ECHR rules on abortion

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Its a disdainful term for a growing child. Only those who wish to defend the right of mothers to kill their unborn use it in relation to children. They use it because of its negative connotations, and what we usually would do with a 'parasite'.

But it only has negative connotations because you think it does. If someone says the child is a parasite just say "It isn't but what if it was..."?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

But it only has negative connotations because you think it does. If someone says the child is a parasite just say "It isn't but what if it was..."?

That would be to get into a technical debate, leaving our humanity at the door. I would not wish to make it into a cold humanless discussion. I value emotion.

The issue is the motive in wishing to describe the unborn a parasite. Its certainly not me that gives it the negative connotations. The whole pro-abortion case is built upon the conviction that the growing child within the mother is NOT a growing child. That is why the dehumanising terminology is used.

drkpower

JimiTime wrote: »

The whole pro-abortion case is built upon the conviction that the growing child within the mother is NOT a growing child.

Its not actually.

The traditional pro-abortion argument is a rights balancing argument.

JimiTime

cavedave wrote: »

Yes I am saying that in nature many mothers leave there infants to die.

So do you see it as natural, if a mother leaves her child to die? Do you also see it as natural if a person decides that they want to eat their own sh1t? Or eat their spouse after copulation?

I will also say the vast majority of human pregnancies are aborted by nature.

So you are saying that 'nature' has motive then?

If you want to call infanticide or abortion inhumane do that. If you want to call them unnatural please present some evidence that they are.

With respect, I find it saddening that someone would require some kind of evidence outside of the self, that a mother leaving her child to die is a natural thing. I would not give your request for 'evidence' even the slightest consideration tbh.

JimiTime

drkpower wrote: »

Its not actually.

The traditional pro-abortion argument is a rights balancing argument.

I disagree. In order for it to get to the stage above, one needs to be convinced that 'the being' which grows is not a person.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

With respect, I find it saddening that someone would require some kind of evidence outside of the self, that a mother leaving her child to die is a natural thing. I would not give your request for 'evidence' even the slightest consideration tbh.

Considering it happens in the animal kingdom all the time, it's pretty natural.

I also find it funny to hear someone complaining about unnatural on the internet of all places

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote: »

Considering it happens in the animal kingdom all the time, it's pretty natural.

Again, I don't consider the animal kingdom my equal, so its moot. As I said, in 'nature', dogs eat their own sh1t, certain creatures eat their mate etc. Animals are not the benchmark for humanity.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, I don't consider the animal kingdom my equal, so its moot. As I said, in 'nature', dogs eat their own sh1t, certain creatures eat their mate etc. Animals are not the benchmark for humanity.

Neither is "natural = good"

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote: »

Neither is "natural = good"

Fair point. The word natural has probably distracted conversation, so for the sake of the thread, I withdraw my use of it.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

I disagree. In order for it to get to the stage above, one needs to be convinced that 'the being' which grows is not a person.

No, not always. For example, I don't actually care. Personally I don't think a foetus is a person per se. I understand that others, like yourself for example, consider the foetus to be a person, but I simply don't care. As far as I am concerned the rights of the mother should outweigh the rights of the foetus/zygote/parasite/unborn person/unborn child/child/potential person/potential child/mini human/defenceless child/innocent baby or whatever you want to call it. Do I love abortions? No. Do I think they are great? No. Do I think everyone should have one? No.

I think there are plenty of people, as drkpower alludes to, that really do simply see this as a balance of right issue. And yes, I d think it is horrible and I wish there was no need for abortion, but there is a need and I believe that a woman should have to right to have one if she thinks she needs it.

Society is full of example of balance of rights issues. We have them every day. This one is particularly emotive because of the "innocent" nature of the "victim."

MrP

drkpower

JimiTime wrote: »

I disagree. In order for it to get to the stage above, one needs to be convinced that 'the being' which grows is not a person.

It is not a matter of 'disagreement'; the rights balancing argument exists! Perhaps you dont understand it.

The rights balancing argument is this:

A foetus has a right to life; the mother has other rights including a right to life, privacy, bodily integrity etc. The former conflicts with the latter. Where rights conflict, one party usually 'wins'. A pro-abortion advocate (who favours the 'rights blancing' argument) believes the woman 'wins'. But the exercise by the 'winner' of her rights is usually only permitted insofar as it is necessary so as to vindicate their own rights. Therefore, the exercise of her right is restricted by a certain time period; some say 12 weeks, other 16, others more.

This entire argument recognises that the foetus is 'a being', is 'human', has 'rights'.

It really is very straightforward.

geespot

this is a great debate about the mothers right to have or not to have the child but what about the fathers right. presumably he has no say either way yet when the child is born he will have to support regardless whether he wanted it or not now that is definetly an injustice

geespot

cavedave wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that this is a more accurate description? Is the phrase "unborn child" used by Obstetricians for example? Obstetricians presumably would find it useful to use accurate descriptions of what they work on.

interesting point a doctor might call it a penis where as somebody else might call you a pr1ck
According to dictionary.com

Child: a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.

another interesting point heard somebody ask a pregnant lady if it was a boy or a girl and she turned around and said its a foetus you dumb fcuk

geespot

Shenshen wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, I would have prefered it if my mother had had an abortion, but I wasn't asked on the subject.

surely jumping in front of a train would rectify that

MrPudding

geespot wrote: »

this is a great debate about the mothers right to have or not to have the child but what about the fathers right. presumably he has no say either way yet when the child is born he will have to support regardless whether he wanted it or not now that is definetly an injustice

Well that is even simpler, the father has no rights. Simples.

MrP

cavedave

JimiTime

So do you see it as natural, if a mother leaves her child to die? Do you also see it as natural if a person decides that they want to eat their own sh1t? Or eat their spouse after copulation?

Yes infanticide is probably so common in humans that you could class it as natural. No people have not commonly eaten their own faeces or spouse

I will also say the vast majority of human pregnancies are aborted by nature.
So you are saying that 'nature' has motive then?

Depends what you mean by motive. Many miscarriages take place because 'nature' detects serious medical problems with the foetus. I do not put a teleological cause behind this. I believe this behaviour has been selected for through natural selection.

With respect, I find it saddening that someone would require some kind of evidence outside of the self, that a mother leaving her child to die is a natural thing. I would not give your request for 'evidence' even the slightest consideration tbh.

I find it saddening that someone cannot make an is-ought distinction. For something to be natural you do not have to like it, it just has to happen in nature. The question of whether something is 'natural' is not whether it ought to happen it is whether it does happen.

natural: existing in or formed by nature

humane :characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

That would be to get into a technical debate, leaving our humanity at the door.

No, quite the opposite in fact. If I found out tomorrow that Great Apes were technically parasites I wouldn't be like "Ah great, now we can kill them"

JimiTime wrote: »

The issue is the motive in wishing to describe the unborn a parasite. Its certainly not me that gives it the negative connotations.

It is by going along with it, this idea that if it was then killing it would be fine, so we argue it isn't a parasite. It isn't, purely on technical grounds, but even if it was that wouldn't matter.

JimiTime wrote: »

The whole pro-abortion case is built upon the conviction that the growing child within the mother is NOT a growing child. That is why the dehumanising terminology is used.

And Christians play along with this because of the idea that if it ain't human its ok to kill it. I reject the whole way of thinking that if things are animal enough we can then kill them without worry.

JimiTime wrote: »

I disagree. In order for it to get to the stage above, one needs to be convinced that 'the being' which grows is not a person.

You don't actually, you just have to get to the position that one person does not have the right over rule another person's bodily integrity to sustain their own life.

Or to put it another way, the woman has the right to remove the baby from her body more than the baby has the right to be there in order to stay alive.

I agree that there are flaws in this argument, such as parental responsibility etc, but it is actually possible to make an argument for abortion where you accept that both the baby and the mother are persons with rights, you just argue that the babies rights do not over rule the mothers.

I mean this purely in a matter of fact way, I don't agree with this logic mainly because of the notion of parental responsibility.

Zombrex

geespot wrote: »

this is a great debate about the mothers right to have or not to have the child but what about the fathers right. presumably he has no say either way yet when the child is born he will have to support regardless whether he wanted it or not now that is definetly an injustice

Why?

The father has to support the child because the child exists. He can say he doesn't want it to exist, but its too late. Tough, it already does. He can say he had no choice in the matter, but that is irrelevant to whether the child currently exists or not. And child support is not to punish the father, it is to help support the child.

I would think a mother giving up a baby for adoption without giving the father the chance to raise the new born is an injustice, but as far as I know you have to inform the father if you possibly can that the child is being put up for adoption

geespot

strange when the child is born then the father has a say has to pay but has no say one way or the other up to that point

keppler

geespot wrote: »

strange when the child is born then the father has a say has to pay but has no say one way or the other up to that point

why strange?
the man does not have to carry the child for nine months, risk his own life in doing so, bear the pain of child birth, risk irreperable damage to his body.

also a man has the right to walk away from the pregnancy a woman doesn't (unless abortion was legalised of course)

Zombrex

geespot wrote: »

strange when the child is born then the father has a say has to pay but has no say one way or the other up to that point

How would that work, exactly?

You might as well ask why doesn't the woman have a say in whether the man gets a vasectomy or not. You cannot force another person to have an invasive surgical procedure just because you don't want a kid.

recedite

Wicknight wrote: »

Or to put it another way, the woman has the right to remove the baby from her body more than the baby has the right to be there in order to stay alive.

I'm curious as to how you arrive at this conclusion. I agree that balancing the 2 competing sets of rights is the central argument. But if its life or death for one, and only a 9 month inconvenience for the other?
Even accepting that the life of the foetus is worth less than that of an established person.

Shenshen

geespot wrote: »

Shenshen wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, I would have prefered it if my mother had had an abortion, but I wasn't asked on the subject.

surely jumping in front of a train would rectify that

How would that give my mother back her health and life?

Shenshen

recedite wrote: »

I'm curious as to how you arrive at this conclusion. I agree that balancing the 2 competing sets of rights is the central argument. But if its life or death for one, and only a 9 month inconvenience for the other?
Even accepting that the life of the foetus is worth less than that of an established person.

I think you need to read up on the medical consequences of pregnancy.
The list is long, but does include a large number of serious medical problems that will most likely occur during pregnancy, and will not in many cases magically disappear after the baby is born.
The idea that "it's just a bit of an inconvenience" is quite insulting for people who risk osteoporrosis, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, respiratiory problems, and actual death by carrying children to term.

drkpower

Shenshen wrote: »

The idea that "it's just a bit of an inconvenience" is quite insulting for people who risk osteoporrosis, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, respiratiory problems, and actual death by carrying children to term.

In fairness, the vast majority of pregnancies are relatively uncomplicated. Although, no doubt there are a very small number of pregnancies whre there is a genuine risk to the health of the mother, which must be the priority.

cavedave

recedite

I'm curious as to how you arrive at this conclusion. I agree that balancing the 2 competing sets of rights is the central argument. But if its life or death for one, and only a 9 month inconvenience for the other?
Even accepting that the life of the foetus is worth less than that of an established person.

I presume everyone is aware of the Violinist (thought experiment)

a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.

I don't think it would be morally wrong for me to unhook someone who got connected to me without my consent. The "life or death for one, and only a 9 month inconvenience for the other" still means I can unhook the violinist IMHO.

This though experiment leads to all sorts of issues with positive and negative rights as well as what counts as consent to have someone hooked up to you.

drkpower

cavedave wrote: »

The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you.

That seems to be one of the main reasons why this thought experiment is not applicable to the abortion debate in the majority of cases.

philologos

cavedave wrote: »

I don't think it would be morally wrong for me to unhook someone who got connected to me without my consent. The "life or death for one, and only a 9 month inconvenience for the other" still means I can unhook the violinist IMHO.

Totally different scenario, if you will one can decide in the case of the unborn child whether or not they are going to 1) use contraceptives (riskier), or 2) have sex at all. In case 2 there will definitely be no child. If one isn't prepared to have a child then it is reasonable for one to genuinely consider whether or not they should put themselves in a position where they are in risk of having one.

cavedave

Jakkass

Totally different scenario, if you will one can decide in the case of the unborn child whether or not they are going to 1) use contraceptives (riskier), or 2) have sex at a

Not in the case of rape.

The only people who think you can get pregnant without having sex are Christians.

Zombrex

recedite wrote: »

I'm curious as to how you arrive at this conclusion.

I didn't, so there should be no confusion

philologos

cavedave wrote: »

Not in the case of rape.

The only people who think you can get pregnant without having sex are Christians.

People on the thread are arguing for abortion by choice. This extends to all cases. So my reasoning is valid in the vast majority of cases. Even though the ECHR has nothing to do with abortion-by-choice but rather with abortion-at-severe-risk-to-life.

recedite

cavedave wrote: »

Not in the case of rape.

"In the case of rape" seems to be the only time the violinist analogy stacks up, otherwise the overriding negative rights alluded to in Foot's Response (on same Wiki page) seem more apt. (assuming the foetus has some right to life).
At least you have provided some moral reasoning to answer Wicknight's question though, which was not addressed up till now;

Wicknight wrote: »

Abortion in this country seems to have a lot more to do with making women suffer the consequences of sex than anything to do with the legal rights of the foetus or whether it is a human being or not.

So it is ok to toss the fetus away if the mother didn't choose to have sex, but it is not ok if the woman did. Then she must continue to have the baby.

That position is, frankly, ridiculous.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Totally different scenario, if you will one can decide in the case of the unborn child whether or not they are going to 1) use contraceptives (riskier), or 2) have sex at all. In case 2 there will definitely be no child. If one isn't prepared to have a child then it is reasonable for one to genuinely consider whether or not they should put themselves in a position where they are in risk of having one.

It is easy to accommodate that in the scenario with a simple change. You initially agree and then, a few days later change your mind and wish to be unhooked. Can you still refuse? Or must you go through with it if at the start you agree?

robindch

Folks - it could be the winterval spirit, but this is the first abortion debate I've seen that's made it to over 100 posts without it descending into total disorder.

Kudos to all

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Totally different scenario, if you will one can decide in the case of the unborn child whether or not they are going to 1) use contraceptives (riskier), or 2) have sex at all. In case 2 there will definitely be no child. If one isn't prepared to have a child then it is reasonable for one to genuinely consider whether or not they should put themselves in a position where they are in risk of having one.

Having a child is not a neccesary consequence of having sex. People can use contraception and still get pregnant, for example, my first child was conceived in this way. It is perfectly possible for a couple to behave very responsibly, they do not want a child but they want to have sex, so they take the necessary precautions, but the woman still gets pregnant.

There is no reason, in this day and age, why an unwanted pregnancy has to be the consequence of having sex. I understand that you have certain moralistic feeling to sex, so sex outside marriage is a sin, but they are not relevant to anyone who does not share those feelings.

The fact of the matter is, people enjoy sex, being able to have sex is a right we as human beings have, just as you have a right to follow your religious beliefs. People will have sex, unfortunately this will inevitably lead to unwanted pregnancies. To say "ah well, you knew the risks and now you will have to give birth" is an opinion that belongs in history.

MrP

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

There is no reason, in this day and age, why an unwanted pregnancy has to be the consequence of having sex. I understand that you have certain moralistic feeling to sex, so sex outside marriage is a sin, but they are not relevant to anyone who does not share those feelings.

Nothing about "feelings".

Contraceptives work in the vast majority of cases, they can fail. As such one should be prepared for the consequences in which they do.

Whether or not aborting is being prepared is questionable, as it involves denying the rights of another human being to live.

If abortion didn't involve death, I'd be all for it, but since it is intrinsically linked with death I can't. The cases where it saves one life rather than losing two, I can see uses. That's why I support the ECHR ruling.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Contraceptives work in the vast majority of cases, they can fail. As such one should be prepared for the consequences in which they do.

yes, and the consequences are they need to decide what they are going to do next. The consequence should not have to be an unwanted pregnancy.

Jakkass wrote: »

Whether or not aborting is being prepared is questionable, as it involves denying the rights of another human being to live.

Abortion is, unfortunately, a way of dealing with the consequences. It is most unfortunate that it results is the destruction of the foetus, and I am sure that most people would be happier if it didn't.

Why should the rights of the foetus take precedence over that of the mother?

MrP

philologos

Without the right to live, all other rights are denied. There are no rights unless you are permitted to be alive.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Without the right to live, all other rights are denied. There are no rights unless you are permitted to be alive.

The issue is what constitutes "alive"?

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Without the right to live, all other rights are denied. There are no rights unless you are permitted to be alive.

This is not an outright denial of the right to life. no one is advocating the removal of the right to life, in general. That the woman is alive, and is a person cannot be questioned, therefore she attracts the full compliment of rights that go with it. The foetus, on the other hand, does not attract all those rights. Unlike the mother, who has an absolute right to life, the foetus only enjoys a conditional right to life. Any other rights require the person to be born, so don't really apply.

robindch wrote: »

The issue is what constitutes "alive"?

I don't know that this is really too much of an issue. I, like many others, am quite happy to accept the foetus is alive, I simply believe the woman's right are greater.

MrP

philologos

robindch wrote: »

The issue is what constitutes "alive"?

The growth and development process from the moment of conception to that of death.

Nobody can deny that an embryo (young unborn child) is alive and growing, and it forms into a baby, and then goes on through the normal life cycle to the point of death.

It seems non-sensical to question whether or not this is alive. It's very clearly alive. If permitted to live, the unborn child would live as we do.

Even if I wanted to hold the pro-choice view, I don't think I could. It's too problematic to deny another human being their right to live.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Even if I wanted to hold the pro-choice view, I don't think I could. It's too problematic to deny another human being their right to live.

Ultimately, you do not believe a woman's right to bodily integrity/privacy etc is sufficient to 'trump' a foetal right to life. I fully respect that position, even if i would take a sliughtly different approach myself.

But it raises one or two issues:

1. I presume that view applies to the conceptus at any and all stages of development; in which case, arent you in favour of prohibiting IVF and a number of contraceptive methods that may involve the destruction of the conceptus. If that isnt your position, why isnt it?

2. Another consequence of your view is that a woman, faced with a serious health-threatening (as opposed to life-threatening) issue would need to 'take her chances', as it were? Is that correct?

3. While you advocate a termination where the mother will die also, what about where the mother may die? Do you only advocate it where the mother's death is inevitable, and in all other cases, do you simply let the mother 'take her chances'?

philologos

MrPudding: There is no right to live. There is only a right to life if your mother allows it. That isn't liberty to live a free life. Either all people have the right to life, or all don't, at least if we're trying to be egalitarian about it.

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

the foetus only enjoys a conditional right to life. Any other rights require the person to be born, so don't really apply.

Being born is an arbitrary cut-off point, especially as a doctor can sometimes choose whether to the put a late term foetus into the bin or into the incubator.

drkpower wrote: »

Ultimately, you do not believe a woman's right to bodily integrity/privacy etc is sufficient to 'trump' a foetal right to life. I fully respect that position, even if i would take a sliughtly different approach myself.

But it raises one or two issues:

1. I presume that view applies to the conceptus at any and all stages of development; in which case, arent you in favour of prohibiting IVF and a number of contraceptive methods that may involve the destruction of the conceptus. If that isnt your position, why isnt it?

2. Another consequence of your view is that a woman, faced with a serious health-threatening (as opposed to life-threatening) issue would need to 'take her chances', as it were? Is that correct?

3. While you advocate a termination where the mother will die also, what about where the mother may die? Do you only advocate it where the mother's death is inevitable, and in all other cases, do you simply let the mother 'take her chances'?

Hard cases make bad laws.
There should be a spectrum of entitlement to rights, from embryo to foetus to air breathing baby.

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

Hard cases make bad laws.
There should be a spectrum of entitlement to rights, from embryo to foetus to air breathing baby.

What a cop out!
Hard cases may sometimes make bad law; but they still require a legal framework also.

And labelling everything from IVF to contraception to health-endangering pregnancies to life-endangering pregnancies 'hard cases', and saying nothing else, smacks of running away.

JimiTime

Thought this may be of interest to some:

http://www.birthornot.com/


Basically, a couple in the states that set up a website and asked people to vote on whether they would abort or have their baby.

Man I can't tell you how frustrated I am that there are reasonable people that can't be convinced that killing unborn children is reprehensible.:(

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Man I can't tell you how frustrated I am that there are reasonable people that can't be convinced that killing unborn children is reprehensible.:(

Give a reasonable argument, one other than just It's Alive! or It has a soul!

I mean I've no great affinity to abortion, if someone pointed out a solid moral argument against it I would be happy to agree. I already am against late term abortions precisely because of that happened.

The problem so far is that arguments against early term abortions either fall down because they appeal to meaningless standards (It's alive! And? ... It has human DNA! And? ..) or, worse still, supernatural mumbo jumbo.

The anti abortion crowd don't do themselves any favors in this regard.

cavedave

JimiTime

Man I can't tell you how frustrated I am that there are reasonable people that can't be convinced that killing unborn children is reprehensible.

Earlier you were saddened by the use of the term natural.
"I find it saddening that someone would require some kind of evidence outside of the self, that a mother leaving her child to die is a natural thing"

And you now seem to realise you were using an inaccurate term. 'The word natural has probably distracted conversation, so for the sake of the thread, I withdraw my use of it'

Do you have any evidence that 'unborn child' is an accurate description?

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

That the woman is alive, and is a person cannot be questioned, therefore she attracts the full compliment of rights that go with it. The foetus, on the other hand, does not attract all those rights. [...] I, like many others, am quite happy to accept the foetus is alive, I simply believe the woman's right are greater.

Uncharacteristically contradictory, I have to say

If you accept that the foetus is alive, then you must accept that the foetus retains the rights that any living human being has -- and at the same level as the mum. You cannot deny, by fiat, the foetus' existential ability to have any rights in the first place.

In fact, with the great advances made in the last 50 years in child survival rates, I'd have said that in the absence of an existential threat to the continued survival of both mum and foetus, there's a credible utilitarian argument to be made that the rights of, say, a two month old foetus outweigh those of the mum.

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems non-sensical to question whether or not this is alive. It's very clearly alive. If permitted to live, the unborn child would live as we do.

Not at all. Until the time when the foetus can live outside the womb -- 22 weeks or so -- the foetus is not "alive" in the usual sense of being able to live independently. It could certainly not "live as we do". As Shensen (afair) pointed out previously, up to this point, the foetus is little different from a parasite or a cancer. Is a cancer alive?

As above, this debate turns on one's definition of "alive" or "potentially alive". I've never really decided which is better -- the date of implantation (a few days) or the first glimmerings of a neural network, which is a week or two in. And though clinical, is hardly less harsh than the fact that something between 40% and 60% of all pregnancies abort "naturally".

Which suggests that christians should try to explain why their deity frequently seems to prefer abortion to live birth.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Man I can't tell you how frustrated I am that there are reasonable people that can't be convinced that killing unborn children is reprehensible.

Because they don't see that a foetus is an "unborn child" (or whatever other term one wishes to use), but simply as a clump of cells or some other rights-free

I facepalm when I see otherwise intelligent and reasonable people say that they respect and believe, say, Herr Ratzinger, Declan Ganley or George Bush.

It does behoove smarter people, rather than dismissing these rabble-rousers, to understand their unsavory appeal.