the West, about 50 odd years ago in most places, because if it is "ok" to adopt a child with sever brain damage maybe it can be ok to adopt a child you don't want, and therefore will not love.

---

You should check your data of this "Western world". I can say for certain that it's not true for Sweden nor any other Nordic country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I therefore submit that the point at which the fetus exhibits basic brain activity is the civilised cut oof, and I further submit that a woman who has not taken the decision to abort after missing three menstruations has in effect already made the decision not to abort and should not be allowed to revisit that decision having made it once.

---

Since it haven't really been a good discussion about this. What are the reason for the late term abortions? I know that it's relativly uncommon and about half has to do with chromoson/foetus damage.
in your opinion, is this a dead point for where no abortions should be made or when the choise is no longer solely up to the parents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

A) You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living. B) Who is advocating not loving or caring for their children?

---

in a general sense you do not have the right to deny someone else their life.
but.
during a pregnancy the fetus is directly dependent and connected to the woman's body, my position comes from the fact that the woman has the right to decide she does not want her body doing that....the fetus death is a consequence yes, but still she has the right to make that choice.
this is a very different situation from normal day to day life, because at no other moment there is no way to have someone physically dependent of another like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

If I read this right...in a case where there is a choice between:

A) 40% chance of death for the mother. Guaranteed survival of baby.
B) Abortion.

You would say: A? Because they both weigh equally and the 100% > 40%.

I think that's very wrong.

---

Why? You are choosing the certain death of one human being over the possible (not even probable) death of another, when there is a probable outcome that both will survive. In such cases I would have to say that the guiding principle should be to save the most lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

If a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception, then I've half killed more children than there are in this country. I'm pro-Abortion, we've been over this subject enough times that quite frankly I don't really care to rehash it for the millionth time. Yay, you saved the babies life... now let it live a life of being unloved and uncared for. Congratulations for being so moral.

---

Half-killed? Is that because you signed off on millions of abortions, or because you masturbate? You shed skin too, those could be used to extract your genetic code and clone you. The fact is, most of the sperm your produce expires before ever even leaving your body, just like all the other types of cells you produce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

A.) Quite Frankly, Yes I do. I am talking from a position of personal experience. How dare you enclose people's thoughts, feelings, and situations into a "Yes" or "No" box. It isn't that simple.
B.) Maybe you haven't been to many children's homes.. maybe you should.

---

If you believe morality is binary all your moral decisions are yes/no.

As regards children's homes - I've met children who grew up in care, I've met several who were given up for adoption. None of them have expressed a desire to have been aborted, most have expressed dissinterest in their birth parents though. The fact is, all life strives, including children, and to essentially claim that children in care would be better off dead is at best absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

Hello gang :bow:

That's nonsense. Even if we'd concede that abortion in the absence of any danger towards the carrier's life should be illegal on moral grounds, accepting the fact that a human being should be forced to risk one's life, even marginally, to save another is preposterous. It is unconscionable to deny personal option in this case.

---

I submit that the role of the state, and of the law, is to protect the vulnerable, most especially the young, the old and the infirm. Once upon a time in Britain you were considered to have a moral and legal responsibility to risk your safety to save another's life. Pregnancy is inherrently dangerous, I should know because I almost killed my mother a couple of times and she almost killed me, and I believe that a woman has already taken on that responsibility when she engaged in consenual sex, with all its attendant risks. As such, I don't believe she has the right to change her mind just because she regrets her initial decision, not if the result is to cost another human being its life. THAT is unconcionable, just as execution for judicial crime is uncontionable.

Quote:

---

A reasoning from the wrong vantage point. Creation and nourishment of a child do involve the father. Getting a pregnancy to term does not, biologically. The female is the sole carrier, with all the physical and mental issues it entails. She is the only one who can award a male rights onto her body. To re-quote a point I made earlier:

At most one could ensure a widely accessible and very simplified legal procedure where the couple would agree on the need for consent of both parties in regards to the fate of an eventual embryo resulting from their relationship.
It is the only possible solution acknowledging a male’s right to safeguard the existence of his potential offspring through his own choice.
Bar this type of pre-emptive legally binding agreement, the male completely waves off any rights by default, even if the father, once the pregnancy is underway, offers to raise the child on his own.

---

It cannot be a "Right" that you are allowed to execute anonother human being, that would not be a right under any other circumstances and, as noted above, the woman has already made an informed decision and I see no reason why she should have any "right" to make it again when the man does not. A man also has the right to consent to sexual congress, his right to consent can be violated just as a woman's can. You are speaking from a sexist discource based on a fallacious reading of traditional gender roles as popularised by feminist writers. If women have equal rights, so do men, accidents of biology notwithstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

in a general sense you do not have the right to deny someone else their life.
but.
during a pregnancy the fetus is directly dependent and connected to the woman's body, my position comes from the fact that the woman has the right to decide she does not want her body doing that....the fetus death is a consequence yes, but still she has the right to make that choice.
this is a very different situation from normal day to day life, because at no other moment there is no way to have someone physically dependent of another like this.

---

Two things:

1. I do not accept "but" when talking about moral rights, if it is not universal applicable it is not moral or a right. One cannot say, "you have the right to life except when you are old" so one equally cannot say, "you have the right to life except when you are utterly dependant on your mother as a fetus", without modern technology ALL children would die without their mothers shortly after birth, just because we have not succeeded in inventing an artificial womb does not allow us to fudge the moral issue.

2. The woman has already made the decision to have sex, if she cannot bear to be pregnant she should not have had sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Actually, the response I quoted said the first thing, and accused me of saying the second.

---

He was pointing out that women do not have an abortion for their own personal amusement or to "abandon responsibility", which you seem to be convinced is the main issue.

Women do have abortions as they are feckless. One patient even wanted the morning after pill on repeat prescription! Loads of others repeatedly come in for them as its so easy to get hold of.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To sumarise, abortion for genuine medical reasons should be legal, otherwise selective abortion, subject to exhaustion of all other options, should be legal at a point no later than that at which the fetus can be considered to have rudimentary awareness. The legal recourse to selective abortion should be considered an act of charity to the woman in question, and this should not be inferred to confer a "right" to abort the unborn.

---

The thing is, you may have said this as a "Pro-Life" stance, but it is ultimately what the "Pro-Choice" are wanting and want to keep. They don't see it the "choice" as simply to kill a fetus on a whim just for the giggles, far from it, it is viewed as a "necessary evil" in an imperfect world and it isn't something that should never be taken lightly.

An 'Abortion' for selective reasons should occur as soon as possible. If you end up getting raped, you should go and see the doctor where many measures is simply taking a pill to prevent development of the cells and prevent it going any further. As for the medical concerns, they are on a case by case basis depending on what is occurring and again, should be taken at the first opportunity.

There might be some practical reasons why these might occur later but the absolute limit should be before the point the child can survive independently (may be case-by-case). By independently, I mean if the child was removed from the mother and placed in an intensive care unit, they can survive and mature to become a well functioning adult. I believe it was either in this thread or elsewhere some one spoke of a doctor who said about in one room there was an abortion whilst in the other, the doctors are trying to save the child, both of these are the similar period of gestation. Such things are morally wrong if it was simply based on selective choice.

Should abortion be legal? It should, it should be regulated and legal to guarantee the safety of the mother. This should be further accompanied by social-workers and healthcare professionals to help the mother in this difficult time, and make sure it is the choice they want to make and support them through that choice. This is a very hard time for the mother and no matter how some people try to spin it, no abortion is ever so easy.

This also goes into sex education, because there is a responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies from both the males and the females so abortion on any selective basis is kept to an absolute minimum.

For those who are willing to allow their child go for adoption, there should be a framework where the child has easy access to families, even if they are homosexual, older or other criteria which Rory has listed and there should be a support network in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

The thing is, you may have said this as a "Pro-Life" stance, but it is ultimately what the "Pro-Choice" are wanting and want to keep. They don't see it the "choice" as simply to kill a fetus on a whim just for the giggles, far from it, it is viewed as a "necessary evil" in an imperfect world and it isn't something that should never be taken lightly.

---

Reaching the same legal position as you does not mean we agree, note Rory below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Women do have abortions as they are feckless. One patient even wanted the morning after pill on repeat prescription! Loads of others repeatedly come in for them as its so easy to get hold of.

~:smoking:

---

where we differ is in our perspective on moral issues, simply put, abrortion is wrong. If we do not articulate that robustly we end up with Rory refering all thes "feckless" women, which I expect he'd rather not have to deal with in an ideal world even if he doesn't have strong feeling on the issue. One other thing we haven't touched on is the fact that abortion is a medical procedure, and as such caries potential risks - including infertility.

Allthough I certainly understand and even to a certain extent agree with the position of the people opposing abortion, I also feel that we shouldn't blind ourselves for the reality we live in.

There will always be unwanted pregnancies and thus there will always be abortions.

That's why I fully agree with what Banquo wrote in his excellent OP : "there is no way a civilised society can condemn women to backstreet butchers armed with knitting needles, and therefore a legal method of abortion must be available. "

Regardless of how you feel about the matter and what background inspires those feelings, that statement does it for me.

The religious folks can refuse to have an abortion no matter what, if that is what they really want. Allthough, I, for one, don't think you can really know what you're talking about until you're in a situation that actually forces you to think about the option of having an abortion. Like rory said: it's easy to go to church every week and be a member of some religious club and wave some pamflet at a pro-life manifestation, it's something entirely different when you're confronted with a choice like "either mum dies and no absolute guarantee the child will survive, or the child dies". I wonder how many of those pro-life people fanatically waving their pamflets would still stick to their conviction when confronted with such a situation. The term "armchair generals" seems about right here.

And even if they really want to stick to their beliefs, well, they now already have the right to refuse the abortion and thus die, if that's what floats their boat.

A legal framework is necessary. The framework can then be organised as such that the parents (I agree with rory that the father should have a say too; but if it's a life or death situation for the mother, her voice should be decisive) are not left alone and a group of experts helps them with the decision making + an option to have help after the abortion, if that's what's decided, has been done.

The only real thing worthy of discussion in these debates, imo, is until which week of pregnancy can abortion be legal. I think "as soon as the chance of survival outside the womb, given the current state of modern medicine, is, on average, above 75 %" seems reasonable. Of course, exceptions to that rule can always be implemented into legislation (e.g. a serious medical condition that wasn't/couldn't be discovered before the week mentioned in the rule).

A Moderator quoted what I wrote twice in one post and agreed with me!!!

Best. Day. Ever.

~:smoking:

I need somebody to write prescriptions for otherwise illegal substances...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1. I do not accept "but" when talking about moral rights, if it is not universal applicable it is not moral or a right. One cannot say, "you have the right to life except when you are old" so one equally cannot say, "you have the right to life except when you are utterly dependant on your mother as a fetus", without modern technology ALL children would die without their mothers shortly after birth, just because we have not succeeded in inventing an artificial womb does not allow us to fudge the moral issue.

---

about the bold part, that is not the same thing, in that situation the children need someone, anyone can perform that task...like I said above there is no other situation in life were a person a directly and irreparably linked biologically to another...because of this the "rules" cannot be expected to be the same.
I do not believe in "absolute" rules....if the situations change then the rules change also.
about us being able to invent something artificial do "fudge" the issue....the issue is itself created by something artificial......abortion by decision is not a natural process....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

2. The woman has already made the decision to have sex, if she cannot bear to be pregnant she should not have had sex.

---

She made a decision...and then she makes another one...it's a decision...that's the entire point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

about the bold part, that is not the same thing, in that situation the children need someone, anyone can perform that task...like I said above there is no other situation in life were a person a directly and irreparably linked biologically to another...because of this the "rules" cannot be expected to be the same.

---

Baby needs milk, so you need either the mother, or "a" mother, but even then the milk a woman produces immidiately after birth is the most important, so that a newborn who has, say, a wet nurse who gave birth three months ago is at a considerable dissadvantage. The point is that that biological tether is not actually severed at birth, because in the absense of modern medicine you are going to have extrmee trouble keeping a baby alive without its mother.

Quote:

---

I do not believe in "absolute" rules....if the situations change then the rules change also.
about us being able to invent something artificial do "fudge" the issue....the issue is itself created by something artificial......abortion by decision is not a natural process....

---

Well, morality is about absolute rules. Regardless, abortion is an action and actions require justification equal to their consequences, homocide is not generally justified or forgiven on the basis of convenience of the perpetrator, why should it be so with abortion? I submit that abortion is looked at askance, because it is possible to ignore the consequences as we are not generally explicitiely presented with an image which we can interpret in the same way as a small child's corpse. Also, it's status as "a medical procedure" sanitises the act of homocide in this case.

Quote:

---

She made a decision...and then she makes another one...it's a decision...that's the entire point.

---

Yes... and she should not be allowed to make the second decision, given that she has already made the first. She is not allowed to kill the child after it is born, we should she be allowed to kill it before hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

because in the absense of modern medicine you are going to have extrmee trouble keeping a baby alive without its mother.

---

you keep trying to jump to a scenario where you don´t have modern medicine.
again, if we don´t have modern medicine we don´t have abortions and so we wouldn´t be having this talk in the first place.
decisions do not exist in a vacuum, modern medicine exits...so our rules have to deal in that reality....if it ever goes away then it's back to the drawing board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes... and she should not be allowed to make the second decision, given that she has already made the first. She is not allowed to kill the child after it is born, we should she be allowed to kill it before hand?

---

I have already explained before why this is different to me.
when the fetus is still inside her as far as I am concerned the woman has the right to say "I don´t want my body to be taking part in this biological connection".....the fact is that this cannot be done without the fetus dying....well..you can´t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
my position is that it should happen as soon as possible in the pregnancy...this is just to try and reach a balanced position against the possibility of awareness on the fetus part in later parts of the pregnancy.
as soon as the child is not directly biologically linked to the mother the circumstance changes...therefore the rules change.

the rules about homicide are societal rules destined to prevent inter-citizen violence...but when you think about it the society does not consider the fetus a citizen...there is a reason why kids are counted on the census but fetus aren´t.

Hello again :smiley2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

Pregnancy is inherrently dangerous, I should know because I almost killed my mother a couple of times and she almost killed me, and I believe that a woman has already taken on that responsibility when she engaged in consenual sex, with all its attendant risks. As such, I don't believe she has the right to change her mind just because she regrets her initial decision, not if the result is to cost another human being its life.
(...)
the woman has already made an informed decision and I see no reason why she should have any "right" to make it again when the man does not.

---

Sigh, how can one place oneself on such a shabby footing. First of all, creating a legal obligation to risk your existence for the mere engagement in the most basic life experience of your species grossly ignores the anthropological realities of the species’ community, which was developed around sex as a main social nexus.
Second of all, and more importantly, even if the woman engages in consensual sex with the intention of having a child, pregnancy is a pretty innocuous enterprise in what the mother’s life is concerned for the vast majority of cases. A female legally forced to undergo the process in the presence of a recognized medical risk, when she would be able to repeat it in perfectly safe conditions, is literally endangered by the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

A man also has the right to consent to sexual congress, his right to consent can be violated just as a woman's can. You are speaking from a sexist discource based on a fallacious reading of traditional gender roles as popularised by feminist writers.

---

Please, I would have written that a male is the only one who can award a female rights onto his body as well, yet it didn’t describe a real & relevant legal situation. Kind of why in civilised societies adultery is not against the law :2thumbsup: And why the judiciary should never give a gender a default right over the other. That right must be asked for personally, and awarded personally each time, on a case by case basis – before you restate your presumption over what consent to a sexual act entails, do reread the first part of this reply. Oh and fact of life: while genders are socially equal, they are not equivalent from a biological standpoint, and pregnancy is the very unique and clear case in which this inequality is illustrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

The point is that that biological tether is not actually severed at birth, because in the absense of modern medicine you are going to have extrmee trouble keeping a baby alive without its mother.

---

Factually untrue for thousands of years now. Mothers commonly died at birth leaving behind offspring who developed normally in pre-industrial societies.

For me, abortion is more of an aesthetic issue rather than a real moral one. It doesn't look pretty, but that does not make it immoral.

Opposing the killing of foetuses that are only a fraction as self-aware as the cow whom I had a piece of included in my breakfast this morning, makes no sense. So, it is aesthetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

you keep trying to jump to a scenario where you don´t have modern medicine.
again, if we don´t have modern medicine we don´t have abortions and so we wouldn´t be having this talk in the first place.
decisions do not exist in a vacuum, modern medicine exits...so our rules have to deal in that reality....if it ever goes away then it's back to the drawing board.

---

I am of the firm belief that modern technology is essentially irrelevent to morality, factoring such technology is a case of understanding how it relates to moral questions, not reshaping morality around. The fact is, abortions and various versions of the "morning after potion" have been available as long as caesarian section, if not longer (the clue there is in the name) but the advances in modern medicine have greatly increased the chances of survival of both mother and baby, and that is new. Such advances have also reduced the likelyhood of complications in an abortion, but that does not make it right.

Quote:

---

I have already explained before why this is different to me.
when the fetus is still inside her as far as I am concerned the woman has the right to say "I don´t want my body to be taking part in this biological connection".....the fact is that this cannot be done without the fetus dying....well..you can´t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
my position is that it should happen as soon as possible in the pregnancy...this is just to try and reach a balanced position against the possibility of awareness on the fetus part in later parts of the pregnancy.
as soon as the child is not directly biologically linked to the mother the circumstance changes...therefore the rules change.

---

You are still sidestepping the issue though, abortion includes homocide, you are balancing the mother's inconvenience with the child's life and deciding in favour od the mother.

Quote:

---

the rules about homicide are societal rules destined to prevent inter-citizen violence...but when you think about it the society does not consider the fetus a citizen...there is a reason why kids are counted on the census but fetus aren´t.

---

Ah, so you don't believe in moral law, fine then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

Hello again :smiley2:

Sigh, how can one place oneself on such a shabby footing. First of all, creating a legal obligation to risk your existence for the mere engagement in the most basic life experience of your species grossly ignores the anthropological realities of the species’ community, which was developed around sex as a main social nexus.

---

Maybe because I know, anthropologically speaking, that most societies license and regulate sexual activity because of the consequences in engaging in sexual intercorse. We are one of the most sexuallly unregulated societies ever, and as a result we have large numbers of single women with unwanted pregnancies, selective abortion is plaster on a wound in our society, not a solution. You describe sex as a social aspect of our society, but you ignore the fact that in the West people are increasingly engaging in sexual practices which either have no social dimension (one night stands) or negative ones (people getting together, jumping into bed after a couple of dates and then the woman getting pregnant, not to mention being infected with an STD.)

Quote:

---

Second of all, and more importantly, even if the woman engages in consensual sex with the intention of having a child, pregnancy is a pretty innocuous enterprise in what the mother’s life is concerned for the vast majority of cases. A female legally forced to undergo the process in the presence of a recognized medical risk, when she would be able to repeat it in perfectly safe conditions, is literally endangered by the state.

---

Pregnancy is actually pretty dangerous, it's just that modern antinatal care is so good that most problems are caught before they become life threatening.

Quote:

---

Please, I would have written that a male is the only one who can award a female rights onto his body as well, yet it didn’t describe a real & relevant legal situation. Kind of why in civilised societies adultery is not against the law :2thumbsup: And why the judiciary should never give a gender a default right over the other. That right must be asked for personally, and awarded personally each time, on a case by case basis – before you restate your presumption over what consent to a sexual act entails, do reread the first part of this reply. Oh and fact of life: while genders are socially equal, they are not equivalent from a biological standpoint, and pregnancy is the very unique and clear case in which this inequality is illustrated.

---

The judiciary do give one gender rights over the other though, women have the right to abort the baby which is 50% their sexual partner. If the woman has a "right" over her own body then does the man have a "right" over his own sperm? Those cells only belong 50% to the woman, so how can she legally be allowed to about 100% of the fetus? It's absurd, and it shows up the madness the in pro-elective stance. A teenage girl isn't allowed to cut her own breasts off just because she doesn't like them, the changes a woman's body go through in pregnancy are a part of her maturity, they are not unnatural or actually negative, quite the opposite. I fail to see why a woman, having chosen to initiate a pregnancy should then be allowed to cancel it. This isn't a hotel reservation, it's a new human life and one which, once it comes to term, the woman has only 50% rights over. Why should she have 100% rights in the womb?

Quote:

---

Factually untrue for thousands of years now. Mothers commonly died at birth leaving behind offspring who developed normally in pre-industrial societies.

---

If you were rich enough to aford a wet nurse, otherwise you probably died. It doesn't change the fact that the child and the fetus are both dependants, but we accord one full rights and the other none based purely on the stage of development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

For me, abortion is more of an aesthetic issue rather than a real moral one. It doesn't look pretty, but that does not make it immoral.

Opposing the killing of foetuses that are only a fraction as self-aware as the cow whom I had a piece of included in my breakfast this morning, makes no sense. So, it is aesthetics.

---

It is generally considered imoral to eat people, too. We treat our own species differently from a moral perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

For me, abortion is more of an aesthetic issue rather than a real moral one. It doesn't look pretty, but that does not make it immoral.

Opposing the killing of foetuses that are only a fraction as self-aware as the cow whom I had a piece of included in my breakfast this morning, makes no sense. So, it is aesthetics.

---

Great thread so far but I've never heard someone seriously compare an unborn child to something they would eat for breakfast. I hope that's a translation error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Because I am not a woman and have never been pregnant I cannot know that I would be willing to risk my life for and sacrifice for someone I love?

---

That's a very bizarre conclusion to come to, since I said nothing of the kind. Your original quote was:

Quote:

---

That is what I would want for my child, and that is what I would want for my child if I was a woman carrying it as well.

---

In context, you said that you would want your wife to risk dying to bear your child, and that if you were a woman in that circumstance, you would want to risk dying yourself. I did not at all claim that you cannot know whether you would be willing to risk your life for someone else, I suggested that you cannot know how you would feel if you were a pregnant woman. Would you want to take the risk? Maybe. But it's awful hard to know how you would react in an extremely emotional and dangerous situation you've never been in, and guesses from the safety of a computer seat might be way off the mark. One way or another, it's not a risk you might ever actually face, and so it's not particularly flattering that you would demand that others face it. It's rather like if I were disabled in such a way that I could never be put into the military, and I argued that our forces should have a no-retreat policy and all be forced to die in a losing battle, because I would want to die for my country rather than run away if I were in their position.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We treat our own species differently from a moral perspective.

---

Until we have encountered another specie considered just as smart as humans, we haven't really tried out moral dilemmas like that. I think the moral equation would have a different perspective then; and that's why I seek out creatures of similar intellectual capacity as foetus. It is what an abortion kills, only that it is part of the same specie as us.

Btw, 'eating' here implies 'killed'. What you do with the dead cow is not important in this aspect..

When did establishing a legal framework become a chance to throw morals and moralistic blackmail around?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Until we have encountered another specie considered just as smart as humans, we haven't really tried out moral dilemmas like that. I think the moral equation would have a different perspective then; and that's why I seek out creatures of similar intellectual capacity as foetus. It is what an abortion kills, only that it is part of the same specie as us.

Btw, 'eating' here implies 'killed'. What you do with the dead cow is not important in this aspect..

---

To elaborate: since I find nothing wrong in killing a younger foetus in itself, the limiting aspect would have to be what impact abortion has on society. Thus, disallowing abortion above a certain number of weeks could make sense because abortion may indirectly dehumanise society otherwise.

This is an interesting moral issue and I am grateful to BQ and PVC for thoughtful posts on it. They both seem to start from a common "all or nothing" premise that a fetus is a human being with a right to life from conception. Consideration of practical issues leads them to nonetheless advocate legal abortion up to some point, whether 12 weeks or 24. I find their conclusions attractive, although I am not fully persuaded by their premise, which appears to come from religious doctrine that I don't follow.

From a non-religious ethical perspective, the development of the unborn from conception to birth seems a continuum. At conception, the fertilised egg has the potential to be a person but I do not assign much moral significance to it's existence. It would not grieve me - as a dispassionate moral observer[1] - if for some reason, it was terminated; for example, due to natural abortion. To me, it's just a collection of unfeeling, unthinking cells albeit with tremendous potential. However, at birth, all of us would regard the baby as having the same full rights and importance as other people. And we would regard it as a tragedy if ill befell the newborn. The difficult question for the non-religious is deciding at which point the transition arises. I suspect no hard and fast demarcation can be found - the unborn's development is continuous, not discrete. As such we are dealing with a moral variant of the general philosophical problem of "the paradox of the heap" (when is a pile of grains of sand a heap? not two, but how many exactly?).

Legislation (and BQ in his practical considerations) often looks at viability outside the womb, but this does not seem compelling when determining moral value. The issue is about whether the fetus should be allowed to continue inside the womb, so it is not obvious why a counterfactual of life outside should be relevant. Nor is it obvious that improvements in medical technology mean the same fetus should have greater moral value.

PVC mentions brain activity and this seems to me a more relevant criterion, although given his pro-life premise I suspect he is may partly be using it as a debating point to constrain pro-choice advocates. I think there is an analogy here with the animal rights, another case where we consider the moral value of beings that are not as developed as ourselves in certain respects[2]. Whether a being can feel pain is relevant if we are considering an act that may harm them. The case of using anaesthetic in later abortions seems prima facie overwhelming. But for killing, rather than hurting, I would look at their capability for feeling pleasure and the value of their experiences. I know people talk of the unborn responding to music, their parents' voices and since newborns experience pleasure at feeding, can expect some later fetuses may also enjoy basic pleasures. Consequently, I think one can make case for regarding the unborn, at least beyond some stage of development, as having lives of some moral value that ought to be protected. Quite how many weeks this would be, I don't know but suspect it lies somewhere in the range from PVCs 12 weeks to BGs 24 weeks. Consequently, as I say, I incline to support BG and PVCs conclusions, albeit starting from a very different premise.

[1]I know that as potential parent one might be very grieved by this.
[2]I write that as a vegetarian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Until we have encountered another specie considered just as smart as humans, we haven't really tried out moral dilemmas like that. I think the moral equation would have a different perspective then; and that's why I seek out creatures of similar intellectual capacity as foetus. It is what an abortion kills, only that it is part of the same specie as us.

Btw, 'eating' here implies 'killed'. What you do with the dead cow is not important in this aspect..

---

Well, a newborn has significantly lower mental abilities than a puppy, so I don't think there's a lot of milage in your attampt at analogy I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When did establishing a legal framework become a chance to throw morals and moralistic blackmail around?

~:smoking:

---

Well, while we should not "legislate morality" in the sense that we should not tell people what to think our legislation should still be morallly robust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

PVC mentions brain activity and this seems to me a more relevant criterion, although given his pro-life premise I suspect he is may partly be using it as a debating point to constrain pro-choice advocates. I think there is an analogy here with the animal rights, another case where we consider the moral value of beings that are not as developed as ourselves in certain respects[2]. Whether a being can feel pain is relevant if we are considering an act that may harm them. The case of using anaesthetic in later abortions seems prima facie overwhelming. But for killing, rather than hurting, I would look at their capability for feeling pleasure and the value of their experiences. I know people talk of the unborn responding to music, their parents' voices and since newborns experience pleasure at feeding, can expect some later fetuses may also enjoy basic pleasures. Consequently, I think one can make case for regarding the unborn, at least beyond some stage of development, as having lives of some moral value that ought to be protected. Quite how many weeks this would be, I don't know but suspect it lies somewhere in the range from PVCs 12 weeks to BGs 24 weeks. Consequently, as I say, I incline to support BG and PVCs conclusions, albeit starting from a very different premise.

[1]I know that as potential parent one might be very grieved by this.
[2]I write that as a vegetarian.

---

For the record, I am not utterly convinced that it is an "ensouled", to use the Christian term, human being at conception, but as we don't know I would much rather err on the side of extreme caution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, a newborn has significantly lower mental abilities than a puppy, so I don't think there's a lot of milage in your attampt at analogy I'm afraid.

---

It's a bit more than just an analogy. If animals were robots, we would have no moral responsibilities when it came to them - that would be absurd. The reason why carry moral responsibilities when it comes to animals, is because they have some sort of self-awareness (but how much? who knows).

A humanist point of view might say that all humans regardless of mental state should be granted the exact same rights, because they are humans. But I am by no means any humanist, so I seek no such position (by itself, anyhow; important point to be made)

I am sure you know that killing newborns is not viewed today as it was e.g. a millennium ago, in many (most?) places; so this is a moral view that is highly dependent on culture. Yes, obviously, a newborn would not score high by itself on the moraleometer, but there are other things to consider that could render killing a newborn illegal/immoral, regardless (as I explained wrt. abortion). But that is a different debate - you will for instance find that a newborn is sort of 'fully developed', while a foetus might not even as much as look like a human, depending on how far it has come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Maybe because I know, anthropologically speaking, that most societies license and regulate sexual activity because of the consequences in engaging in sexual intercorse. We are one of the most sexuallly unregulated societies ever, and as a result we have large numbers of single women with unwanted pregnancies, selective abortion is plaster on a wound in our society, not a solution. You describe sex as a social aspect of our society, but you ignore the fact that in the West people are increasingly engaging in sexual practices which either have no social dimension (one night stands) or negative ones (people getting together, jumping into bed after a couple of dates and then the woman getting pregnant, not to mention being infected with an STD.)

---

There's not much “increasing” there, except single women. There used to be practice of reserving virgins in brothels for affluent clients for a reason, precisely because of the prevalence of STDs. HIV & Ebola are new ones, but the point is that this sort of thing is now much more actively campaigned against. Similar to the campaigns of the early and mid 20th century in Western Europe which also brought DDT to the masses.

In any case it is not clear that the legalisation of abortion corresponds to a statistical increase in abortions (according to Viking the opposite appears true for Nordic countries, and you can add the Netherlands to that list as well).

Quote:

---

If you were rich enough to aford a wet nurse, otherwise you probably died. It doesn't change the fact that the child and the fetus are both dependants, but we accord one full rights and the other none based purely on the stage of development.

---

True but there remains adoption which is a very common trait among humans. We even frequently adopt the young of other species.

It is actually a biological plan B, it is pervasive beyond the human species to the point that human babies can be adopted and raised by other species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

There's not much “increasing” there, except single women. There used to be practice of reserving virgins in brothels for affluent clients for a reason, precisely because of the prevalence of STDs. HIV & Ebola are new ones, but the point is that this sort of thing is now much more actively campaigned against. Similar to the campaigns of the early and mid 20th century in Western Europe which also brought DDT to the masses.

In any case it is not clear that the legalisation of abortion corresponds to a statistical increase in abortions (according to Viking the opposite appears true for Nordic countries, and you can add the Netherlands to that list as well).

True but there remains adoption which is a very common trait among humans. We even frequently adopt the young of other species.

It is actually a biological plan B, it is pervasive beyond the human species to the point that human babies can be adopted and raised by other species.

---

Alright - so there were unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in the past, but there were also what you might call "Halbard polearm" rather than abortions. It used to be that faced with an unplanned pregnancy the effective solution was to shrug and prepare for the arrival of the baby, now women go and casually have abortions, and some of them really do do it casually. I don't want to paint us as the most sexually dysfuntional society ever, but you have to admit that the modern Western attitude to sex is pretty unhealthy, it's getting up there with the High Middle Ages, if not with Puritan England yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

now women go and casually have abortions, and some of them really do do it casually.

---

I would like some sources for this please. I don't know of any real life examples or experiences which this is ever been the case.

I work with vulnerable adults, I have many links to feminist and female support groups and links to "pro-choice" organisations through various contacts and people I know and I never met a single person who has ever looked lightly upon abortion, with many of them doing the opposite (not having an abortion) and seeking help on where to find support. Those who have chosen to undergo an abortion were all very distraught by the experience, a few even attempting suicide afterwards.

So if you are quoting personal experience, it runs contrary to my own and due to the demographics and social circles I am involved with... such comments sound ignorant to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I would like some sources for this please. I don't know of any real life examples or experiences which this is ever been the case, and those who do a lot of things "casually" have numerous kids (who weren't aborted).

---

Well, Rory has already told you women do it because they are "feckless" and the Torygraph can easily dig up stories of women who acted in haste and repented at leiasure.

Quick look produced this for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wo...s-or-more.html

I would have thought you'd be less cavilier after the first abortion, but apparently not in all cases.

Here's the one I wanted: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/87...ant-pause.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, Rory has already told you women do it because they are "feckless" and the Torygraph can easily dig up stories of women who acted in haste and repented at leiasure.

Quick look produced this for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wo...s-or-more.html

I would have thought you'd be less cavilier after the first abortion, but apparently not in all cases.

Here's the one I wanted: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/87...ant-pause.html

---

The second link is far closer to what I am used to seeing. The example of people like Lucy.

I haven't met any of these three abortions or more teenagers though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Those who have chosen to undergo an abortion were all very distraught by the experience, a few even attempting suicide afterwards.

---

Wow, it must be a great thing. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ

Legislation (and BQ in his practical considerations) often looks at viability outside the womb, but this does not seem compelling when determining moral value. The issue is about whether the fetus should be allowed to continue inside the womb

---

Yet are we not accepting for the debate to build towards a skewed perspective econ? The discussion is moving away from the one fundamental point.
There is the original embryo and subsequent foetus.
And then there is the human carrier.
One does not balance the fate of the first without considering the weight added to the scales by the impact on the pregnant female.

You have to oppose the development of the potential human being to the evolution of the full-grown thought-capable carrier person at all times and to decide which is the primary actor in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

We are one of the most sexuallly unregulated societies ever, and as a result we have large numbers of single women with unwanted pregnancies, selective abortion is plaster on a wound in our society, not a solution. You describe sex as a social aspect of our society, but you ignore the fact that in the West people are increasingly engaging in sexual practices which either have no social dimension (one night stands)

---

You should really give it a go before claiming it lacks social dimension. Perhaps one of your most egregious statements; the liberty to let in and let go of human beings in the vortex of huge metropolitan communities is not only beautiful, but also a building block of self-examination within society.
A “wound on our society”; how prudish – otherwise, a validating, public inclusion is not the desired path for insertion into society sought by many of us; it is oppressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Wow, it must be a great thing. :P

---

I don't believe anyone has been singing songs about abortion or commenting how great it is. Most 'positive' is necessary evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

I don't believe anyone has been singing songs about abortion or commenting how great it is. Most 'positive' is necessary evil.

---

Evil? Sure. But millions of human being killed a year...necessary? I don't think so.
I am not saying that is your position (not sure what your position is), but I don't think it is a smart one (not yours, but the necessary evil thing).
Either something is evil or not. There is no such thing as an acceptable or good evil. If it is evil, it should be unacceptable, if not, then it should be acceptable.
I know that is a pretty black and white attitude, but when you are talking about millions of human lives, you need to draw a line.
What are we gonna do 20-40 years from now when we look back and consider what OUR society has done. Hell, we have out done Communist darned Russia when it comes to exterminating unwanted yet innocent life. As a people, as a society, we are disgusting. We really aught to be ashamed of ourselves.
Years from now, if we ever straighten out, our Great⁸ Grandchildren will look back at us and wonder "How? How could so many people be so evil? Could they really be that ignorant, or did they just want to believe it because it was easy? How could everyone else just stand back and not say anything?"
I am truly ashamed to be part of a society that holds human life so cheap. It is even worse than the Roman Colosseum...at least they were not throwing their babies into the arena...

I am sorry if I worded that a little too strongly, but I've went 41 hours without sleep and am currently jacked up on Oxycodone and Oxycotin, and I don't feel like sugar-coating things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

You should really give it a go before claiming it lacks social dimension. Perhaps one of your most egregious statements; the liberty to let in and let go of human beings in the vortex of huge metropolitan communities is not only beautiful, but also a building block of self-examination within society.
A “wound on our society”; how prudish – otherwise, a validating, public inclusion is not the desired path for insertion into society sought by many of us; it is oppressive.

---

I prefer to build few long term relationships than have numerous brief and (relatively) shallow encounters. I also wouldn't have sex with someone before we had both been tested, there's far too much nasty stuff floating around these days, aside from HIV. I also wouldn't have sex with someone I had just met because, yuh no, she might get pregnant and then I'd either have a child with someone I didn't know and might not really like, or she might get it aborted and I really don't ever want to hate someone that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Evil? Sure. But millions of human being killed a year...necessary? I don't think so.
I am not saying that is your position (not sure what your position is), but I don't think it is a smart one (not yours, but the necessary evil thing).
Either something is evil or not. There is no such thing as an acceptable or good evil. If it is evil, it should be unacceptable, if not, then it should be acceptable.
I know that is a pretty black and white attitude, but when you are talking about millions of human lives, you need to draw a line.
What are we gonna do 20-40 years from now when we look back and consider what OUR society has done. Hell, we have out done Communist darned Russia when it comes to exterminating unwanted yet innocent life. As a people, as a society, we are disgusting. We really aught to be ashamed of ourselves.
Years from now, if we ever straighten out, our Great⁸ Grandchildren will look back at us and wonder "How? How could so many people be so evil? Could they really be that ignorant, or did they just want to believe it because it was easy? How could everyone else just stand back and not say anything?"
I am truly ashamed to be part of a society that holds human life so cheap. It is even worse than the Roman Colosseum...at least they were not throwing their babies into the arena...

I am sorry if I worded that a little too strongly, but I've went 41 hours without sleep and am currently jacked up on Oxycodone and Oxycotin, and I don't feel like sugar-coating things.

---

Actually, abortion was the prefered method of birth control in Russia, so I read.

As to "necessary evil", there is a simple litmus test for this:

Which is worse, murdering Hitler or letting him rule Europe and try to exterminate the Jews? Murdering Hitler is an evil act, but if your alternative is to allow him go on a murderous rampage then you have an even worse option; necessary evil works like that, but it is still evil and "necessary" does not really apply to elective abortion as a form of contraception/birth control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Actually, abortion was the prefered method of birth control in Russia, so I read.

As to "necessary evil", there is a simple litmus test for this:

Which is worse, murdering Hitler or letting him rule Europe and try to exterminate the Jews? Murdering Hitler is an evil act, but if your alternative is to allow him go on a murderous rampage then you have an even worse option; necessary evil works like that, but it is still evil and "necessary" does not really apply to elective abortion as a form of contraception/birth control.

---

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

---

I dissagree, homocide is a deadly sin, you are not excused simply because the person you slay is evil, especially as there are no "innocent" people in the world. The "right" thing to do with Hitler would be to make him see the error of his thinking stop him wanting to kill other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I dissagree, homocide is a deadly sin, you are not excused simply because the person you slay is evil, especially as there are no "innocent" people in the world. The "right" thing to do with Hitler would be to make him see the error of his thinking stop him wanting to kill other people.

---

It is only homocide if he is gay. ~;) Sorry, couldn't resist that.
Seriously though, I have a fundamental disagreement with you on just what homicide is. An innocent person is one who is not trying to harm or murder his fellow-human beings.
Homicide is unjustly killing a person. A bullet in Hitler's head would be nothing but just. You can talk people out of mistakes, but you cannot talk them out of evil. Hitler wanted power. I seriously doubt he even believed half of what he said...he just knew it would help him control people.

You are confusing homicide with murder.

A lot of people argue that this is a womens-only debate, but I understand why men have such a high stake in the abortion argument, because our role in the process is not one to be taken lightly. Putting your penis inside of a vagina and moving it around for a few seconds is not something that is easy to bring ourselves to do. To think of all that work we do to make the baby, and then all the work we do to avoid paying child support because we didn't want to marry her because she got fat (GROSS!), I mean I am appalled that women think they only have the right to argue this topic.

In a perfect word, Art Garfunkel would be the father of all pregnancies, and us men would not have to waste our precious time arguing this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

---

Since Vuk is evil, is it an evil act to kill Vuk?

Now Vuk might disagree with that he's evil, but he's obviously biased and have already chosen such an evil name villingly (it means wolf --> A metaphor for evil men with a lust for power and dishonest gain, as well as a metaphor for Satan preying on innocent God-fearing Christians), that the guilt of his evilness cannot be denied.

Or it other words: Your method gives the person who defines evil all the power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Evil? Sure. But millions of human being killed a year...necessary? I don't think so.
I am not saying that is your position (not sure what your position is), but I don't think it is a smart one (not yours, but the necessary evil thing).
Either something is evil or not. There is no such thing as an acceptable or good evil. If it is evil, it should be unacceptable, if not, then it should be acceptable.
I know that is a pretty black and white attitude, but when you are talking about millions of human lives, you need to draw a line.
What are we gonna do 20-40 years from now when we look back and consider what OUR society has done.

---

Humans. Killing their own children since the dawn of time. :book2:

Did you know that the number of abortions were similar in 1930 (when it was completely illegal. It became fully legal in 1975) compared to today in Sweden? Now, I don't know the data for other countries but it's most likely similar there.
Or to summarise, legal abortion is an acceptance of something that's already happening, not some new idea.
Perhaps the future will indeed be different. But don't expect anything during your lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

For the record, I am not utterly convinced that it is an "ensouled", to use the Christian term, human being at conception, but as we don't know I would much rather err on the side of extreme caution.

---

I'm curious about that. What happens who those who dies unborn according to the ensoulment theory? It's common naturally, so it's has to have answer outside an abortion debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I'm curious about that. What happens who those who dies unborn according to the ensoulment theory? It's common naturally, so it's has to have answer outside an abortion debate.

---

Well, they used to go straight to hell as they were not baptised and had the mothers original sin. To 'solve' this, the concept of purgatory came into play, allowing them to enter Heaven afterall.

*rolls up sleeves* I have a lot to say about this topic. Imagine that.

I got auto logged out and most of my post got eaten. I'm limiting my discussion to the US because I'm well read in that area and not so much with the rest of the world. To summarize the part that I lost, I'm pro-choice. Not pro-abortion. But, I agree with a lot of what BG said in his initial post. I don't believe in late-term abortions. But, I also don't believe that life begins at conception. I think that BG was right when he said "There should be very few cases where the choice to abort the foetus cannot be made within that early period of time..." I don't agree with him re: judicial intervention following viability simply because I know how long a judicial proceeding can be dragged out. I don't know what the right answer to the problem is. But I do think that the US needs a framework that would both help prevent as many unintended pregnancies as realistically possible *and* provide support to those women who become pregnant anyway and make the decision to terminate an early pregnancy.

I think that abortion should be the last resort. As a result, I think that contraception in all its varying forms should be made available and affordable (or free) to everyone. I think that there should be proper education on how to use contraception. I know that there is no way to prevent all unwanted pregnancies. Birth control fails. Sometimes the back up method fails too. But, for those who above argued that people should just not have sex, that is a naive and unrealistic view. Regardless of one's personal views on abstinence, the reality of life is that most people do not. There are lots of anecdotes about people who chose to abstain until marriage, but statistically the average age for a first sexual encounter is 17 for a teenage girl in the US. A little younger for a boy. Even among people who abstain into their 20s, a significant majority of people in the US have had sex prior to marriage. This isn't me making a moral argument, it's just a fact. People have sex and making contraception hard to get is just going to cause unwanted pregnancies. And it's not just the woman's responsibility. Every sexually active person is responsible for preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STIs. It's common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

2. The woman has already made the decision to have sex, if she cannot bear to be pregnant she should not have had sex.

---

Preventing pregnancy is not just the woman's responsibility because she's got the womb. It takes two people for a pregnancy to happen. So by your logic is it safe to assume that you believe that all men who choose to have sex should be prepared to pay child support for 18+ years and be active in their hypothetical unwanted child's upbringing?

Abortion isn't just a single woman issue. A lot of women who have abortions are married and already have children. Sometimes, it's a very painful decision.

Also, some women who get pregnant don't choose to have sex. What about rape? 1 in 4 women could definitely tell you all about it. How about reproductive coercion? This form of abuse doesn't get much press because it generally happens among low income families.

Take a look at who has abortions. Some people in this debate seem to think that us lazy sluts just run around having sex with tons of men and stop by the Abortion Store and get our uteri vacuumed out before our next romp in the sack. Because we're too lazy or stupid to take the Pill or use a condom. Feckless? Really? Let's have some biology 101: if a man chooses to have sex with a woman who for some reason is too negligent to use birth control, he is just as responsible for the pregnancy as she is if he also chooses not to use birth control.

Further, the morning after pill is not an abortion. It's contraception. It works the same way as the Pill. In theory it could prevent a fertilized egg from attaching by thinning the uterine lining. But its common function is to suppress ovulation and thicken cervical mucus to make it harder for the sperm to get to the egg in case ovulation has already occurred.

I think that people who argue in favor of legislation against abortion and contraception are somewhat hypocritical because contraception, when used correctly, can prevent unwanted pregnancies. If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, then supporting use of contraception is a huge step in that direction. Just telling women that they need to not have sex until they are ready to become mothers is a religiously based moral argument that is not representative of the majority of Americans.

Legally, I think that BG is right and there is a place for abortion when it is done early, before viability. But, I don't want a bunch of politicians telling me that I deserve to die if I get a serious medical condition while I'm pregnant and need an abortion to get treatment. I find it terrifying that some people see me as a walking baby incubator who loses bodily autonomy and agency as soon as sperm meets egg. The laws that some extreme anti-abortion and I go so far as to say anti-woman politicians dream up under the guise of being 'pro-life' diminish their own movement's legitimacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

Preventing pregnancy is not just the woman's responsibility because she's got the womb. It takes two people for a pregnancy to happen. So by your logic is it safe to assume that you believe that all men who choose to have sex should be prepared to pay child support for 18+ years and be active in their hypothetical unwanted child's upbringing?

---

Maybe you think I have a low opinion of women who have casual sex, well I have alower opinion of men. Contrary to popular belief it wasn't in most men's interests to marry, historically, it has always been in the woman's interest, especially in the more sexist societies.

For the record, child support until 18 is getting away with it, child support until your child finishes education. Son wants to do a PhD, needs dad to pay for his flat? Dad should pay. If dad refused I suppose you could lock him up until his child is finished, and make said child a ward of the state and have the state pay in the father's stead. You can even confiscate all said father's assets to pay for it too. Extreme and unworkable, yes, but I have no moral qualms about such a punishment.

Quote:

---

Abortion isn't just a single woman issue. A lot of women who have abortions are married and already have children. Sometimes, it's a very painful decision.

---

As far as I am concerned, if the decision is made for economic reasons, it it obviously wrong. If you genuinely cannot afford to raise said child, you can certainly put it up for adoption, or you can tighten your belt. I refuse to reduce a pregnancy to the status of a luxury commodity like a second car.

Quote:

---

Also, some women who get pregnant don't choose to have sex. What about rape? 1 in 4 women could definitely tell you all about it. How about reproductive coercion? This form of abuse doesn't get much press because it generally happens among low income families.

---

1 in 4? I've heard 1 in 6, and I can just about believe that. I could be persuaded that 1 in 4 were sexually assaulted, but even that brings us back to the old question (which we have argued over before) of how many accusations are malicious or an attempt to save face. Regardless, both Banquo and I covered this in our initial posts. While a woman being denied the initial choice to have sex should not be ignored that does not give her carte blanche to act against the resulting fetus. She should not be allowed, for example, to go through the first six months of a pregnancy and then decide she wants an abortion.

My 2 cents.

This is an issue where people tend to be very entrenched in their opinions. However, I have also noticed in this thread that there hasn't been a huge gap between those on each side.

Abortion appears to be something that makes both pro-life/pro-choice folk (very?) uncomfortable.* Any attempt to create a cut-off point where a foetus is deemed sufficiently "human" and thus granted the right to life is always going to be arbitrary. As such, there's not a whole lot of point arguing about whether you draw the lines at 12 or 24 weeks etc. Obviously it is a debate that needs to be had, but it might be more productive to focus on other things.

Like, for example, how to prevent abortions from needing to occur in the first place.

My opposition to abortion isn't religious (genuinely, it is not). I oppose it simply because the idea of it really makes me uncomfortable. In this respect I'm no different from any of the pro-choice folk here it seems. As I said its not something where either science (or indeed scripture) gives a clear answer so we know when it is OK, and so the idea of ending any sort of (proto?)human life makes me queasy.

At least though, I will say that pro-life people (and in the past me) have been unhelpful and very unsympathetic in screaming "murder" when women have had abortions under extremely difficult circumstances. I can't pretend to have the slightest clue what its like when a woman has been raped or her life is threatened by the foetus, or if the baby itself has major health complications.

Although I can imagine that if I ever got a girl pregnant and she aborted, that would haunt me for the rest of my life, I honestly think it would be like loosing a child.

So I'm not sure if my views have changed a lot as such, but I recognise now that its not a case of black and white and its maybe time to sit down and talk about things.

In that respect, thanks to BQ for setting the tone so well for this debate. I think people by nature tend to look for clear-cut answers to things and when you have a subject where the controversy lies in the fact that there is apparently no clear-cut answer, it can lead to people making up their own ones (eg Bible doesn't actually say life begins at conception) and then losing all meaningful dialogue with the other side.

Although at the same time I'm wary of temptation to abandon principles and going for compromise for the sake of compromise.

I honestly just don't know with this issue.

*That might change if HoreTore appears since IIRC he makes the point of calling himself "pro-abortion"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

Yet are we not accepting for the debate to build towards a skewed perspective econ? The discussion is moving away from the one fundamental point.
There is the original embryo and subsequent foetus.
And then there is the human carrier.
One does not balance the fate of the first without considering the weight added to the scales by the impact on the pregnant female.

You have to oppose the development of the potential human being to the evolution of the full-grown thought-capable carrier person at all times and to decide which is the primary actor in the process.

---

It is true that my post focussed on the moral status of the embryo/foetus whereas stronger pro-choice approaches would focus on the woman's rights and agency. The woman is certainly the primary actor and I think it is the recognition of this in practice that means even posters like BQ and PVC who start from firmly pro-life ethical positions nonetheless advocate moderately pro-choice legal stances. But from a purely ethical position, I am not persuaded by the stronger pro-choice positions. Yes, as a primary actor you have limited moral obligations to help another, but with abortion we are talking about harm and killing, so some moral constraints on one's freedom to act do seem reasonable.

As for weighing up the value of one life versus the other, I am very much in favour of the primacy of the mother. If the pregnancy was a serious risk to her life (e.g. there was a foreseeable complication), I would have no hesistancy putting her first. But if it's just a matter of her general choice, based on non-medical considerations, I don't see that this automatically trumps the rights of the foetus. I get the sense that a lot of abortion law was passed assuming abortions would be for medical reasons, but in fact, they have turned out to be "on demand".

Another tricky issue is weighing up the interests of the foetus: to life vs to be brought up in less than ideal setting (unwanted, adopted etc.) or even more difficult, disabled etc. I am not sure what I think there. I certainly don't think we have a general obligation to create lots of people, but rather do have an obligation to make those that are created have decent lives. However, again I suspect there is a continuum whereby at a certain point, if the foetus is sufficiently advanced, one has gone too far to ethically justify killing it for almost all reasons except the life of the mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1 in 4? I've heard 1 in 6, and I can just about believe that. I could be persuaded that 1 in 4 were sexually assaulted, but even that brings us back to the old question (which we have argued over before) of how many accusations are malicious or an attempt to save face. Regardless, both Banquo and I covered this in our initial posts. While a woman being denied the initial choice to have sex should not be ignored that does not give her carte blanche to act against the resulting fetus. She should not be allowed, for example, to go through the first six months of a pregnancy and then decide she wants an abortion.

---

Without getting into the debate about sexual assault, I agree with you about the six month decision. If someone can't sort out what they want to do before then, an abortion at six months shouldn't be an option.

That said, state and Federal governments shouldn't employ delaying tactics like giving legitimacy to "crisis pregnancy centers" or requiring that state-mandated, scientifically inaccurate scripts be read by doctors to patients seeking abortion, or using zoning regulations to force abortion clinics to close. In some really conservative states like the Dakotas, there are no places where a woman to go to get an abortion. Sometimes, Planned Parenthood will fly one in for a few days, but that's it.