Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No.

I questioned why technology would be used to give 'life' (in reality a vegetative existence) to a seriously underdeveloped foetus which lacks even basic brain functions never mind had consciousness.

You then went off on some tangent of your own which utterly failed to answer my question.

What exactly is you question?

Your answer implies that viability is not relevant: "What would be the point of using technology to 'sustain life' in the very early stages when the foetus is so completely underdeveloped." I'm trying to understand what is.

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

What exactly is you question?

Your answer implies that viability is not relevant: "What would be the point of using technology to 'sustain life' in the very early stages when the foetus is so completely underdeveloped." I'm trying to understand what is.

"What would be the point of using technology to 'sustain life' in the very early stages when the foetus is so completely underdeveloped."

I can't understand why you can't understand 'what would be the point'.

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

"What would be the point of using technology to 'sustain life' in the very early stages when the foetus is so completely underdeveloped."

I can't understand why you can't understand 'what would be the point'.

I've answered this question twice. I asked the question as a though experiment to examine whether people really do see viability as the morally deciding factor. You don't seem to have understood why I asked the question.

No, I don't see any moral reason why we ought to sustain the life of a early foetus that is underdeveloped even if we could.

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

I've answered this question twice. I asked the question as a though experiment to examine whether people really do see viability as the morally deciding factor. You don't seem to have understood why I asked the question.

No, I don't see any moral reason why we ought to sustain the life of a early foetus that is underdeveloped even if we could.

tbh I have little time for purely intellectual theorising on topics that have real consequences for real lives.

'Intellectually' we can justify many things that most of us would consider 'morally' wrong.

Women and girls who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy are not interested in thought experiments or philosophical discourses on when life does or does not begin, or if a human life is 'worth more' than a non-human life or indeed what, when it boils down it it, is 'life.' They are interested in what the hell happens in their very real lives next - essentially it boils down to can they not be pregnant anymore. It is not an intellectual exercise. It is their reality.

Obliq

martoman wrote: »

I asked the question as a though experiment to examine whether people really do see viability as the morally deciding factor.

Martoman, you're never going to get consensus on "the morally deciding factor" because there IS NO "the". Like Bannasidhe spelt it out for you there, in black and white, it's about real women and real experiences not some thought experiment that will identify the "one" divisive issue or the "one" morally correct position to take on personhood/fetus/infant (whatever).

I tried saying this to you yesterday. What's moral here, won't be in another country. I consider it morally fine to support a woman who wishes not to be pregnant for financial reasons - for others up here, that is just AWFUL and morally bereft. It is entirely arbitrary and entirely personal. Unfortunately, unlike in other countries where they let you form your own morals and decide for yourself......we are disallowed the decision.

But by the way, I think it's great that you're tackling the morality issue head-on, nice one. Just that you'll get nowhere by looking for a definite moral standard.

Obliq

Right up our street lads

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/15/abortion-ireland-opus-dei-catholic

"Without wanting to insult Dr Crown, whose comparatively progressive voice I very much welcome, I must argue that the struggle is not to unmask the masons, the Illuminati, or the Opus Dei clandestinely influencing Ireland's socio-political structures. The struggle is to secularise the republic. Crown is brave enough to look for bad Opus Dei apples, but not to upset the whole rotten apple cart. Even as he warns against the influence of fanatics, he seeks to differentiate himself from those advocating "abortion on demand".

This is a phrase parroted time and again in the Irish abortion debate, conjuring up images of precocious teenagers yelling "I want another abortion Daddy! I want one now!"."

WELL put Emer O'Toole.

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

tbh I have little time for purely intellectual theorising on topics that have real consequences for real lives.

'Intellectually' we can justify many things that most of us would consider 'morally' wrong.

Women and girls who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy are not interested in thought experiments or philosophical discourses on when life does or does not begin, or if a human life is 'worth more' than a non-human life or indeed what, when it boils down it it, is 'life.' They are interested in what the hell happens in their very real lives next - essentially it boils down to can they not be pregnant anymore. It is not an intellectual exercise. It is their reality.

Surely theoretical matters are important - we should have moral foundations that are logically consistent. Or should be make it up as we go along?

How are you going to credibly challenge someone what holds the right to life of the unborn as crucial if you hold no premises. Equally, they could say they are not interested in thought experiments or philosophical discourses, but only what happens to the unborn. It is not an intellectual exercise. It is their (the unborn) reality. But if you and they have discarded thought experiments and rational discourse, can you credible justify or criticise anything?

What I'm saying is not purely abstract. It's a reality that viability depend on technology. Viability can take place at earlier stages in present-day western countries but not in poorer ones. Also, as technology advances, viability will happen at an even earlier stage. The is pretty likely to happen.

Also the distinction between infanticide and abortion is not just a purely theoretical one. In the Netherlands, for example, health official have realised that infants born with abnormal and fatal conditions can cause a lot of suffering. Consequently, in 2002 they introduced guidelines where the ending of the newborn life can be used in the Groningen Protocol report.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Right up our street lads

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/15/abortion-ireland-opus-dei-catholic

"Without wanting to insult Dr Crown, whose comparatively progressive voice I very much welcome, I must argue that the struggle is not to unmask the masons, the Illuminati, or the Opus Dei clandestinely influencing Ireland's socio-political structures. The struggle is to secularise the republic. Crown is brave enough to look for bad Opus Dei apples, but not to upset the whole rotten apple cart. Even as he warns against the influence of fanatics, he seeks to differentiate himself from those advocating "abortion on demand".

This is a phrase parroted time and again in the Irish abortion debate, conjuring up images of precocious teenagers yelling "I want another abortion Daddy! I want one now!"."

WELL put Emer O'Toole.

'Darling - do you think we should put the child benefit in an abortion fund for Emily or just use it for her ballet classes?'

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

Surely theoretical matters are important - we should have moral foundations that are logically consistent. Or should be make it up as we go along?

How are you going to credibly challenge someone what holds the right to life of the unborn as crucial if you hold no premises. Equally, they could say they are not interested in thought experiments or philosophical discourses, but only what happens to the unborn. It is not an intellectual exercise. It is their (the unborn) reality. But if you and they have discarded thought experiments and rational discourse, can you credible justify or criticise anything?

What I'm saying is not purely abstract. It's a reality that viability depend on technology. Viability can take place at earlier stages in present-day western countries but not in poorer ones. Also, as technology advances, viability will happen at an even earlier stage. The is pretty likely to happen.

Also the distinction between infanticide and abortion is not just a purely theoretical one. In the Netherlands, for example, health official have realised that infants born with abnormal and fatal conditions can cause a lot of suffering. Consequently, in 2002 they introduced guidelines where the ending of the newborn life can be used in the Groningen Protocol report.

Easy - a woman or girl should have the inviolate right to determine for herself what happens to her own body. A right men currently enjoy but women in Ireland do not.

All this talk about foetus' - once again the women and girls whose wombs house these foetus' have been sidelined from the discussion.

Do I think a woman's right to body integrity and self determination over her own body trumps the right of a foetus to be eventually born - yes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do I think a woman's right to body integrity and self determination over her own body trumps the right of a foetus to be eventually born - yes.

Do you mean in all circumstances? Bearing in mind that there seemed to be some consensus around the following statement

Morag wrote: »

Over my 22 years of pro choice activism I have never meet a single person who was in favour of very late term abortions were the woman and the fetus were both healthy.

This exchange will probably be painful, but could be useful if persisted with. The point is to try and identify what it is that would make people (including yourself, apparently) feel that the woman's right to body integrity and self determination over her own body should be ignored and trumped by the right of a late term foetus to be eventually born.

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Easy - a woman or girl should have the inviolate right to determine for herself what happens to her own body. A right men currently enjoy but women in Ireland do not.

All this talk about foetus' - once again the women and girls whose wombs house these foetus' have been sidelined from the discussion.

Do I think a woman's right to body integrity and self determination over her own body trumps the right of a foetus to be eventually born - yes.

Can a woman with full body integrity abort a healthy foetus because it will interfere with her future holiday plans? Or if she simply changed her mind all of a sudden and said "I don't want a son or daughter after all."

If you say that a "woman or girl should have the inviolate right to determine for herself", surely you need some philosophical reasoning to justify that. Simply saying "I want it to be that way" is not credible. How can we weight that against the person how says the unborn has a right to life.

Morag

Late term were the fetus is viable then ending a pregnancy does not mean an abortion, it can be an early delivery and at that stage if the woman does not want to be a mother to the child she can put it up for adoption and terminate her rights.

martoman

Morag wrote: »

Late term were the fetus is viable then ending a pregnancy does not mean an abortion, it can be an early delivery and at that stage if the woman does not want to be a mother to the child she can put it up for adoption and terminate her rights.

Is adoption always the best option? In a sense, you seem to be forcing them to go through with the pregnancy.

It’s true that grief and sense of loss may accompany abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the mother the latter is the least distressing. Much depends on conditions and psychological reactions. If you really did favour the mothers choice perhaps their interests should prevail; and then late-term abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

Can a woman with full body integrity abort a healthy foetus because it will interfere with her future holiday plans? Or if she simply changed her mind all of a sudden and said "I don't want a son or daughter after all."

If you say that a "woman or girl should have the inviolate right to determine for herself", surely you need some philosophical reasoning to justify that. Simply saying "I want it to be that way" is not credible. How can be weight that against the person how says the unborn has a right to life.

To employ a phrase once used by Elizabeth I
'I have no desire to make windows into men's souls' - or in this case women's. Every woman should have the choice to decide for herself. That is a philosophical basis in and of itself.

Why should women's control over their own bodies not be inviolate when men's is?

Do we castrate sex offenders? Intellectually and philosophically the argument for that can be made.

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

Is adoption always the best option? In a sense, you seem to be forcing them to go through with the pregnancy.

It’s true that grief and sense of loss may accompany abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the mother the latter is the least distressing. Much depends on conditions and psychological reactions. If you really did favour the mothers choice perhaps their interests should prevail; and then late-term abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

I can't help but feel goalposts are not only shifting - they are going quantum.

Do you object to women having control over their own bodies?

eviltwin

martoman wrote: »

Is adoption always the best option? In a sense, you seem to be forcing them to go through with the pregnancy.

It’s true that grief and sense of loss may accompany abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the mother the latter is the least distressing. Much depends on conditions and psychological reactions. If you really did favour the mothers choice perhaps their interests should prevail; and then late-term abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.

Do you really think there is a demand from women with unplanned pregnancies to go through the process only to have a late abortion? There is a reason the vast majority of terminations take place in the first trimester.

PopePalpatine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do we castrate sex offenders? Intellectually and philosophically the argument for that can be made.

Oh boy...I'm kinda in favour of chemical castration for child molesters. Then again, I am far from an expert on paedophilia.

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can't help but feel goalposts are not only shifting - they are going quantum.

What do you mean exactly?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you object to women having control over their own bodies?

I don't object to anybody having control over their own body per er, but I don't see it as a valid reason a prior; it's not the most convincing argument against abortion I believe. The foetus' inability to experience pain and suffering or else it's lack of self-consciousness is a more persuasive argument.

If you believe the foetus has a right to life because of the qualities it possess (I don't) then a woman's bodily autonomy is less straight forward argument.

PopePalpatine

martoman wrote: »

What do you mean exactly?

I think she might be referring to Heisenberg's Principle, where at a quantum level (something like 10^-15m) something can be in multiple places at once.

martoman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do we castrate sex offenders? Intellectually and philosophically the argument for that can be made.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but I'm opened to different opinions on the matter.

martoman

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you really think there is a demand from women with unplanned pregnancies to go through the process only to have a late abortion? There is a reason the vast majority of terminations take place in the first trimester.

Though in a minority, there are cases where a woman might decide to have a termination in the later stages: if she discovered the unborn had fatal genetic condition (that was not determined earlier), or where her social circumstances unexpectedly changed (say, her relationship ended, or where she lost her job and was under financial constraints) and she doesn’t feel she’s in a position to bring a child into the world. These are all real possibilities. Should we respect her choice in these circumstances?

eviltwin

martoman wrote: »

Though in a minority, there are cases where a woman might decide to have a termination in the later stages: if she discovered the unborn had fatal genetic condition (that was not determined earlier), or where her social circumstances unexpectedly changed (say, her relationship ended, or where she lost her job and was under financial constraints) and she doesn’t feel she’s in a position to bring a child into the world. These are all real possibilities. Should we respect her choice in these circumstances?

Yes we should. Who are we to judge?

Bannasidhe

martoman wrote: »

What do you mean exactly?



I don't object to anybody having control over their own body per er, but I don't see it as a valid reason a prior; it's not the most convincing argument against abortion I believe. The foetus' inability to experience pain and suffering or else it's lack of self-consciousness is a more persuasive argument.

If you believe the foetus has a right to life because of the qualities it possess (I don't) then a woman's bodily autonomy is less straight forward argument.

That is where you and I disagree.

Perhaps you do not think it is a valid reason because you already have inviolate control over your own body - I doubt you are female.

I live in a world where I could be raped and become pregnant and immediately lose control over my own body as a result of a crime of which I am a victim. In my view being forced to carry a pregnancy to term in such circumstances is a double whammy.

martoman

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes we should. Who are we to judge?

What about these cases?

Though in a minority, there are cases where a woman might decide to end her newborn baby's life because she discovered the baby had a fatal genetic condition (that was not determined before birth), or where her social circumstances unexpectedly changed (say, her relationship ended as she went into labour, or where she lost her job and was under financial constraints) and she doesn’t feel she’s in a position to nurture and bring up a child. These are all real possibilities. In the case of the healthy child, she could give it up for adoption, but the mother feels this would be too distressing on her and feels termination is a better option. Seeing that some would see these as reasonable grounds for later term abortions, should we also respect her choice in these other circumstances mentioned?

eviltwin

martoman wrote: »

What about these cases?

Though in a minority, there are cases where a woman might decide to end her newborn baby's life because she discovered the baby had a fatal genetic condition (that was not determined before birth), or where her social circumstances unexpectedly changed (say, her relationship ended as she went in labour, or where she lost her job and was under financial constraints) and she doesn’t feel she’s in a position to nurture and bring up a child. These are all real possibilities. In the case of the healthy child, she could give it up for adoption, but the mother feels this would be too distressing on her and feels termination is a better option. Seeing that some would see these as reasonable grounds for later term abortions, should we also respect her choice in these other circumstances mentioned?

I've already said I don't see a problem with abortion in any of those circumstances. Edit to say within the legal limits.

eviltwin

martoman wrote: »

What about these cases?

Though in a minority, there are cases where a woman might decide to end her newborn baby's life because she discovered the baby had a fatal genetic condition (that was not determined before birth), or where her social circumstances unexpectedly changed (say, her relationship ended as she went into labour, or where she lost her job and was under financial constraints) and she doesn’t feel she’s in a position to nurture and bring up a child. These are all real possibilities. In the case of the healthy child, she could give it up for adoption, but the mother feels this would be too distressing on her and feels termination is a better option. Seeing that some would see these as reasonable grounds for later term abortions, should we also respect her choice in these other circumstances mentioned?

I have to say I find it quite insulting you are even suggesting the above as a viable option for some women. What does it say about your attitude towards women who have had abortions that you think they would be okay killing a newborn.

martoman

eviltwin wrote: »

I've already said I don't see a problem with abortion in any of those circumstances. Edit to say within the legal limits.

So you'd support infanticide (or post-birth abortion) in the cases mentioned.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

Late term were the fetus is viable then ending a pregnancy does not mean an abortion, it can be an early delivery and at that stage if the woman does not want to be a mother to the child she can put it up for adoption and terminate her rights.

Can you reconcile this with your earlier statement, to the effect that

Morag wrote: »

Over my 22 years of pro choice activism I have never meet a single person who was in favour of very late term abortions were the woman and the fetus were both healthy.

Are there any circumstances in which you feel a woman should be compelled to carry a foetus to full term? Or is your position that a woman who (I'm just trying to use neutral terms - pick others if you prefer) demands that a foetus be surgically removed at (say) 30 weeks is requesting a procedure that shouldn't be termed an abortion?

It just seems a little contrived. Can you explain what you mean?

eviltwin

martoman wrote: »

So you'd support infanticide (or post-birth abortion) in the cases mentioned.

No I don't. I edited my reply. I think the current UK limits are adequate.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

eviltwin wrote: »

Edit to say within the legal limits.

What factors do you think policy makers should take into account when setting those legal limits? It's just that I think we're putting the cart before the horse if we talk as if these legal limits were etched into the face of reality.