Abortion

[Viking]

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

The poisonous substance from the cigarettes enters the circulatory system of the baby through the blood of the mother. This is what may lead to miscarriage.

[Fragony]

The only time your argument even begins to approach validity is when you totally distort the facts, which you've done increasingly as your argument was attacked.

I think he raises one hell of a point, and it's a legal argument he makes not a moral. If you want to classify something as being alive you have to be consistent and apply all human rights and that is a juridical minefield, when there is a miscarriage the whateveryoucallitthere would have to do deal with it as if it could have been a crime, you don't want to do that to someone to someone who just lost her baby, there can be so many reasons the pregnancy failed but if you already classify it as being a human you have no ther choice to treat it like that. It is never a good thing to complicate things. I like what they do in Texas(?), they let the mother see what is growing in her, and they should aid her in giving birth to it and finding the baby a good home.

[Ironside]

What characteristics define humanity?

What is the difference between a man in a coma (who is predicted to come out of his coma in 9 months), and a baby (who is predicted to be born in 9 months).


Frankly I find it hard to see a real difference, and those who dare to define a date on which a clump of cells becomes a human are treading dangerous territory.

It always get wierd and contradictual.

Living, having working organs, brain activity and unique genetical profile isn't foolproof enough to be human.

Conception is also wierd, as you're giving rights based on that the cells will probably eventually growing into what we all agree to be human, but at the same time you're limiting those rights quite severely when it comes to saving them in very early age (the older they're the more rights they seem to get on this), letting it go more or less naturally (notice that the same lack of medical care for any other age would be considered apalling).

Ser Clergance and Fragony is showing on one example of this. There's much more...

[Papewaio]

I'm not sure, but the nicotine might get past the placenta.

Also it isn't a few percentage points in increase in miscarriage, its more like 50% higher from smoking, plus lower birth weights (which have a host of associated issues) and higher chances that a smoking mother during and after birth will cause problems like asthma in the child.

[HoreTore]

they let the mother see what is growing in her

They "let her", or they "force her"?

@Pape: The nicotine is the fun part of the tobacco, there are a lot of other nasties there. And once you carry them in your blood, you're bound to transfer them to the baby when you share bloodstreams.

[Big_John]

clearly the answer is we should ban all abortion, but make women who would want an abortion take up smoking (or some other drug if they already smoke). that way, the abortion-hopefuls get a chance at their wish without offending the anti-abortionists (or, consequently, the law).

see, smokers aren't "murdering baby humans" they're just rolling the dice.. if the baby comes to term, well, them's the breaks. better luck next time. we could take bets on the outcome. open the books on this bad boy, the revenues will pay for the medical bills!



i think i'll call this cute little guy "johan"




come on, johan, daddy needs a new pair of shoes!!

[Fragony]

They "let her", or they "force her"?

Do you have a problem with that?

[HoreTore]

Do you have a problem with that?

If they would just let her; nope. Just the way it should be.

If they force her; yes.

[Fragony]

Shouldn't be dragged at their hair in front of the monitor, but if they are psychologically up to it I see no problem, might make them consider less convenient but more humanitarian solutions. Middle road would be not covering the procedure in their insurance if they refuse, after all not all possibility's were exploited so why should the collective pay for their convenient bliss.

[HoreTore]

Shouldn't be dragged at their hair in front of the monitor, but if they are psychologically up to it I see no problem, might make them consider less convenient but more humanitarian solutions. Middle road would be not covering the procedure in their insurance if they refuse, after all not all possibility's were exploited so why should the collective pay for their convenient bliss.

Because the atmosphere of such a thing might create an unnecessary trauma for the woman, especially if her psyke is not that strong in the first place(which may not be discovered by the doctors). If she wants to, then by all means, she should of course be able to, but I see no reason to play with peoples minds.

Unless, of course, the idea is to screw up those who take abortions to serve as examples to others.... But that reminds us of a world we don't really want to live in, doesn't it?

[Myrddraal]

i think i'll call this cute little guy "johan"

What was that? You're misinformed if you think these invisible clumps of cells are what pops out after most abortions.

Again, we polarise the debate, it's either a clump of cells, or a born baby. It's stage of development is pushed out of view by arguments like this.



Thanks for your reply Ironside.

Living, having working organs, brain activity and unique genetical profile isn't foolproof enough to be human.

The danger is that if you expect more for a human to be considered alive, then you must apply those criteria evenly.

What is the difference between the man in the coma and the mostly developed featus? If anything, the mostly developed featus shows more nervous activity. So why not kill off the man in the coma?

The reason we don't kill him is because we respect his opportunity to have a life after the coma. If he has a chance of getting out of his coma, he has the potential for life, and we respect that.

When it comes to an unborn baby, we don't apply the same standards. It's not enough to have the potential for life any more, you have to have something more than that.


This is difficult for me to morally accept.

Conception is also wierd, as you're giving rights based on that the cells will probably eventually growing into what we all agree to be human, but at the same time you're limiting those rights quite severely when it comes to saving them in very early age (the older they're the more rights they seem to get on this), letting it go more or less naturally (notice that the same lack of medical care for any other age would be considered apalling).

Actually as you get older it is often the case that you effectively have less of a right to healthcare. If you're very old and ill, they often consider treating you as an extension of your life (rather than saving it). Often old people with serious illnesses will stop receiving treatment and will be 'allowed to die', often with the consent of the family. At what point is it still worth treating someone, if their old age and health will probably have them back in hospital tomorrow.

When you're in the prime of your life however, people will go to huge lengths to save you from serious injury or illness.

When you're in the womb, you are much more fragile, and it's much more difficult to predict what might cause a miscarriage (and hence very difficult to prevent). I don't think it's a lack of respect for the unborn child that makes the treatment more limited, but rather an actual limitation on what can be done. I'm sure most women who've had a miscarriage would shift heaven and earth to avoid it, but they also probably didn't see it coming.

[Ironside]

The danger is that if you expect more for a human to be considered alive, then you must apply those criteria evenly.

An example Man "pregnant" with own twin. TBH your "potential" to life is actually the best argument I've heard to why you cannot treat the twin as an alive human.
You could of course within a few years clone the twin and make the twin have the same potential as anybody else, as the genetical code is most likely to be functional.

What is the difference between the man in the coma and the mostly developed featus? If anything, the mostly developed featus shows more nervous activity. So why not kill off the man in the coma?

The reason we don't kill him is because we respect his opportunity to have a life after the coma. If he has a chance of getting out of his coma, he has the potential for life, and we respect that.

When it comes to an unborn baby, we don't apply the same standards. It's not enough to have the potential for life any more, you have to have something more than that.

This is difficult for me to morally accept.

The problem with "potential" is that it's a relative concept. At what point does this potential for life start to become absurd to keep up? see above for one example.

And that is the problem, that's a huge area of grey that every time you draw a line you'll get examples of where it should be on the other side of the line.

Actually as you get older it is often the case that you effectively have less of a right to healthcare. If you're very old and ill, they often consider treating you as an extension of your life (rather than saving it). Often old people with serious illnesses will stop receiving treatment and will be 'allowed to die', often with the consent of the family. At what point is it still worth treating someone, if their old age and health will probably have them back in hospital tomorrow.

When you're in the prime of your life however, people will go to huge lengths to save you from serious injury or illness.

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

When you're in the womb, you are much more fragile, and it's much more difficult to predict what might cause a miscarriage (and hence very difficult to prevent). I don't think it's a lack of respect for the unborn child that makes the treatment more limited, but rather an actual limitation on what can be done. I'm sure most women who've had a miscarriage would shift heaven and earth to avoid it, but they also probably didn't see it coming.

Shades of grey as usual. As mentioned smoking is appearently ok to do while smoking, but not recommendable due to the increased risks. To get back on the abortion debate, before it was legal it existed several products with somewhat practical applications, but when used durnig pregnacy had a high risk of creating a miscarriage.
It wouldn't surprice if it's exist products with the same purpose today. Should they be legal? Should they be illegal to use while pregnant? If no, you're de facto allowing private abortions, if yes, you then need to decide on what level this increased risk should be allowed to and either accept that there's gonna be a lot of women peforming this borderline activity and/or have a massive control apparatus that controls that women don't perform these things while pregnant. De facto a grey area.

[Big_John]

What was that?

it's a human blastocyst, in utero.

You're misinformed if you think these invisible clumps of cells are what pops out after most abortions.

depends on when the abortion is performed.

Again, we polarise the debate, it's either a clump of cells, or a born baby. It's stage of development is pushed out of view by arguments like this.

the problem here is we have some people who generally want to entirely ban the procedure, thus polarizing the debate a priori.

some people will never abide abortion of any "stage of development" of little johan there, and some people (far fewer, i imagine) will never abide the infringement of a woman's right of determination over her own body. we have to ignore these people if consensus is possible.

now, philosophically speaking, people get tangled up in discussions of what is "human" and what is "alive". but this imprecise language muddles the issue. human fetuses are obviously alive and human, but they are not obviously persons, and that is the issue. legal rights are extended to persons, not clumps of human cells. my severed finger is human and alive (for some time at least), but no one is going to give it the right to vote.

this "potential for personhood" idea is unconvincing. i can't worry about the infinite future, and what possible persons may never be because of my actions. moreover, i can't see what continuity would allow one to equate the identity of a fetus with the identity of persons. it's a fallacious equivalence. i deny that early stages even possess a personal identity, being 'clumps of cells' such as they are.

in addition, a potential-personist should be against any form of contraception, logically speaking, unless the human zygote is magically imbued with some special significance by virtue of having a complete genome (like my severed finger). so unless these same people that want to ban the 'murder of potential people' also want to ban condoms, they are being hypocritical.

i consider the notion that the early stage 'clump of human cells' can be a person to be absurd. but later stage fetuses i think certainly have an argument. but even if we consider the fetus to be a person at some point in development (as almost everyone does), we still have a unique situation on our hands. we have one person literally living inside of and off of another person's body. one of those people is entirely dependent on the other.

there are a couple of interesting thought experiments that illustrate these ideas. i'll try to reproduce them from memory:

1) let's say you wake up one day and find that in the night, someone has hooked up a man without kidneys to your kidney's. effectively, you have become a human dialysis machine. you don't know this person, they are fully awake and conscious, but they have no knowledge of how or why they were hooked up to you. you can easily detach him from your body, but doing so would kill him. do you have an obligation to remain attached to him, preserving his life for the rest of your life? what if it's only a 9-month dialysis, after which he can be detached safely? what if he wasn't awake and conscious, but in a coma?

2) let's say an alien descends from the sky one day and tells you that he's opening a new planet, just a few galaxies over. it's going to be a nice, lush tropical planet full of ewoks and chocolate. but, he's looking for one more ingredient, you. he needs millions of you to make the planet's ecosystem complete. all he needs from you is your consent, and he can painlessly and instantly clone you a million times over and be on his way. there are millions of potential people waiting for you to just say, "okay". do you have any kind of duty to say yes? what does potential personhood really count for anyway?

the obvious retorts to these arguments are something like:

1) women consent to support the pregnancy by virtue of consenting to sex in the first place. therefor, the dialysis analogy does not hold.

2) the potential of a fertilized ovum is different from the potential of a cloned human, because it's either activated in some sense, or more 'natural'.


no matter how you fall on that though, clearly the idea of potential is complicated and doesn't resolve the issue at all, imo.





what we are left with is a balancing of a woman's rights to freedom and self-determination against the right to potential personhood, at least until the fetus is viable outside of the woman's body. how you weigh those two things determines where you are in the debate. imo, potential personhood doesn't count for much. and i think abortion up to the point (roughly) at which the fetus could exist independently of the mother's body should be permissible (whenever that may be.. end of first trimester? end of second? anyone know?).

what are the statistics on abortions anyway? do most of them occur during or after the first trimester?

[Xiahou]

Sorry Big John, you have a lot of words there but you didn't say much...

but they are not obviously persons

Your entire argument hinges on that assumption that you state as "obvious"- many would disagree. Take that away, and pretty much everything else you've written has no weight.

I will take the time to knock down one of the flimsier arguments that I see again and again in these threads:

in addition, a potential-personist should be against any form of contraception, logically speaking, unless the human zygote is magically imbued with some special significance by virtue of having a complete genome (like my severed finger). so unless these same people that want to ban the 'murder of potential people' also want to ban condoms, they are being hypocritical.

A sperm or an egg will never grow into anything on their own- much like your severed finger. When combined they are indeed "magically imbued" (it's actually scientific, but if you prefer to think it magic I wont stop you) with the ability to grow into adulthood.

1) let's say you wake up one day and find that in the night, someone has hooked up a man without kidneys to your kidney's. effectively, you have become a human dialysis machine. you don't know this person, they are fully awake and conscious, but they have no knowledge of how or why they were hooked up to you. you can easily detach him from your body, but doing so would kill him. do you have an obligation to remain attached to him, preserving his life for the rest of your life? what if it's only a 9-month dialysis, after which he can be detached safely? what if he wasn't awake and conscious, but in a coma?

Add to this that the comatose person had no say in being attached to you and it might turn into an interesting debate about abortion as a result of rape. However, the huge majority of abortions are from consensual sex.

[Big_John]

Sorry Big John, you have a lot of words there but you didn't say much...

something is better than nothing.

Your entire argument hinges on that assumption that you state as "obvious"- many would disagree. Take that away, and pretty much everything else you've written has no weight.

i said "not obviously persons", i.e. it is not obvious whether fetuses are persons or not. can't say i'm surprised you chose to read your own meaning into it, though.

I will take the time to knock down one of the flimsier arguments that I see again and again in these threads:A sperm or an egg will never grow into anything on their own- much like your severed finger. When combined they are indeed "magically imbued" (it's actually scientific, but if you prefer to think it magic I wont stop you) with the ability to grow into adulthood.

a fertilized egg won't grow into anything on it's own either. don't believe me? take the fertilized egg out of the woman and drop it on the ground. let's see how often it grows up into a construction worker.

Add to this that the comatose person had no say in being attached to you and it might turn into an interesting debate about abortion as a result of rape. However, the huge majority of abortions are from consensual sex.

i already noted this criticism to the dialysis analogy, try reading a whole post before jerking both your knees.

myself, i don't think that a woman deciding to have sex automatically means she can't decide later that she doesn't want to devote the next 9 months of her life to the blastula mitosizing in her uterus.


as i said, the question boils down to, at what point does the right to potential personhood of the embryo overtake the rights of self-determination and freedom of a woman? at birth? when the fetus could survive independently? first trimester? conception? and why?

why not actually address the real issue instead of creating strawmen? something is better than nothing.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

myself, i don't think that a woman deciding to have sex automatically means she can't decide later that she doesn't want to devote the next 9 months of her life to the blastula mitosizing in her uterus.

If you have consensual sex, you are accepting the risks of such behaviour freely, including a possible pregnancy. If you are not prepared for that, use birth control. If there is still a pregnancy, it is your responsibility as a result of having considered the benefits of having sex. The baby should not be an inconvenience to be thrown aside after consensual sex, it should be nurtured and cared for as if it were planned.

I will attempt to create an analogy. If I asked my father to help me paint my house, and he broke a bone in the process (the "inconvenience"), I would be obliged to care for him until he recovered. Not the best analogy, but you can see my point.

[Big_John]

If you have consensual sex, you are accepting the risks of such behaviour freely, including a possible pregnancy. If you are not prepared for that, use birth control. If there is still a pregnancy, it is your responsibility as a result of having considered the benefits of having sex. The baby should not be an inconvenience to be thrown aside after consensual sex, it should be nurtured and cared for as if it were planned.

what baby? we're talking about embryos.

and what if the couple does use birth control, but it fails. is abortion OK in that case?

I will attempt to create an analogy. If I asked my father to help me paint my house, and he broke a bone in the process (the "inconvenience"), I would be obliged to care for him until he recovered. Not the best analogy, but you can see my point.

no, i really can't. again, i've already noted the consent counter-argument. but why does consent at one point automatically mean inability to change one's mind? what if the woman consented under the belief that the father would help support the future child, and then the dude dies?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

and what if the couple does use birth control, but it fails. is abortion OK in that case?

No. The point is that you willingly took the risk. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape. However, if you take the risk, you accept the potential outcomes.

[Big_John]

No. The point is that you willingly took the risk. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape. However, if you take the risk, you accept the potential outcomes.

but why does consent to the risk in the past automatically overrule free choice in the future?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The debate on abortion hinges (mostly) on when you consider the foetus to actually become a human being in it's own right. If you can't pinpoint the moment do you want to hedge on the side of caution or the side of liberality?

For myself I can't prove that a one celled embryo isn't a human being so I can't in good concience ever back abortion.

[Fragony]

No. The point is that you willingly took the risk. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape.

Friend of mine is a rape-child, he didn't really enjoy learning about that but he prefers to be alive. Not going to judge abortion after rape but he turned out to be a great guy if you don't anger him, with not so good taste in women (for the dutchies he's dating that big brother kelly-creature)

[Banquo's Ghost]

. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape.

I can't say I have ever come to terms with this position. If one believes the embryo is a human being imbued with the right to life, how can it be permissible to consider killing it just because it's mother was raped? That is not the fault of the child whose life is at risk.

If one believes that the right of a woman override that of the foetus, then the argument becomes one of timing - at Big_John notes, a discussion ensues as to when that foetus becomes a person with over-riding legal rights.

If one believes the baby is human right from conception, then there is no permissible reason for killing that child.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Best pro-abortion argument:
* Of course a fetus isn't human - they have much fewer hitpoints!

Best anti-abortion argument:
* OMG noobs stop spawnkilling!

[Fragony]

I can't say I have ever come to terms with this position. If one believes the embryo is a human being imbued with the right to life, how can it be permissible to consider killing it just because it's mother was raped? That is not the fault of the child whose life is at risk.

Well I think abortion is acceptable if there are serious health-issues for the mother, that includes severe psychological trauma. If she's not up for it which I can fully understand it should be possible.

[Myrddraal]

Big_John, imo you've pinpointed the core of the debate nicely.

Philipvs imo you give a very good argument for completely banning abortion (with repect to Big_John's point).

I'm not sure I agree with banning abortion completely, however like Philipvs I would prefer, when faced with shades of grey concerning human life, to take the safe extreme rather than the very morally dubious extreme.

I certainly don't agree with the current legal limits on abortion in the UK, and am appaled to hear they're trying to expand them.

More to come, this is a bit of rushed post (sorry).



EDIT:

I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape.

I also can't understand this argument. Either the fetus has rights to life, or it doesn't.

I can see an argument for abortion (even at very late stages in pregnancy) where the birth or growth of the child could kill or seriously injure the mother. That's a different kettle of fish however.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I also can't understand this argument. Either the fetus has rights to life, or it doesn't.

I can see an argument for abortion (even at very late stages in pregnancy) where the birth or growth of the child could kill or seriously injure the mother. That's a different kettle of fish however.

If the mother is raped, she has not made any sort of descision or accepted any sort of risk in having a child - it has been forced upon her. Nonetheless, I believe after a rape, which she could not have prevented, she has a right to choose. What if a fourteen year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant? Should her life just disappear? The reason that this is such a big issue in America is that no side can see the other. There needs to be a level of compromise. Abortion cannot either be illegal altogether or completely legal - there needs to be a clause for exceptions or for regulations, depending which side you're on.

I see abortion where the mother has a very good chance of dying as terrible, but necessary. I can only imagine what sort of psycological harm that must do to the mother.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the mother is raped, she has not made any sort of descision or accepted any sort of risk in having a child - it has been forced upon her. Nonetheless, I believe after a rape, which she could not have prevented, she has a right to choose. What if a fourteen year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant? Should her life just disappear? The reason that this is such a big issue in America is that no side can see the other. There needs to be a level of compromise. Abortion cannot either be illegal altogether or completely legal - there needs to be a clause for exceptions or for regulations, depending which side you're on.

I see abortion where the mother has a very good chance of dying as terrible, but necessary. I can only imagine what sort of psycological harm that must do to the mother.

How can you say "well the mother had no choice, so the child suffers" that arguement can be extended...

The mother didn't choose a Downs child...a child with a cleft pallette....a dyslexic child...a girl.

Slippery slope.

I don't think you can have shades of grey here.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The mother didn't choose a Downs child...a child with a cleft pallette....a dyslexic child...a girl.

Slippery slope.

I don't think you can have shades of grey here.

Actually, you just mentioned a slightly gray area. If a child will be born with something that will make their life short and miserable, should they be kept alive or aborted?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm not mentioning my opinion on this particular issue on purpose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, you just mentioned a slightly gray area. If a child will be born with something that will make their life short and miserable, should they be kept alive or aborted?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm not mentioning my opinion on this particular issue on purpose.

No, it's a massively grey area. Cleft Pallettes are aborted sometimes, even though a simple operation in childhood will fix the problem.

In any case, who says Downs Syndrome people are miserable? Should we kill people just because they have cancer, or are in a wheelchair.

Grey areas are not something I am willing to have on my concience.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The inconsistency between saving children that would be killed if nature/God had its will, and abortion children which would live if nature/God had its will, is interesting. A relevant issue is what people who support/oppose abortion think of, say, saving far too early born children who would die by nature, or making surgery on children that would die/be rejected by the opposite sex if not having surgery. Saying no to all playing God is something I can accept as justifiable. But saying yes to some instances but not other, requires some justification, I think. I'm not entirely pleased with my own probably rather arbitrary choices in the matter, if I have to choose a policy other than leaving all for nature to decide. Any thoughts?