Abortion

[gethane]

Thanz,

Actually, no, I do not agree that a fetus' personhood status is the most important issue. I think the most important issue, is whether its "proper" for the government to regulate reproductive issues.

Q-Source: Would like to reply, but don't honestly understand what you said, or what you might be addressing to me.

Todd(somelettershere): I think that fact that men often don't take equal responsiblity here is intregal to the abortion discussion. Don't you think whether or not the father of the child is going to support her is a HUGE factor in a woman's decision about abortion? If all men DID absolutely share equally in the responsibility of pregnancy and child-rearing, then my opinion would change about how much say they should have over the issue .

And, actually I disagree also, with whoever said feelings shouldn't be important in making decisions. I think feelings overall, is a better method of making decisions than MANY other things people do. But, if you check my Meyers-Briggs, you'll see I'm a feeler . You go on ahead making logical decisions on issues that are in large part, emotionally based. There is not currently a factual, scientific way to answer these "logical" questions about abortion, so until there is, I'll just have to go on with my feelings.

Actually I want to add that when I took Ethics in college we discussed this issue as one of our segments, and discussed different ways you could argue this. One analogy we read still stands out in my mind, 14 years later (I tried to find it on the internet to quote here but failed) but I'm gonna summarize because I think its sums up MY personal opinions on abortion better than anything.

A girl lives in a small village and decides to go for a walk. Her family and townspeople caution her against walking in the forest. Something really bad could happen to her if she walked in the forest! She ignores them and goes on her walk. While walking she gets hit on the head and knocked unconscious.

When she awakens, she's in a room, in a hospital type bed. A white curtain surrounds the bed. A man enters and explains that she is going to need to remain here for 9 months. The man in the next bed (he whips that side open) cannot survive unless his bodliy functions are hooked up to hers (she notices IV's and such connecting her to this man). He has a rare disease and needs to use her body. At the end of this 9 months, however, the man will be cured and she can go on her way.

Issues we discussed in class:

1)Did it matter if they told the woman that the sick man was a world famous musician who contributed so much art and beauty to the world?

2) The girl was WARNED against going into the forest. She KNEW something bad could happen. Does this make her ethically responsible to stay connected to the sick man?

3) Is there ANY circumstance that would ethically force her to remain so that the sick man would not die?

Obviously, the book and class discussion was MUCH better written and discussed than I've outlined here, but I think you all get the picture.

Edit: Sadly, I must now leave work, and won't have any time to continue this debate until tomorrow (as my real life, with a husband and three children, does not allow much time for forum debating glad I work!!)

 

[Q-Source]

Thanz, are you a woman

 

[Guest]

Dang it, I agree with almost everything everyone is saying.

This really is not as much fun without at least one fervent anti-abortion person in here.

I've only read three-quarters of the first page of this topic, and my blood is boiling. So get ready for some fun.

 

[Guest]

I think (though I may be wrong) that the law grants protection to the fetus when the fetus reaches the point of viability (that is, can survive outside the uterus.) To me, this is an easy decision and an easy place to put the dividing line.

That line is moving farther and farther back every day. So it ain't easy. And abortions are occurring in the last weeks of pregnancy.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes away from birth makes a huge difference.
Anyway, you are taking the discussion to the extremes. Nobody is suggesting that a woman should abort 5 minutes before giving birth.

But they are....

 

[Thanz]

Thanz,

The above statement is in contradiction with this one:



So, we must imply that you are conceding that I am right when I say that if the fetus/human represents a threat to the mother (physical, emotional or economically), then it is valid to end his life.

Let’s say that the pregnancy puts seriously in danger the life of the woman, are you conceding that a threat to the life/health of the mother is more important than the fetus/person’s life?. It seems like you are.

Then, we finally agree than in this case “Death is not worse than a threat of death”.

The only difference is that you only apply this criterion to rape and incest, while I apply the same criterion to any case.

[/B]

Ah, here we have a problem with absolute style language.

As I put in my other post, it is all about the proportionality of the threat. A normal pregnancy is more like mike tyson walking toward me. A high-risk pregnancy is more like the robber pointing a gun at your head.

Your wording of my concession is too broad. You put it in terms of a "threat to the mother (physical, emotional or economically)". I would not go that far. All pregnancies are something of a threat emotionally and economically. Some pregnancies, however, are serious threats physically. IMO, these are different.

It all comes back to the balance of rights that needs to be done. In a NORMAL, healthy pregnancy, the threats to the mother do not outweigh the right to life of the fetus. If the pregnancy is high risk, however, such that there is a significant chance that the mother and/or baby may die if the pregnancy is continued, one balances the rights differently. One cannot morally ask someone to sacrafice their life for another.

The next question, of course, is where to draw that line? At what point if the threat to the mother significant enough to tip the balancing scale? toddjh puts it at 50%. I am not sure I would put it that high, but I can't put a number to it.

So, yes, I agree that in some circumstances a threat of death could be "worse" than death. But not ANY threat.

For the record, I did not mean to imply that the health of the mother only matters in cases of incest or rape. It is across the board. Rape and incest are separate issues entirely.

 

[Guest]

It is traumatic to the fetus body? how do you know?
A two month fetus is conscious? Can it feel pain?

Is it traumatic to kill a coma victim? How do you know? Are they conscious? Can they feel pain?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

But they are....

How often do you think this happens, per 1,000 abortions in the U.S.? (Realistically ?... " Once is too often. " Doesn't count as a realistic answer..)

 

[Akots]

(Realistically ?... " Once is too often. " Doesn't count as a realistic answer..)

I guess it would be gramatically wrong to apply a plural to a single person.

 

[Guest]

At what point is a normal fetus superior to a severely deformed or brain damaged human being? Any statements about dependency or "a collection of cells," or a virus, or nothing but a mass of tissue, or whatever, can easily be applied to the handicapped.

So you want to be pro-choice? Make your choice prior to the sex act whereupon you create a human being.

Over a million babies are aborted every year in the U.S. alone. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that these are all the result of rape or incest or the failure of the pill? Abortion is what these people are using as birth control!

 

[Thanz]

Thanz, are you a woman

Sorry, sorry, sorry. No I am not. However, upon rereading, I realize that I worded this paragraph terribly:

Personally, I am glad that I have never been put in this situation. I am expecting my first child any day now, and am glad that conventional birth control worked for me so that I never had to fully come to grips with such a decision, as gethane has.

It should have read:

Personally, I am glad that I have never been put in this situation. MY WIFE is expecting OUR first child any day now, and am glad that conventional birth control worked for US so that WE never had to fully come to grips with such a decision, as gethane AND HER HUSBAND have.

Mea culpa.

A thousand apologies.

 

[Q-Source]

Is it traumatic to kill a coma victim? How do you know? Are they conscious? Can they feel pain?

It is not traumatic at all. That's why doctors recommend to finish with the patience's life ipso facto.

The same case applies to the fetus (even if it is a person).

 

[toddjh]

Todd(somelettershere): I think that fact that men often don't take equal responsiblity here is intregal to the abortion discussion. Don't you think whether or not the father of the child is going to support her is a HUGE factor in a woman's decision about abortion?

It's a huge factor in whether a woman would decide to have an abortion, but I don't see what it has to do with whether abortion is ethical. People decide to do unethical things all the time.

If all men DID absolutely share equally in the responsibility of pregnancy and child-rearing, then my opinion would change about how much say they should have over the issue .

But that ends up punishing some people who have done nothing wrong because other people aren't doing the right thing. Is that fair?

And, actually I disagree also, with whoever said feelings shouldn't be important in making decisions. I think feelings overall, is a better method of making decisions than MANY other things people do.

That's a common attitude, but I just can't accept it. Look at most of the atrocities committed in the world, and ask yourself if they could have taken place if people didn't base their actions on strong feelings.

A girl lives in a small village and decides to go for a walk. Her family and townspeople caution her against walking in the forest. Something really bad could happen to her if she walked in the forest! She ignores them and goes on her walk. While walking she gets hit on the head and knocked unconscious.

When she awakens, she's in a room, in a hospital type bed. A white curtain surrounds the bed. A man enters and explains that she is going to need to remain here for 9 months. The man in the next bed (he whips that side open) cannot survive unless his bodliy functions are hooked up to hers (she notices IV's and such connecting her to this man). He has a rare disease and needs to use her body. At the end of this 9 months, however, the man will be cured and she can go on her way.

I got that one in ethics, too, but I never bought it. First, the "something really bad could happen if you walk in the forest" bit is highly disingenuous. The fact that pregnancy results from sex, and the effectiveness of various forms of birth control, are both well known. It also evades the responsibility issue by introducing fictional doctors who do the actual dirty work, thus neatly placing the blame on the shoulders of a third party. Here's what I think is a better example:

A girl lives alone on a spaceship. She has a button connected to a Star Trek-style transporter. When she pushes it, it beams up a pretty flower for her to look it -- it's fun, and she likes to do it. However, every time she presses the button, there's a 1% chance that it will malfunction and beam up a person instead of a flower. She could reprogram the transporter to reduce the odds to 0.1%, or even 0.001% if she really put her mind to it. But she figures that 1% is pretty low, and she really likes flowers, so she doesn't consider it a problem, and presses the button once a week.

Of course, eventually the inevitable happens, and some poor unsuspecting guy gets beamed up one morning while shaving. The ship is nine months away from Earth, and they could both survive the trip just fine, and disembark once they get home -- the only problem is that they'd have to share the same room along the way. But the girl really likes her privacy, so she insists that the man, who is, after all, trespassing on her spaceship, kindly step out the airlock and into space. It's not her fault that he's there, she explains -- there was only a 1% chance that it would happen; she can't be held responsible for something so unlikely.

If you consider the fetus a human being, that's pretty much the abortion situation as I see it.

Jeremy

 

[Q-Source]

So, yes, I agree that in some circumstances a threat of death could be "worse" than death. But not ANY threat.

If you make a single exception, then it means that we can discriminate between the mother and the fetus, easily. We cannot say that life itself is more important than anything else. We cannot say anymore that it is a fetus' basic right.

I think that we are going to one direction: it does not matter whether or not the fetus is a person, the mother's right to life is always more important than the fetus' right to life.

Q-S

 

[Q-Source]

The assumption was that the fetus DOES have the same rights as you or I, which is why I used the baby in jungle example. I know that you do not believe that the fetus has rights. But it seems clear that if you did, you would not be in favour of abortions, any more than you would leave the baby in the jungle.

Yes, this is another problem. Even though, the fetus may be a person, we need to determine whether or not he has rights. I think he doesn't.

Now, what would I do if he had rights?. Then I would have to respect the Laws against my will.

 

[Thanz]

Thanz,

Actually, no, I do not agree that a fetus' personhood status is the most important issue. I think the most important issue, is whether its "proper" for the government to regulate reproductive issues.

The government regulates the behaviour of persons toward other persons all the time. IF the fetus is a person, they should have equal protection under the law. So, one only gets to the level of simply "regulating reproductive issues" if the fetus is NOT a person.

 

[Thanz]

If you make a single exception, then it means that we can discriminate between the mother and the fetus, easily. We cannot say that life itself is more important than anything else. We cannot say anymore that it is a fetus' basic right.

I think that we are going to one direction: it does not matter whether or not the fetus is a person, the mother's right to life is always more important than the fetus' right to life.

Q-S

If one abortion is morally justified, then they all are? No, that argument doesn't make any sense. It makes much more sense to balance each individual's rights in each situation to come up with a moral decision. One of the guidelines for such an analysis is the fact that the fetus does have a right to life. It is still the basic right of the fetus. We just can't say that it can NEVER be violated, any more than we can say it can ALWAYS be violated. The truth is somewhere in between, and it is far from easy.

 

[Q-Source]

If one abortion is morally justified, then they all are? No, that argument doesn't make any sense. It makes much more sense to balance each individual's rights in each situation to come up with a moral decision. One of the guidelines for such an analysis is the fact that the fetus does have a right to life. It is still the basic right of the fetus. We just can't say that it can NEVER be violated, any more than we can say it can ALWAYS be violated. The truth is somewhere in between, and it is far from easy.

I think we are a little lost here in the discussion.

One of the reasons for making abortion illegal was that the right of the fetus for life is a basic right. It is unbreakable. So, let's focus on this case.

If we are in a situation where the mother may put her life in risk, then we are admiting that the fetus's right to live is not that important as we have assumed. So, the basis for making abortion illegal collapses. We cannot use the argument of the fetus's basic right anymore.

Forget about specific cases, why should we discriminate among reasons to abort if we no longer believe that the fetus has a basic human right?

 

[toddjh]

I think we are a little lost here in the discussion.

One of the reasons for making abortion illegal was that the right of the fetus for life is a basic right. It is unbreakable. So, let's focus on this case.

No one said it was "unbreakable." Your right to life isn't "unbreakable," either. If you were coming at me with a knife, I could shoot you with impunity.

The issue is only whether a person's right to life (since we assume that the fetus is viewed as a person) overrides the woman's desire for convenience, or even the (generally mild) health risks associated with a normal pregnancy.

Jeremy

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess it would be gramatically wrong to apply a plural to a single person.

O.K. , How often do you think women have abortions, 5 minutes before they would have been due to give birth?