Your right to an Abortion

Monty Burnz

Mallei wrote: »

It's not sexist; it's biology.

Please explain to me how, given that there's no way you'll ever be required by biology to grow a baby inside of your body, you should be able to demand what women - who do have to go through that - should be able to do in that situation?

Because we live in a democratic society, based on agreed values? You might just ask well as me what right I have to complain if you kill and cannabilise a person that I would never have met anyway. I may not be able to bear a child (yet), but I may have a future child aborted, or I may have a sister, wife, or daughter denied an abortion.

And, I'd point out, I'm not demanding that anyone does anything. I'm just trying to have a discussion. You are telling me I have no right to discuss this, just because I had the misfortune to be born male. Would it be acceptable to tell me I can't discuss something because I am black?

Mallei wrote: »

I'm not going to reveal my position on the subject, but I strongly believe that it is for women - and women only - to decide the future of the abortion law in Ireland, as it is women - and women only - who endure a pregnancy.

I don't care what your position is - I'm here to learn, not to win: I do care that you feel it is acceptable to shut out half the world's population from an ethical debate that affects us all.

Wibbs

Mallei wrote: »

It's not sexist; it's biology.

Oh really? Funny how that line was and is trotted out by damn near every misogynist and chauvinist in history. How ironic.

as it is women - and women only - who endure a pregnancy.

Tell that to every decent man, loving partner and proud father in the world.

Tandey

Wibbs wrote: »

Tell that to every decent man, loving partner and proud father in the world.

Exactly, that post your replying to is a ridiculous, distasteful comment.

r3nu4l

Mallei wrote: »

No man, not a single man on the surface of this entire planet, should ever wade into a debate on abortion, because there is no possible or conceivable way that they should have a say in what women can or cannot do with their own bodies.

But it's not just your body is it? It's the body of a child inside you that you are removing and that body is 50% someone else's genes. That person whose genetic code is inside you, very much has a right to say what can or cannot happen that child.

I'm a father, I saw my baby's scan at 24 weeks, I could see her bones, her heartbeat and the shape of her face. Under British law (I live in England) my wife could have aborted up to two weeks after that scan was taken. Yes it's her body but she would have ended the heartbeat of my child, those bones would have stopped growing. You don't think I should have a say in that?

Pfft.

Mallei

r3nu4l wrote: »

But it's not just your body is it? It's the body of a child inside you that you are removing and that body is 50% someone else's genes. That person whose genetic code is inside you, very much has a right to say what can or cannot happen that child.

I'm a father, I saw my babies scan at 24 weeks, I could see her bones, her heartbeat and the shape of her face. Under British law (I live in England) my wife could have aborted up to two weeks after that scan was taken. Yes it's her body but she would have ended the heartbeat of my child, those bones would have stopped growing. You don't think I should have a say in that?

Pfft.

No, I don't believe you should have a say in that.

By your logic, are you in fact implying that, given that the foetus (that's what it is at that point - an unthinking, non-sentient bunch of cells) is composed of half your DNA, you should be able to determine whether the mother allows it to continue to grow in her own body? That's what this boils down to; whether a woman is free enough to choose what she does and does not want inside her.

If science finds a way to take that baby out of the mother with no invasive surgery or risks whatsoever on her behalf, and the father wants to take responsibility for the foetus and subsequent child, then fine. That's great, and I'd wholeheartedly support that development.

I'm not trying to be cruel. I'm not trying to imply that fathers have no stake in a child's life, that they take no part in helping a woman through pregnancy, or that they are entirely without cause in feeling a part of the creation of a foetus. I'm not trying to say that they don't - or shouldn't - feel joy at the prospect of a child or be upset if the mother chooses to end it. What I am trying to say is that, given the situation our biology puts us in, they should have no say. That's unfortunate, it truly is, and I can empathise completely with the impotence a man must feel if a woman wants to abort a foetus he helped create without concern for his feelings on the matter. But as long as a woman is taking those risks with pregnancy, as long as it is her body the foetus is growing in and feeding on and potentially harming, then it must be her decision and hers alone.

drkpower

Mallei wrote: »

But as long as a woman is taking those risks with pregnancy, as long as it is her body the foetus is growing in and feeding on and potentially harming, then it must be her decision and hers alone.

On that basis, do you believe it should be legally permissable to procure a termination mid-delivery?

coffee_cake

Mallei wrote: »

I'm not going to reveal my position on the subject, but I strongly believe that it is for women - and women only - to decide the future of the abortion law in Ireland, as it is women - and women only - who endure a pregnancy.

Ridiculous.

r3nu4l

Mallei wrote: »

By your logic, are you in fact implying that, given that the foetus (that's what it is at that point - an unthinking, non-sentient bunch of cells) is composed of half your DNA, you should be able to determine whether the mother allows it to continue to grow in her own body? That's what this boils down to; whether a woman is free enough to choose what she does and does not want inside her.

Unthinking is very different to non-sentient. Sentient implies not just conscious but also the ability to feel or respond to external stimuli. Think carefully before you start wading into those issues because different definitions of the words will lead to word-play.

By the way, I'm pro-choice but that choice must also involve the man. If a woman makes the choice to risk becoming pregnant through sex then she must have a sexual partner to do so. Therefore if she's willing to involve a man at that stage she must involve the man in all further actions from that initial sexual action.

If a woman contracted an STD from a man she should inform the partner, similarly she should do so if she becomes pregnant.

No woman has any right to deny a potential father his rights to fatherhood or a decision on that fatherhood if she has chosen to commit to sex with that man. Especially when it's his genetic code that is 50% part of the being growing inside her, sentient or not.

r3nu4l

Mallei wrote: »

But as long as a woman is taking those risks with pregnancy, as long as it is her body the foetus is growing in and feeding on and potentially harming, then it must be her decision and hers alone.

So if there is no evidence or even any medical suspicion that the growing baby is not causing any harm, then the father would have a say in whether she chooses to abort?

Are you saying that it's only if there's potential harm or risk to the mother (such as in placenta previa) that the man shouldn't have a say?

Mallei

r3nu4l wrote: »

So if there is no evidence or even any medical suspicion that the growing baby is not causing any harm, then the father would have a say in whether she chooses to abort?

Are you saying that it's only if there's potential harm or risk to the mother (such as in placenta previa) that the man shouldn't have a say?

Every pregnancy carries potential harm. That's the meaning of the word potential.

Think carefully before you start wading into those issues because different definitions of the words will lead to word-play.

I don't believe that sharing 50% of your DNA with a foetus entitles you to force a woman to carry it to term. You clearly do. It's very, very easy for a man to deny a woman an abortion because he will never have to go through anything similar himself.

Imagine if a partner gave you a disease through sex. A disease that was not fatal, probably would cause no distress, but potentially could cause you serious harm, and at the very least great discomfort. Yet, given that the disease was partly your partner's responsibility (you got it through sex with her, after all), she wanted to deny you treatment. Would you not tell her to get stuffed - it's your body, you're getting treated?

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, thanks to my "brave and selfless" parents and the legacy they left me with, I'd never do that to a child. Having experienced some horrific side-effects of pregnancy, I don't believe it should be "rated" as this we-all-win type scenario that some pro-lifers like to push, either.

It's an option - it's an option that doesn't suit a lot of people for a lot of very obvious reasons. I'm all for educating on all options but I really don't think pushing any one as being a blanket "better" to any other is appropriate or even correct.

It's considered a negative option, that's the point, usually dismissed as the numbers show. Don't think it is better or anything like that but it does seem the option has to be smeared and put down and belittled condescendingly, a shame really and more a reflection on those that do it.

Anyway, seems the discussion has veered and a man's vote will be taken away on abortion! so I might leave my inferior opinion here.

CaliforniaDream

southsiderosie wrote: »

No, a baby in a forest can survive if another adult takes care of it. A fetus at 24 weeks has a 50-50 chance of survival with medical intervention. There are only two known cases - ever - of a fetus surviving birth at 21 weeks. So basically anytime before the 23-24 week point, a fetus cannot physically survive without its mother specifically - apart from not being able to feed itself, it cannot breathe and lacks sufficient neurological function. Post 24 weeks, it does not physically need the mother anymore for survival, although the odds still are not great.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, I agree with all you say here - but the point stands: where is the clear difference between a foetus at 20 weeks totally dependent on its mother, and a baby at 1 day in an isolated jungle, totally dependent on its mother? It's quite ok if you can't answer this - I can't either.

This point has come up a few times and I can't get my head around the fact that people can't see a difference.

A baby/feotus/? at 20 weeks during a pregnancy is dependent on the mother alone. No-one else can do anything for it. It's sole option for survival is the mother.

A baby at 20 weeks after birth is not solely dependent on its mother. Sure, it would die if left alone but in reality it can be taken care of by millions of other people. If any random person came along they could feed it, bathe it, and help it survive. It is no longer dependent on one single person.

Southsiderosie has said it perfectly and you still try to debate it and tell her she might not be able to answer the question. She has answered it. You've chosen to ignore it.

I really would love to see another referendum on this issue. But only if the government was willing to act on the majority result and not sweep it under the carpet.

Monty Burnz

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

This point has come up a few times and I can't get my head around the fact that people can't see a difference.

A baby/feotus/? at 20 weeks during a pregnancy is dependent on the mother alone. No-one else can do anything for it. It's sole option for survival is the mother.

A baby at 20 weeks after birth is not solely dependent on its mother. Sure, it would die if left alone but in reality it can be taken care of by millions of other people. If any random person came along they could feed it, bathe it, and help it survive. It is no longer dependent on one single person.

Southsiderosie has said it perfectly and you still try to debate it and tell her she might not be able to answer the question. She has answered it. You've chosen to ignore it.

There appears to be a communication problem here, but I'll try to restate clearly once again what I am talking about.

This is what Southsiderosie said (and as stated, I don't disagree with any of it):

Because a baby at 20 weeks cannot breathe on its own. It has no neurological function. It will die if it is not in the womb. This is a fundamentally different situation, and is precisely why the cutoff for abortions in the UK is 24 weeks.

Stating that something is 'fundamentally different' does not answer my question though. I know there are differences, but the fundamental point I want to address is the issue that abortion is permissible because a foetus isn't viable at 20 weeks without relying on its mother (obviously this isn't what everyone argues, but I some people do believe this).

Firstly, it's a thought experiment. Secondly, every answer I've had so far has postulated third parties who will come along and look after the child. I am asking you to consider a situation where there is no third party - just a newborn and the mother.

Is there a clear difference between aborting a foetus at 20 weeks, and a woman isolated in a wilderness (i.e. there is nobody else around to look after the child) who kills or simply leaves behind her new-born baby to die?

I hope the question is clear now? In both cases, the baby/foetus is totally dependent on the mother for its continued survival.

As I said, I'm not looking to win an argument or score points, I'm trying to figure out what I think by listening to what others think. It's entirely possible that this is just one of those questions there is no satisfactory answer to. It's not helpful (or nice) to accuse me of ignoring an answer when the aspect that I'm trying to examine hasn't been addressed.

drkpower

Mallei, if the decision should be a woman's and a woman's alone, do you believe it should be legally permissable to procure a termination mid-delivery?

Mallei

Mid-delivery? I find it very unlikely a woman would want a termination at that point given that she has carried the child for the previous nine months.

And besides which, once the baby is being delivered it is no longer a merely unthinking bunch of cells.

Not to mention you clearly have no understanding of how abortion works. Once you reach that stage of pregnancy, the only option is either to induce pregnancy anyway, or surgically remove the child... both of which would cause at least as much distress - if not more - than simply continuing with the birth.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Firstly, it's a thought experiment. Secondly, every answer I've had so far has postulated third parties who will come along and look after the child. I am asking you to consider a situation where there is no third party - just a newborn and the mother.

It is a pretty unique and bizarre eventuality, of course, so its value is limited. I presume your point is that morally (and legally) we wouldnt permit a mother to abandon such a child, therefore how can we permit a woman to 'abandon' the foetus?

It is worth pointing out that if such a bizarre eventuality occurred, I would not be so sure as to presume that the conclusion would be that the woman would be committing an immoral or an illegal act if she abandoned her child. There are weird and wonderful legal cases where it has been held that it is legally permissable to kill another in extraordinary situations under the doctrine of duress. I mention this at it undermines the essential premise of your argument.

But, as a thought experiment, I'll run with it. My answer is this: The essential difference is that the effect on the mother in the jungle is substantially different. The pregnant mother's own bodily integrity is affected; her health may be affected; her life may even be affected. The mother in the jungle is not unaffected, but the effects are of a very different degree. That is trhe essential difference.

But, as I said, I think the premise of your thought experiment is fundamentally flawed so it is not really worth pursuing.

drkpower

Mallei wrote: »

Mid-delivery? I find it very unlikely a woman would want a termination at that point given that she has carried the child for the previous nine months..

I diont ask whether many/most/few women would do it. I asked if you believe it should be legally permissable. Do you have an answer?

Mallei wrote: »

And besides which, once the baby is being delivered it is no longer a merely unthinking bunch of cells...

Oh, I see; so, at what point in gestation does it become a 'baby' and more than 'merely a bunch of cells'? And therefore, at what point do you believe in legally restricting a woman's choice?

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

But, as I said, I think the premise of your thought experiment is fundamentally flawed so it is not really worth pursuing.

Why is it flawed? Because it is unlikely or uncommon? That is completely irrelevant if it's a thought experiment!

A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) is a mental exercise which would consider a hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and, in the case that it is possible for it to be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question. The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.
Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, in which a supernatural being is instructed to attempt to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

I'm delighted that someone actually gave it some thought at least, but crikey folks, please understand what a thought experiment is before declaring it 'fundamentally flawed'. :rolleyes:

Edit: it's particularly ironic when you posit this in your next post...

I diont ask whether many/most/few women would do it. I asked if you believe it should be legally permissable. Do you have an answer?

r3nu4l

Mallei wrote: »

Every pregnancy carries potential harm. That's the meaning of the word potential.

Every man is a potential rapist, every woman a potential husband-killer... Once again to use the quote you stole from me.

Think carefully before you start wading into those issues because different definitions of the words will lead to word-play.

I can clearly see that we will never agree on this issue so there's no point in continuing debate. I will continue to know I'm right as will you

Mallei

drkpower wrote: »

I diont ask whether many/most/few women would do it. I asked if you believe it should be legally permissable. Do you have an answer?

I believe that, yes, a woman should be entitled to do whatever she wants with her own body. If the child is still in her body and still putting her body at risk at the time, then she has the right to have it terminated. Nothing should ever prevent her self-determination when it comes to her own body.

drkpower wrote: »

Oh, I see; so, at what point in gestation does it become a 'baby' and more than 'merely a bunch of cells'? And therefore, at what point do you believe in legally restricting a woman's choice?

I don't believe in legally restricting a woman's choice at all.

I find it depressing and upsetting that some men still feel it is their place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why is it flawed? Because it is unlikely or uncommon? That is completely irrelevant if it's a thought experiment!

It is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the premise that it is immoral/illegal for a woman in the jungle to abandon her baby. That is not necessarily the case. If it is not immoral/illegal for a woman in the jungle to abandon her baby, your thought experiment is pointless and redundant.

It is the premise of your thought experiment which is flawed.

drkpower

Mallei wrote: »

I don't believe in legally restricting a woman's choice at all.

Ok, so back to the question. Do you believe that, if a woman wants to, she should be entitled to terminate a foetus mid-delivery?

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

It is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the premise that it is immoral/illegal for a woman in the jungle to abandon her baby.

It's not based on that premise. I am drawing a comparison between the two acts, with the implication that if you believe that one is permissible, the other should also be permissible. It is you who is providing the value judgement that you are claiming invalidates the thought experiment.

I can certainly see situations where abandoning or killing a baby in a wilderness would not only be an acceptable thing to do, it would actually be a good thing to do.

Mallei

drkpower wrote: »

Ok, so back to the question. Do you believe that, if a woman wants to, she should be entitled to terminate a foetus mid-delivery?

I already answered that in the post you quoted me from...

Since you're clearly too stupid or bloody-minded to actually read what I'm saying, I'll not be engaging in any further debate with you.

Monty Burnz

Mallei wrote: »

I find it depressing and upsetting that some men still feel it is their place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

So only men are opposed to abortion?? Most men I know are not opposed to it.

There is a heavy whiff of misandry from some of your posts. If a referendum of women deemed abortion to be unacceptable, would you accept such a decision?

Stheno

Mallei wrote: »

I already answered that in the post you quoted me from...

Since you're clearly too stupid or bloody-minded to actually read what I'm saying, I'll not be engaging in any further debate with you.

Banned for a week for personal abuse, and ignoring moderator warning earlier on thread.

drkpower

Mallei wrote: »

I already answered that in the post you quoted me from....

Yes, and it made it clear you did favour restricting a woman's right to choose, a position you claim you do not hold.....

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's not based on that premise. I am drawing a comparison between the two acts, with the implication that if you believe that one is permissible, the other should also be permissible. It is you who is providing the value judgement that you are claiming invalidates the thought experiment.

I can certainly see situations where abandoning or killing a baby in a wilderness would not only be an acceptable thing to do, it would actually be a good thing to do.

I am struggling to see the point of the thought experiment then.

If it may be both morally (and legally) permissable to abandon a baby in the jungle, why pose the thought experiment? What are you attempting to illustrate?

In other words, if I, after completing the thought experiment, agree that there is no difference between the foetus at 20 weeks and the baby in the jungle, where does that get us? It still means that terminating the 20 week foetus might be permissable or impermissable. It actually gets us nowehere. Most thought experiments seek to get us somewhere...;)

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

In other words, if I, after completing the thought experiment, agree that there is no difference between the foetus at 20 weeks and the baby in the jungle, where does that get us? It still means that terminating the 20 week foetus might be permissable or impermissable. It actually gets us nowehere. Most thought experiments seek to get us somewhere...;)

Ok, this is a bit more like it

Where does it get us? Well, if we accept the comparison (and I imagine there could be some good objections that I haven't even considered, and I'd be happy to listen to), then we can start drawing analogies between the situations where either is acceptable.

So, for example, we could say that if there is no chance of both the mother and baby surviving in the wilderness if the mother tries to bring the child with her, then it is the moral thing to do to leave the baby behind so at least one life is saved. This is analogous to the situation where medical intervention to save a woman's life may require aborting a foetus/baby.

That's an easy example I guess, but the thought experiment might be useful for addressing more complex aspects of the issue - I don't have time to get into them right now, as I'm running out the door, but I'd love to know what other people think.

drkpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

..... but the thought experiment might be useful for addressing more complex aspects of the issue

Possibly.

But you should address the other issues I raised vis-a-vis the substantial differences between the effect of the foetus on the pregnant woman and the effect of the baby on the mother in the jungle. Even if the premise of your thought experiment has any value, it is invalidated (or at least desperately weakened) by that point.