Abortion Discussion

Peregrinus

gaynorvader wrote: »

In your "considered" opinion. Do you then believe the party line that life begins at conception?

If by "party line" you mean "scientifically established fact", then life is present at the moment of conception and at all times thereafter until death. Are you in any doubt about that?

Turtwig

The life of a human is 4. something billion years old and possibly more. The life of the person is (partially) where the ethics of abortion lies.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Finger's on the button, Jernal. Feelin' twitchy. None of that now.

It was just one time. I swear! I don't even know how it happened the universe is full of cosmic coincidences this was likely one of them!

Peregrinus

Jernal wrote: »

The life of a human is 4. something billion years old and possibly more. The life of the person is (partially) where the ethics of abortion lies.

Not really. If we postulate that there is some point after conception where the products of conception become a "person" deserving of respect and protection, and then we ask ourselves what that point might be, "life" isn't going to have much to do with the answer. The products of conception have been alive all along. Whatever has happened to bring a "person" into being, it has nothing to do with the start of any life, either human life in general, or the life of this, um, individual in particular.

Turtwig

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not really. If we postulate that there is some point after conception where the products of conception become a "person" deserving of respect and protection, and then we ask ourselves what that point might be, "life" isn't going to have much to do with the answer. The products of conception have been alive all along. Whatever has happened to bring a "person" into being, it has nothing to do with the start of any life, either human life in general, or the life of this, um, individual in particular.

That was pretty much my point. Not as eloquently put I might add.

Piliger

Jernal wrote: »

That was pretty much my point. Not as eloquently put I might add.

And a principle that I hold also true in my endeavours to come to the best opinion I can.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

There isn't any way the state can guarantee the right to life of any blastocyst. Even if they forced all females of reproductive age into special care centres this wouldn't guarantee the life of a blastocyst. So why put such an empty claim into the constitution in the 8th amendment:

Well, that's why I said guarantee(ish), and the amendment says acknowledge rather than guarantee. It only guarantees to respect, and as far as practicable defend and vindicate the right. Which is more of an aspirational statement than an empty claim I think?

Absolam

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did answer your question. I believe a woman should have control over what happens her own body. Is that not clear enough for you?
Each woman should have the inalienable right to decide if she wishes to be pregnant or not.

It's a clear enough statement, but I didn't ask a question about womens bodies? The question I asked was are you proposing then that rights should only be the province of those born, and that prior to birth an unborn individual should have none?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

why should we grant protections to insentient clumps of cells that denies women control over own their bodies?

Interesting point. If they were sentient clumps of cells, would that make a difference? Should a fully functional very well aged mensa level individual have protections that deny women control over their own bodies?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why do we not grant an embryo exactly the same rights as a new born? Every child in the State is entitled to Child Benefit for example - why wait until they are born?

That's a good question, especially since as Lazygal points out, we can have reliable data from not long after conception, and expectant mothers could probably use the extra assistance.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I seem to have missed your reply to my question. Would you please be kind enough to repeat it?

Sure, I think something went astray in the dialogue, so let me recap:
A. How big does it need to be to be a person then?
A. how big does it need to be to be equal to you?
B. Do you believe a clump of cells that would fit on the tip of a pin is exactly the same as you and deserving of equal legal recognition?
A. I don't think a 16 cell embryo is the same as me, nor does it deserve equal legal recognition. But I don't think a juvenile is or does either. (that's my answer there)
B. I believe every individual who has been born is entitled to the same protections under the law - be they 'juvenile' or not. Including the right to act in self-defence to preserve their life if it is threatened. (that's where you haven't answered my previous two questions)
A. You asked did they deserve equal legal recognition; not equal legal protections. But I think perhaps still inequality might be mandated; juveniles require more protection than adults, for instance, they are not permitted to make their own decisions regarding legal drugs, they may not drive, they cannot marry or enter into contracts. In some cases these are protections, in others they are limited recognitions. responding to the altered terms of your question
But the crux of your point; are you proposing then that rights should only be the province of those born, and that prior to birth an unborn individual should have none? my third question
B. What is the problem with answering the question I asked? Awful lot of deflecting going on in these here parts.... I am not proposing anything bar a woman has the right to determine what happens her own body and the right to act in self-defence.

I hope that clarifies it for you, but if there was a question I missed feel free to ask and I'll try to answer in as straightforward a fashion as possible.

gaynorvader

Peregrinus wrote: »

If by "party line" you mean "scientifically established fact", then life is present at the moment of conception and at all times thereafter until death. Are you in any doubt about that?

If you're being pedantic in order to misrepresent my point, then yes, a fertilised egg is alive in the same way sperm and the egg and the womb is alive. Though the party line that life begins at conception is still wrong, as it begins before that.

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

It's a clear enough statement, but I didn't ask a question about womens bodies? The question I asked was are you proposing then that rights should only be the province of those born, and that prior to birth an unborn individual should have none?


Interesting point. If they were sentient clumps of cells, would that make a difference? Should a fully functional very well aged mensa level individual have protections that deny women control over their own bodies?

That's a good question, especially since as Lazygal points out, we can have reliable data from not long after conception, and expectant mothers could probably use the extra assistance.


Sure, I think something went astray in the dialogue, so let me recap:
A. How big does it need to be to be a person then?
A. how big does it need to be to be equal to you?
B. Do you believe a clump of cells that would fit on the tip of a pin is exactly the same as you and deserving of equal legal recognition?
A. I don't think a 16 cell embryo is the same as me, nor does it deserve equal legal recognition. But I don't think a juvenile is or does either. (that's my answer there)
B. I believe every individual who has been born is entitled to the same protections under the law - be they 'juvenile' or not. Including the right to act in self-defence to preserve their life if it is threatened. (that's where you haven't answered my previous two questions)
A. You asked did they deserve equal legal recognition; not equal legal protections. But I think perhaps still inequality might be mandated; juveniles require more protection than adults, for instance, they are not permitted to make their own decisions regarding legal drugs, they may not drive, they cannot marry or enter into contracts. In some cases these are protections, in others they are limited recognitions. responding to the altered terms of your question
But the crux of your point; are you proposing then that rights should only be the province of those born, and that prior to birth an unborn individual should have none? my third question
B. What is the problem with answering the question I asked? Awful lot of deflecting going on in these here parts.... I am not proposing anything bar a woman has the right to determine what happens her own body and the right to act in self-defence.

I hope that clarifies it for you, but if there was a question I missed feel free to ask and I'll try to answer in as straightforward a fashion as possible.

Up the walls busy at the mo so will come back to this but thanks for responding,

lazygal

gaynorvader wrote: »

If you're being pedantic in order to misrepresent my point, then yes, a fertilised egg is alive in the same way sperm and the egg and the womb is alive. Though the party line that life begins at conception is still wrong, as it begins before that.

Depends on which party one is attending I'd say.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Depends on which party one is attending I'd say.

At my grandads birthday party they said life begins at sixty. There was a lot of experience in that room and they probably knew a thing or two.

Peregrinus

gaynorvader wrote: »

If you're being pedantic in order to misrepresent my point, then yes, a fertilised egg is alive in the same way sperm and the egg and the womb is alive. Though the party line that life begins at conception is still wrong, as it begins before that.

Life began, as already pointed out, about four billion years ago. But the life of any given human individual began when that individual was conceived. That's not a party line; that's yer actual science.

gaynorvader

Peregrinus wrote: »

Life began, as already pointed out, about four billion years ago. But the life of any given human individual began when that individual was conceived. That's not a party line; that's yer actual science.

So what metric are you using to determine what a human being is?

Peregrinus

gaynorvader wrote: »

So what metric are you using to determine what a human being is?

I didn't use the term "human being"; I've already pointed out in this thread that it's a vague and undefined term.

I used the term "human individual". An entity is human if a biologist would classify it as human (as opposed to canine, ovine, caprine, etc) and it's an individual if it's organically complete and genetically distinct from other human individuals.

Piliger

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't use the term "human being"; I've already pointed out in this thread that it's a vague and undefined term.

I used the term "human individual". An entity is human if a biologist would classify it as human (as opposed to canine, ovine, caprine, etc) and it's an individual if it's organically complete and genetically distinct from other human individuals.

It's a minefield of language.

For me "Human being" is pretty well equivalent to "Human individual" and fetuses don't qualify until they get to late stage .... in my own personal assessment of the process ... which would be somewhere close to the UK 24 weeks or so.

Absolam

What's the rationale behind a 24 week point?

rainbow kirby

Absolam wrote: »

What's the rationale behind a 24 week point?

Point where survival outside the womb is considered reasonably likely to occur with medical intervention. At 23 weeks, only 9/100 survive and of those only one will not have disabilities. (source: BBC "23 Weeks" documentary)

Absolam

So I'm guessing that's a fairly moveable feast; 20 years ago that point would have been later, 20 years from now it will probably be considerably earlier.

So, is it largely acceptable (to posters here) that the defining point of when a human non-person becomes a human person with rights (even whatever limited rights) should be around the point when they become a reasonably viable independent life with medical assistance? Or is there a better definition?

Peregrinus

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Point where survival outside the womb is considered reasonably likely to occur with medical intervention. At 23 weeks, only 9/100 survive and of those only one will not have disabilities. (source: BBC "23 Weeks" documentary)

So, "likely to die or suffer from disabilities" = "not a human being"?

Why?

Piliger

Absolam wrote: »

So I'm guessing that's a fairly moveable feast; 20 years ago that point would have been later, 20 years from now it will probably be considerably earlier.

So, is it largely acceptable (to posters here) that the defining point of when a human non-person becomes a human person with rights (even whatever limited rights) should be around the point when they become a reasonably viable independent life with medical assistance? Or is there a better definition?

No. But then again I don't believe anyone can come up with a strict and definitive 'definition' per se. Legally, all we can do is pick the best time we can and ally the law to that choice in order to enable the law to deal with this tough tough situation.
Morally is another matter altogether. For me, morally, I cannot pick an 'exact' time. I think it is somewhere between 24 and 28 weeks, roughly speaking. But I don't believe the fetus suddenly flips from non person to person. It is a transition. So if someone aborted at 30 I would not agree with prosecution, certainly not as any kind of murder or manslaughter. But if someone aborted later than that I would consider it.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

So I'm guessing that's a fairly moveable feast; 20 years ago that point would have been later, 20 years from now it will probably be considerably earlier.

So, is it largely acceptable (to posters here) that the defining point of when a human non-person becomes a human person with rights (even whatever limited rights) should be around the point when they become a reasonably viable independent life with medical assistance? Or is there a better definition?

This is kind of where I am at with this. For abortions, simply because the woman want one, I personally think date of viability outside the womb is as good as any other arbitrary limit. I am happy with this being a "movable feast" as medical technology advances. At the same time, I believe there should be exceptions that allow for later abortions, should circumstances require it. Fatal foetal abnormalities or risk to the mother, for example.

MrP

Absolam

So, derogation up to term (ish?) in the case of fatal abnormalities.
What about non fatal, but debilitating? Say a severe reduction in the potential quality of life?

And in the case of risk to the mother; potentially fatal risk (leaving aside the whole self harm thing for now), or risk of debilitation etc etc?

The principle being set out per MrPuddings point essentially being that where it is life vs life, the life of the mother has a greater value than that of the child (being a child having passed the 24 week (again ish) point.
However, when it is life vs quality of life (of either mother or child), is there a point where quality of life can be valued more than actual life? And in the case of the child, is it reasonable to allow a mother to make the choice of life vs quality on behalf of her child?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

So, derogation up to term (ish?) in the case of fatal abnormalities.
What about non fatal, but debilitating? Say a severe reduction in the potential quality of life?

And in the case of risk to the mother; potentially fatal risk (leaving aside the whole self harm thing for now), or risk of debilitation etc etc?

The principle being set out per MrPuddings point essentially being that where it is life vs life, the life of the mother has a greater value than that of the child (being a child having passed the 24 week (again ish) point.
However, when it is life vs quality of life (of either mother or child), is there a point where quality of life can be valued more than actual life? And in the case of the child, is it reasonable to allow a mother to make the choice of life vs quality on behalf of her child?

If the case was that the mother would be left with the task of having to care for the child 24/7 for the rest of either life (whichever would be longer) alone without respite and aid, then I'd say "yes, the mother must be allowed make the decision about an abortion, if any infant born, or herself, would suffer pain (mental and physical) if the pregnancy proceeded to birth and beyond".

The argument of bias by the mother towards an abortion option (the easy way out) hold's as much water as a holed bucket. It implies a lack of ethics on her behalf, but makes no mention of how ethical it would be to force the birth of a child to a "life" of suffering, when every-one involved in such a birth was fully aware of what both child and mother would suffer after birth of the child.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

If the case was that the mother would be left with the task of having to care for the child 24/7 for the rest of either life (whichever would be longer) alone without respite and aid, then I'd say "yes, the mother must be allowed make the decision about an abortion, if any infant born, or herself, would suffer pain (mental and physical) if the pregnancy proceeded to birth and beyond".

That's not definitely going to be the case though; it's not beyond the means of the state to care for a child in those circumstances. So leaving aside being made responsible for the childs care for the rest of either life?

aloyisious wrote: »

The argument of bias by the mother towards an abortion option (the easy way out) hold's as much water as a holed bucket. It implies a lack of ethics on her behalf, but makes no mention of how ethical it would be to force the birth of a child to a "life" of suffering, when every-one involved in such a birth was fully aware of what both child and mother would suffer after birth of the child.

I suspect it's arguable that a similar proportion of mothers would be biased towards going to term with a child with a fatal abnormality; there will be extremes in either direction? In that case is it ethical to force a woman to terminate the pregnancy?
Anyway, it is your perspective that it's reasonable to allow a mother to make the choice of life vs quality on behalf of her child, even though the child is now at a point where it may be considered to have rights as a human individual? At which point for say, a 10 year old, or a 50 year old, life is (currently) the only legal option, regardless of quality?

Obliq

Hope you don't mind me jumping into this interesting debate - I've chopped up your posts a bit too :-)

Absolam wrote: »

However, when it is life vs quality of life (of either mother or child), is there a point where quality of life can be valued more than actual life? And in the case of the child, is it reasonable to allow a mother to make the choice of life vs quality on behalf of her child?

and

I suspect it's arguable that a similar proportion of mothers would be biased towards going to term with a child with a fatal abnormality; there will be extremes in either direction? In that case is it ethical to force a woman to terminate the pregnancy?

I can disapprove of a woman continuing with a birth where it might only prolong the suffering of the child, but forcing someone to terminate is, well, FORCING someone. It says that the woman isn't give a choice, and it's choice that we have grown to feel is a human right as well. Which is why we should be allowed quantify an actual life against quality of life, and why we can say that it would be unethical to diminish this woman's quality of life by forcing an early but inevitable outcome for the baby.

I suspect it's arguable that in a case of a child having even a non-fatal abnormality, in adding up the mother's potential quality of life as well as the child's potential quality of life, it would be just as unethical to force a woman to remain pregnant, as it would be to terminate a life (that we can avoid any hardship for AND from). Is it ethical to expect a parent to sign up for a lifetime of advocacy and constant loving, unrelenting care? I think parents should have the right to quantify their own quality of life against the life of a foetus, and I think everyone will value their own life differently.

I think we should have a right to say "I'm too selfish to be that person, and that's ok". If we have not been given the choice to say that and act on it within an appropriate time scale (pre-birth, preferably within weeks of the abnormality being spotted?) then a particular quality of life has been forced on not just the child, but the parents as well. I call that unethical.

Absolam wrote: »

Anyway, it is your perspective that it's reasonable to allow a mother to make the choice of life vs quality on behalf of her child, even though the child is now at a point where it may be considered to have rights as a human individual? At which point for say, a 10 year old, or a 50 year old, life is (currently) the only legal option, regardless of quality?

I sort of answered that above as well, I think.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

That's not definitely going to be the case though; it's not beyond the means of the state to care for a child in those circumstances. So leaving aside being made responsible for the childs care for the rest of either life?

I suspect it's arguable that a similar proportion of mothers would be biased towards going to term with a child with a fatal abnormality; there will be extremes in either direction? In that case is it ethical to force a woman to terminate the pregnancy?
Anyway, it is your perspective that it's reasonable to allow a mother to make the choice of life vs quality on behalf of her child, even though the child is now at a point where it may be considered to have rights as a human individual? At which point for say, a 10 year old, or a 50 year old, life is (currently) the only legal option, regardless of quality?

I'd agree that there would be pregnant women who, having being made aware of their foetus's medical status being indicative of it being born with complications, would (as you say) still proceed with the pregnancy to birthing and beyond. As for forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy on ethical grounds, I've posted that the choice is for the pregnant woman alone and didn't mention any form of abortion-compunction. I didn't make any reference as to how long the feotus had been in the womb, nor any to persons years way past birth. Euthanasia is a different topic to abortion.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

So, derogation up to term (ish?) in the case of fatal abnormalities.

Yes. Personally, I think that any one that bring a foetus with a fatal abnormality to term, when they have a choice, is a monster.

Absolam wrote: »

What about non fatal, but debilitating? Say a severe reduction in the potential quality of life?

Good question, and not something I feel in a position to answer any more than to say, I think that decision should be between the mother and her medical team. I certainly would not have a problem with a woman wishing to end a pregnacny where the child would be disabled to the extent that the quaity of life would be impacted and she felt that she would be unable to cope with the raising of the child, or indeed simply giving birth and handing it over to someone else.

Absolam wrote: »

And in the case of risk to the mother; potentially fatal risk (leaving aside the whole self harm thing for now), or risk of debilitation etc etc?

Both.

Absolam wrote: »

The principle being set out per MrPuddings point essentially being that where it is life vs life, the life of the mother has a greater value than that of the child (being a child having passed the 24 week (again ish) point.

Absolutely. I believe 100% that th elife of the mother, unless she spoecifically decides otherwise, is more valuable than that of the unborn, right up to the point where it is born and can no longer effect the mothers health, either directly by being insoder her, or indirectly by limited any treatment she may need for a related or unrelated issue.

Absolam wrote: »

However, when it is life vs quality of life (of either mother or child), is there a point where quality of life can be valued more than actual life? And in the case of the child, is it reasonable to allow a mother to make the choice of life vs quality on behalf of her child?

Who else would make the choice? The mother is the one that will have to carry the child to term, knowing it will die or be disabled. The mother is the person that will, by default, be expected to look aftr the child. Who else would you have make the choice?

MrP

Phill Ewinn

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Point where survival outside the womb is considered reasonably likely to occur with medical intervention. At 23 weeks, only 9/100 survive and of those only one will not have disabilities. (source: BBC "23 Weeks" documentary)

The rates of health and survival are growing. Not uncommon to see normal healthy children born at 20 weeks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-511626/Survival-rate-soars-babies-born-early--fuelling-debate-abortion-limits.html

Brian Shanahan

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The rates of health and survival are growing. Not uncommon to see normal healthy children born at 20 weeks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-511626/Survival-rate-soars-babies-born-early--fuelling-debate-abortion-limits.html

You're posting something from Der Sturmer (motto: Nothing Knowingly True Printed on these Pages!) and you expect us to take you seriously?