Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Vuk]

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?

[Nowake]

Hello gang

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.

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.

[Ironside]

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.

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?

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.

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?

[Ronin]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

Hello gang

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.

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.

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.

[CrossLOPER]

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.

[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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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:

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.

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.

[Andres]

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).

[rory_20_uk]

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

Best. Day. Ever.

[Andres]

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

[Ronin]

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....

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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?

[Ronin]

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.

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.

[Nowake]

Hello again

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.

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 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 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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.

Hello again

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.)

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.

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 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?

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Vladimir]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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:

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

[Viking]

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..

[rory_20_uk]

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

[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.

[econ21]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Viking]

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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).

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Beskar]

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.