Abortion

[Thanz]

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?

I think that toddjh has pointed out the problem in this argument. Just because there are certain circumstances that may cause a person's rights to be violated, it does not mean that the right itself is lost. As pointed out by toddjh, I have a right to life. I may lose that life if I try to attack someone with a knife. That doesn't mean that I don't have the basic right to life.

People have the right to free speech. They don't, however, have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, causing panic, if there is no fire.

The fetus right to life is just as basic as it always was. It just doesn't AUTOMATICALLY trump the woman's right to life. If, in the balancing of the rights, the woman's life is in serious danger, her right to life will prevail. If not, her right to life is not being threatened, and therefore the fetus right to life is upheld.

You cannot forget about specific cases. You are trying to take one specific case and make it the rule for other specific cases, with different facts.

Remember, you said this:

Let's assume for a moment that the fetus is a human. Now, the question is whether or not the woman has the right to get rid of a human that she no longer wants to carry in his body.
Does she have the right to say no?

It would be a matter of deciding who has more rights:
1. the fetus/human to live or
2. the woman to not accept the pregnancy.

It is precisely this analysis that I am proposing, in each case. The threat to the woman's health is part of the analysis of her "right to not accept the pregnancy".

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond(evolutionary biologist and historian) on human sexuality:

Our concealed ovulation, constant receptivity, and brief fertile period in each menstrual cycle ensure that most copulations by humans are at the wrong time for conception. Even young newlyweds who omit contraception and make love at maximum frequency have only a 28% probability of conception in each menstrual cycle. Whatever the main biological function of human copulation, it is not conception, which is just an occasional by-product.
One of the most ironic tragedies of this is the Catholic Church's claim that human copulation has conception as its natural purpose, and that the rhythm method is the only proper means of birth control. The rhythm method would be terrific for gorillas and most other mammal species, but not for us. In no species besides humans has the purpose of copulation become so unsuited to copulation.

http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Third_Chimpanzee.html

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

So, in all those other circumstances, it's not a person?

Yeah basically. Its a value judgement and as of late the state has decided not to grant a fetus personhood, meaning the fetus is not a recognized person.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

What, may I ask, is the problem with aborting a fetus if it is to the benefit of those concerned with the fetus? I think that we can agree on extenuating circumstances for abortions (rape, incest, mother in danger) correct?

Is there anything wrong with abortion under these circumstances?

And if, as has been posited here, a fetus is a person, how can we justify putting them through the relatively dangerous and unpleasant process of birth?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Interesting point, if the fetus is a person and it can be removed more pleasantly by cutting the woman open, does the government then mandate such an action? To what degree does the government look after the fetus welfare? Does protection increase with trimester? Do you moniter the woman constantly to insure fetus health and check on how developed it is? If she has a miscarriage is it mainslaughter by negligence?

 

[gethane]

I think, to some extent, we are all arguing about different aspects of abortion.

In my arguments, it is completely unimportant to me whether the act of abortion is ethical. Truly, my entire support of the pro-choice position is based on the fact that I do not believe the government is better suited to decide this issue than the individual women that are faced with the decision.

The government stays out of all sorts of ethical issues. It's unethcial to be adulterous, and yet the government stays out of that one pretty much any more. It's unethical in my opinion, to "get something for nothing" and yet state governments all over the country have embraced state-operated gambling. It's unethcial to tell a young woman you love her, have sex with her, and dump her, but it breaks no laws.

Whether its ethical or not is something the woman who has one will have to struggle with. I do not feel its appropriate for the government to step into this discussion. I do not view a fetus under 12 weeks to be a person. I don't know exactly when I think it DOES become a person, but the vast vast majority of abortions are under that 12 week point. It's not a perfect solution, there aren't many in the world that are, but its a better solution, IN MY OPINION, than the government regulating it.

 

[toddjh]

The government stays out of all sorts of ethical issues. It's unethcial to be adulterous, and yet the government stays out of that one pretty much any more. It's unethical in my opinion, to "get something for nothing" and yet state governments all over the country have embraced state-operated gambling. It's unethcial to tell a young woman you love her, have sex with her, and dump her, but it breaks no laws.

That's a good point, and one I'm surprised hasn't been brought up before, but...I still disagree. Can you think of another instance in which one person is free to cause the death of another without the government trying to intervene? It's the seriousness of the abortion issue that I think sets it apart from the other examples you give.

I do not view a fetus under 12 weeks to be a person. I don't know exactly when I think it DOES become a person, but the vast vast majority of abortions are under that 12 week point.

I agree. Practically speaking, late-term abortions happen so rarely that I think it's a non-issue. I don't have a problem with the current system; it's only in principle that I think it's important to make the distinction.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

Interesting point, if the fetus is a person and it can be removed more pleasantly by cutting the woman open, does the government then mandate such an action? To what degree does the government look after the fetus welfare? Does protection increase with trimester? Do you moniter the woman constantly to insure fetus health and check on how developed it is? If she has a miscarriage is it mainslaughter by negligence?

A lot of these issues can be resolved by looking at the way post-birth children are treated. Does the government mandate that children receive the absolute best treatment from their parents? No, it simply requires that the parents provide adequate treatment. You can use the same standard for a fetus.

Does birth pose an unacceptable health risk to the child? No, probably not. So, even if it's not the absolute best situation all around, it still meets the government's minimum standard. I don't think this issue is problematic.

Jeremy

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Can you think of another instance in which one person is free to cause the death of another without the government trying to intervene?


Jeremy

The problem here is establishing the humaness of the " another "..

This is one thing that the opposing camps will probably never agree on.

This may be off topic, but I would like to present something to think about.

Do you realize how many thousands of lives would be saved if motorists were forced to wear crash helmets?

Why do you think there is not an uproar of moral indignation over the governments failure to end this avoidable slaughter?

 

[toddjh]

The problem here is establishing the humaness of the " another "..

This is one thing that the opposing camps will probably never agree on.

Definitely. But earlier in this thread, a bunch of us decided that, for sake of argument, we'd assume that the fetus is a person. In reality, the odds are good that I agree with you about the personhood of the fetus.

Do you realize how many thousands of lives would be saved if motorists were forced to wear crash helmets?

Why do you think there is not an uproar of moral indignation over the governments failure to end this avoidable slaughter?

Because that's something that only endangers the life of the person making the decision. The government has long decided that citizens should be given enough rope to hang themselves; my point is that it usually doesn't let people go around hanging each other.

Jeremy

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Because that's something that only endangers the life of the person making the decision. The government has long decided that citizens should be given enough rope to hang themselves; my point is that it usually doesn't let people go around hanging each other.

Jeremy

Good answer.

However, I would suggest in that same light, a woman who decides to have an abortion (in most cases), has
decided( right or wrong in my or anyone else's opinion) they are not dealing with another person.

 

[Akots]

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

Well, you really ought to ask a professional about that; I haven't a clue. I have no experience with abortion clinics myself, and have never practiced in one.

The time is irellevant. Wether a fetus is a person or not is irellevant. The assumption here is "If it IS a person, is it ethical?"

And my answer is no. Barring practical situations, where health or safety is a concern, abortions are wrong if a fetus is a person. So is dying in child birth. It's a tough choice.

And people have yet to explain to me why sex should be anything other than a primarily procreative function...

 

[toddjh]

However, I would suggest in that same light, a woman who decides to have an abortion (in most cases), has
decided( right or wrong in my or anyone else's opinion) they are not dealing with another person.

First, is it relevant what the woman thinks? Is it okay for a white supremacist to stab a black guy because he doesn't think black people should be considered human beings?

Edited to add: one of my points in an earlier post was that people who have a large emotional investment in an issue are precisely the wrong ones to trust with deciding whether it's ethical. I'd much rather leave it in the hands of someone rational and objective. Do you agree?

Second, you'd be surprised. I would've agreed with you, but there are a couple people in this thread (Yahzi and Q-Source -- both male, as far as I know) who think that abortion is perfectly acceptable even if you do consider the fetus a human being. Pretty creepy, if you ask me.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

And people have yet to explain to me why sex should be anything other than a primarily procreative function...

Although I agree with the rest of your statements, I have to disagree about this one.

On the most simple, practical level, history has shown that it's simply unrealistic to expect people not to have sex. They have sex when it's unethical, they have sex when it's illegal, they have sex when it's dangerous, they have sex when they have to pay for it, they have sex when they're already having sex with someone else. Telling people to stop having sex is simply not a workable option.

On a more subtle level, the existence of things like homosexuality, even in species that don't typically indulge in sex for recreation, shows that it serves a social purpose (be it establishment of a social hierarchy, an expression of dominance, or whatnot). It's not as simple as procreation.

Jeremy

 

[Q-Source]

Edited to add: one of my points in an earlier post was that people who have a large emotional investment in an issue are precisely the wrong ones to trust with deciding whether it's ethical. I'd much rather leave it in the hands of someone rational and objective. Do you agree?

Maybe some people become very emotional because others want to take decisions for themselves. It is creepy, isn't it?

Second, you'd be surprised. I would've agreed with you, but there are a couple people in this thread (Yahzi and Q-Source -- both male, as far as I know) who think that abortion is perfectly acceptable even if you do consider the fetus a human being. Pretty creepy, if you ask me.

I think you haven't read carefully this thread. First, I am a woman, and I already said that. Second, you are taking my opinion out of context.

If someone threatens your life, it is perfectly acceptable that you kill him in self-defence. Didn't you know that Jeremy?

Q-S

 

[toddjh]

Maybe some people become very emotional because others want to take decisions for themselves. It is creepy, isn't it?

The government takes decisions for itself all the time. Is it "creepy" that they don't let you go around stabbing people? Of course not.

I think you haven't read carefully this thread. First, I
am a woman, and I already said that.

Ah, then I apologize.

If someone threatens your life, it is perfectly acceptable that you kill him in self-defence. Didn't you know that Jeremy?

The objection that I have to that statement, which I have not yet seen you address, is the degree of threat which is required before the self-defense argument can be applied. Is it justifiable to kill someone whenever the probability that they will threaten your life is non-zero? Can I go around shooting other drivers on the off chance they might crash into me (especially when I can avoid the risk by not driving, or minimize it by taking a lower-traffic route)?

How much risk has to be present before it can reasonably be considered self-defense? Because the risk that a normal pregnancy poses to a woman's life is generally pretty low.

Edited to add: In cases where it is known that the pregnancy will pose a grave threat to the woman's life, I agree that abortion is justifiable even when you assume that the fetus is a human being. That does not mean that it's perfectly fine, however; merely the lesser of two very regrettable evils.

Jeremy

 

[Akots]

Although I agree with the rest of your statements, I have to disagree about this one.

On the most simple, practical level, history has shown that it's simply unrealistic to expect people not to have sex. They have sex when it's unethical, they have sex when it's illegal, they have sex when it's dangerous, they have sex when they have to pay for it, they have sex when they're already having sex with someone else. Telling people to stop having sex is simply not a workable option.

On a more subtle level, the existence of things like homosexuality, even in species that don't typically indulge in sex for recreation, shows that it serves a social purpose (be it establishment of a social hierarchy, an expression of dominance, or whatnot). It's not as simple as procreation.

Jeremy

Clearly the human race cannot be expected to stop having sex. And I'm not saying global abstinance would be an even remotly sane mandate... but we are judging wether a new life should be destroyed based on someone's recreational activities.

Rape victims and birth complications are one thing; but recreation? The enjoyable factor only emerged to encourage reproduction. The pleasure is a side-effect, and yes, it IS designed to strengthen bonds... but producing a child i sby far the higher priority for this function.

Sex is a very intimate, bonding process. In a happy, stable coupling, it does not cause stability; it occurs because the stability or intimacy is already there. I will not agree that it should be a means of establishing or initializing such things; however much it encourages and strengthens existing intimacy. If you have sex, you have no excuse whatsoever for saying you honestly did not expect a child to result. No contraception is 100%, and nature does NOT provide mercy for those ignorant or dismissive of it's laws.

Abstinance is the only defenite method of birth control. But controling birth is not nessecarily the solution to abortion anyways.

EDIT: Being reasonable is something we always expect from people; regardless of how practical it is. A society cannot be incapable of something unless the people are ignorant or unwilling. This is known as turning an issue into a popularity contest, unless I'm mistaken.

It might be unreasonable to expect people to adopt critical thinking in massive droves. And yet, people fight on to support it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

First, is it relevant what the woman thinks? Is it okay for a white supremacist to stab a black guy because he doesn't think black people should be considered human beings?

It is for the woman.. Otherwise we come back to the question of " who should decide ? " And that is really all we are arguing about..


Edited to add: one of my points in an earlier post was that people who have a large emotional investment in an issue are precisely the wrong ones to trust with deciding whether it's ethical. I'd much rather leave it in the hands of someone rational and objective. Do you agree?

I would agree, If I felt there were someone elses hands I could trust..



Second, you'd be surprised. I would've agreed with you, but there are a couple people in this thread (Yahzi and Q-Source -- both male, as far as I know) who think that abortion is perfectly acceptable even if you do consider the fetus a human being. Pretty creepy, if you ask me.

Jeremy

I'm not sure how you will take this, but I would say, I can find the practice (abortion of fetuses when viewed as humans )
acceptable (to me, certainly not ' perfectly ') under certain circumstances.

I certainly do not find it acceptable as a method of birth control.
But then, I don't have to worry about getting pregnant.

I also have to say I do not embrace, a philosophy of the " sanctity of human life ", much less " the sanctity of human fetal life "..

But that would be another whole 'nother thread.

 

[toddjh]

It is for the woman.. Otherwise we come back to the question of " who should decide ? " And that is really all we are arguing about..

And why is the woman more capable of deciding than anyone else?

I would agree, If I felt there were someone elses hands I could trust..

But that's just it. Why should anyone else trust her hands? What is it, in your opinion, that makes the woman more qualified to judge whether an abortion is ethical? The fact that she feels strongly about it? Is that a reliable means of making ethical judgements?

I'm not sure how you will take this, but I would say, I can find the practice (abortion of fetuses when viewed as humans ) acceptable (to me, certainly not ' perfectly ') under certain circumstances.

Hmm, I'd have to have more information before I could comment. Do you think "retroactive abortions" should be allowed? Should a woman who decides that she doesn't want children after all be allowed to kill her six-month-old? If not, what's the difference between that and an abortion -- if we assume that the fetus is a human being?

Jeremy

 

[Q-Source]

I think that toddjh has pointed out the problem in this argument. Just because there are certain circumstances that may cause a person's rights to be violated, it does not mean that the right itself is lost. As pointed out by toddjh, I have a right to life. I may lose that life if I try to attack someone with a knife. That doesn't mean that I don't have the basic right to life.

I thought that we were discussing the principle to life and not the right to life.

Rights are based on principles. We are trying to see why abortion it is legal or illegal.

The fetus right to life is just as basic as it always was. It just doesn't AUTOMATICALLY trump the woman's right to life. If, in the balancing of the rights, the woman's life is in serious danger, her right to life will prevail. If not, her right to life is not being threatened, and therefore the fetus right to life is upheld.

So, we agree again that the threat of death is more important than death itself.

You cannot forget about specific cases. You are trying to take one specific case and make it the rule for other specific cases, with different facts.

No, I am trying to avoid specific cases in order to get to the core of the reason why Abortion is illegal and unethical.

If you concede that the threat of the mother's life is more important than the foetus’s life, then it means that Abortion is legal and ethical when the mother's life is in danger.

So, once again, even if the foetus is a person, it is permissible to end his life.

You see?, the principle and right to life does not work anymore. The basis for making abortion illegal is flawed.