Considering the legal framework for abortion

[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?

[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.

[Greyblades]

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?

[Vladimir]

I... was that a joke?

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

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Ronin]

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

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!

[Ronin]

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.

[Nowake]

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
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.