Abortion Discussion

eviltwin

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm still waiting for Festus to reply to me about when he said he wanted to talk to others who had made the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
He doesn't seem all that interested somehow.

Looking back at his post here, it seems to me the complication he refers to was in fact a decision to end the pregnancy so early that the baby then died. I realize how tragic that is, but I don't see how it is all that different to someone having an abortion because of a risk to the mother just a few weeks earlier, except that the chance the baby might live is a little better.

But surely that is mostly a question of luck, as to when the risk arises?

So his judgement about couples who have terminations is all the more unwarranted - how was their own decision to terminate at 20 something weeks fundamentally different?

And what if his wife had not felt as he did, and had wished to protect her health by terminating earlier - does he think her wishes should have been ignored? He seems to, since he thinks other couples should not have had the choice he says he had.

I think the fact that you made a choice he doesn't agree with and don't regret it is the issue. I've found pro lifers are more than happy to talk to women and men who have been through abortion but only if they regret it and want to warn others against it. If you've had an abortion and don't regret it you don't suit their agenda.

volchitsa

eviltwin wrote: »

I think the fact that you made a choice he doesn't agree with and don't regret it is the issue. I've found pro lifers are more than happy to talk to women and men who have been through abortion but only if they regret it and want to warn others against it. If you've had an abortion and don't regret it you don't suit their agenda.

I regret that it had to happen, but I don't regret the choice we made.

Every day I'm both sad and relieved. Not just for me, not even mainly for me, I could probably have coped, but it would have been at the expense of a normal life for my existing children. And possibly my marriage.

I've seen that happen, to other people. I didn't want that life for my own children.


On your main point, yes it's proof of how incoherent their whole argument is, that women who have had not one but two abortions, for what the pro-life cause (not me) would call "lifestyle" reasons, were judged suitable to be cheered to the rafters at a pro-life demonstration last year, just for saying they regretted it. That's handy, isn't it?

Either they are baby killers or they aren't - and if they are, then is saying you wish you hadn't done it a way to get off all murders now? Or just murders of babies?
Or just the not yet born ones?

volchitsa

Shrap wrote: »

If (as I do) you believe that the foetus is absolutely human, and alive, you must decide at what point are the "human rights" worth protecting in law.

I can understand how the abortion argument boils down to the measure of control we should be allowed to have over the death of a human being, and folk who are anti-abortion say "none" without any relative values placed on those that are born (or just about to be born) against those that are not born and non-sentient. The value of life IS relative though.

In all of that, you only mention fetuses though. Is that because despite your main argument here, you do actually think that an embryo is basically "just a clump of cells"?

If so, how do we decide when it is legally a human being, given that the discussion in Ireland centres not just on the theoretical meaning of abortion to me or you, but is about deciding for other people when they may or may not have an abortion?

So is it just personal opinion, and if so, whose?

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s a claim, essentially, that human life is set apart from other natural phenomena in having a transcendent claim to our respect - a claim that many humanists (as the name suggests) would basically endorse.

Thanks for all that Peregrinus. So as alaimacerc rightly quoted then: "I think it was Mary Warnock in some TV interview that offered a definition of "sacred" on the lines of "only to be approached with reverence and respect"."

I class myself as pro-choice, but with a certain queasiness about that. But I find the “not alive”/”not human” rationalisations for a pro-choice position are deeply unconvincing.

No difficulty at all? From a psychological PoV that's an interesting question. As a practical matter, it's squeamish qualms vs criminal sanctions (or at the very least, healthcare equity), though...

To quote you both here, and to address the "queasiness" and "squeamish qualms" in a practical sense, yes alaimacerc, "having no difficulty at all" is an interesting question. Speaking as a person who has killed animals for food (and not because I need to - I could be vegetarian if I wished), it's a difficult thing to do. Practically - not hard; Emotionally - being the person actually taking an animal's life requires some justification and some nerve. The justification is that a) I am selfish and give myself that right (and the law gives me that right), and b) I am not emotionally attached to the animal. The nerve element is the will to do it, over and above the struggle I have with those justifications. Sounds hard? Well, once it's done, you have a nice organic meat meal with the knowledge that the animal had a good (if short) life and it knew nothing whatsoever about it's impending doom, so therefore it didn't worry about it.

So when I say "having no difficulty", I really mean having no more difficulty with aborting a foetus than you would if you had to get your head around taking an animal's life with your own hands. Their blood is on your hands, so to speak, and you deal with it.

The mismatch between what (our) society says in law is the "reverence and respect" afforded to all stages of human life, and what we can actually cope with in reality/practical terms means that the justifications for an Irish woman having an abortion can not include "the law giving the right to kill", as it does when killing an animal. But the lack of emotional attachment to the life, the selfishness (her need is greater) and the giving herself that right are present.

My only question about the morality of abortion is where the reverence and respect for human life "should" kick in, and it's clearly not where society says it does, as women have always/will always feel and act differently when it's a question of need. At what point can women/abortion clinics no longer justifiably elect to kill a foetus out of need?

I don't think reverence and respect are necessarily determinative of what the law should be, as such. And certainly the "Terminations for Medical Reasons" people seem to regard the net effect of present law as antipathetical to that in their own cases...

With TFMR, there are other justifications, such as "putting a life out if it's (potential) misery", and sparing yourself the grief of a prolonged pregnancy, etc.

How would you determine the law then, unless you tease out what reverence and respect "should" be afforded to a human foetus?

Sorry, TLDR.

Shrap

volchitsa wrote: »

In all of that, you only mention fetuses though. Is that because despite your main argument here, you do actually think that an embryo is basically "just a clump of cells"?

Good question. I'm trying to tease it all out within myself to be able to answer that kind of question. But no, not just a clump of cells - it's a tiny human with potential to grow up and have a childhood, adulthood, as I said before. Essentially though, I don't care about other people's foetuses, personally. There, I said it! If a friend of mine was pregnant, I would care for her (because of emotional attachment to her) feelings on the subject.

If the pregnancy was wanted and went wrong, I'd be devastated for her, and would have developed an emotional attachment of my own towards her tiny unborn foetus, with all the expectations for the future that go with a wanted pregnancy. If the pregnancy was unwanted, I would not develop any emotional attachment (even though it's human) at all, and would equally care more for her feelings on the subject than for the foetus, as I would if she was happy about it.

Don't know why I said "friend". It's the same if you're pregnant yourself. I've been pregnant twice, and both times I had a definite emotional attachment to the little sprog by 3 months. If they hadn't been wanted though, I can't say if I'd have developed an emotional attachment AT ALL. It might be human, but I can't offer it the "reverence and respect" that society says it deserves if I just don't feel anything towards it.

If so, how do we decide when it is legally a human being, given that the discussion in Ireland centres not just on the theoretical meaning of abortion to me or you, but is about deciding for other people when they may or may not have an abortion?

So is it just personal opinion, and if so, whose?

I like the Canadian model, where indeed it does come down to a personal opinion (with doctor's consultation) on when they may or may not have an abortion. There are no more late abortions than anywhere else, and most abortions are very much earlier due to the speedy process (no jumping through hoops). Whose decision should it be, the woman's of course.

Shrap

Where is the point where SOCIETY has a right to step in and say "OK, so you don't value this life, but WE have sufficient emotional attachment to your foetus to require you to remain pregnant now"?

I don't know. I would have a preference for the stage where WE (society) could conceivably look after it's life if it was born. Unless there were more compelling reasons for abortion after that stage, such as TFMR.

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

Where is the point where SOCIETY has a right to step in and say "OK, so you don't value this life, but WE have sufficient emotional attachment to your foetus to require you to remain pregnant now"?

That's not quite what the state is doing. Irish law implies that a foetus' human rights inhere, within this country's borders, broadly from the moment of implantation (which we can infer from the fact that RU486 is legally, if probably not Constitutionally, permitted within Ireland). As the Constitution also asserts a "right to freedom to travel" regardless of foetal state, we can infer that the Constitution is not concerned with the inherence of a foetus' human rights outside the country's borders. The legal view is, approximately, that abortion after implantation amounts to premeditated murder which the state will not condone and therefore, the wishes of the mother are of lesser legal importance than the (newly-)inherent human rights of the foetus. Emotional attachment has no part of this debate - it's purely about stopping what the law views as a being with full human rights from being killed.

Legally, this whole area is an unmitigated mess as the Constitution asserts broad rights which conflict with each other and neither the language of the Constitution nor the language of the law refers to, or frequently seems to be aware of, the biology that's actually happening.

It would be really nice if it did.

.

Shrap

Sure, I know that's the case. I'm just wondering where (if we were allowed to decide) and on what basis we (society) would decide the point that "human life becomes sacred" or "reverence and respect" is due. How would we even determine HOW to decide that, never mind what decision we'd come to?

volchitsa

Shrap wrote: »

Good question. I'm trying to tease it all out within myself to be able to answer that kind of question. But no, not just a clump of cells - it's a tiny human with potential to grow up and have a childhood, adulthood, as I said before.

I don't know, this whole "potentiality" argument seems illogical to me. My eggs have thpotential to become adults, it just requires a few steps more than an embryo. And really, I would feel the same about giving away any unwanted eggs I had as I would surplus embryos, if I had been through IVF and had some spare. So it's not having the full complement of genes that makes a difference, it's the likelihood of there being a real person one day who would either be happy or angry that you had given him/her away to an unknown future.

Also, if it were about the fertilized/unfertilized egg, then proponents of this technique would presumably face a similar prison term to someone carrying out an abortion in Ireland?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/11163128/Embryonic-stem-cells-transplanted-into-eyes-of-blind-restore-sight.html

Yet it is being reported on in glowing terms, for its potential (again!) results.
And the Irish media are delighted when there is any chance of stem cell research being carried out here too : http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/university-lab-in-stem-cells-move-29953151.html

Shrap wrote: »

I like the Canadian model, where indeed it does come down to a personal opinion (with doctor's consultation) on when they may or may not have an abortion. There are no more late abortions than anywhere else, and most abortions are very much earlier due to the speedy process (no jumping through hoops). Whose decision should it be, the woman's of course.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

Legally, this whole area is an unmitigated mess as the Constitution asserts broad rights which conflict with each other and neither the language of the Constitution nor the language of the law refers to, or frequently seems to be aware of, the biology that's actually happening.

It would be really nice if it did.

So here's another question : does it matter - both in this case, and also as a general rule - when the law contradicts what we know of science? (I think it does matter, but perhaps I'm wrong.)

Is it more important to have a rule, any rule, than for the rules we have to correspond as closely as possible to reality?

Another example, to get away from abortion, would be the laws around drink driving vs illegal drug consumption. The Uk drugs Czar (or whatever) lost his position for saying that alcohol was more dangerous than cannabis. I guess he knows what he was talking about - but that isn't always good enough apparently.

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

How would we even determine HOW to decide that, never mind what decision we'd come to?

I have absolutely no idea as that's an emotional/ethical question which has to be decided by each person themselves. There are arguments for and against the developmental milestones I mentioned above - conception, implantation, development of nerve cells, neural ganglia, brain cells, appearance of brain waves, development of the ability to react to stimuli, ability to survive outside the womb, just before birth. I'm sure there are plenty more.

The catholic and general christian position is supposed to be that human rights inhere from the point of conception (though the actions of catholics + christians suggest they don't actually believe that). And frankly, that's the easiest position to adopt and defend. Other positions are far less simple and I've no idea how people do it for themselves as the "point of inherence of human rights" approach to the issue of abortion - for me the very simple, but brutal, central question - is ignored, so far as I can see, by most people.

Faktuu

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat and force me to follow Your ideas for life Not mine.
Coz its up to me what i do with my "soul"(Non existent concept).

Turtwig

Faktuu wrote: »

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat and force me to follow Your ideas for life Not mine.
Coz its up to me what i do with my "soul"(Non existent concept).

Great, but what does this have to do with abortion?

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

So here's another question : does it matter - both in this case, and also as a general rule - when the law contradicts what we know of science? (I think it does matter, but perhaps I'm wrong.)

Well, as above, yes, I think that the law should be simple enough to understand and should derive from ethical and social decisions based upon what we know, from science, of the subject matter.

volchitsa wrote: »

Another example, to get away from abortion, would be the laws around drink driving vs illegal drug consumption. The Uk drugs Czar (or whatever) lost his position for saying that alcohol was more dangerous than cannabis. I guess he knows what he was talking about - but that isn't always good enough apparently.

I used to work in a homeless shelter some years back and I agree entirely with David Nutt, as most of the people I worked with did, and as I suspect most police do too. Unfortunately, policy in this case is not driven by science or social research but instead by the political implications of a narrow "law and order" motto. Same with retributive versus rehabilitative prison policy, but that's another debate.

и другой вопрос - почему "волчица"?

Faktuu

everything
as if there would be no religion and the concept of soul there would be no problem

Turtwig

Faktuu wrote: »

everything
as if there would be no religion and the concept of soul there would be no problem

Mod: Great, don't post in this thread again unless it's on topic.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

Well, as above, yes, I think that the law should be simple enough to understand and should derive from ethical and social decisions based upon what we know, from science, of the subject matter.I used to work in a homeless shelter some years back and I agree entirely with David Nutt, as most of the people I worked with did, and as I suspect most police do too. Unfortunately, policy in this case is not driven by science or social research but instead by the political implications of a narrow "law and order" motto. Same with retributive versus rehabilitative prison policy, but that's another debate.

Well, this is the problem with abortion.
Traditional pro-life views aren't actually reality-based.
But I don't know that we can define that reality precisely enough for there to be no room for genuine disagreement.

robindch wrote: »

и другой вопрос - почему "волчица"?

Я люблю волков. Я - женщина. Так она-волк, волчица

Shrap

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know, this whole "potentiality" argument seems illogical to me. My eggs have thpotential to become adults, it just requires a few steps more than an embryo. And really, I would feel the same about giving away any unwanted eggs I had as I would surplus embryos, if I had been through IVF and had some spare. So it's not having the full complement of genes that makes a difference, it's the likelihood of there being a real person one day who would either be happy or angry that you had given him/her away to an unknown future.

Also, if it were about the fertilized/unfertilized egg, then proponents of this technique would presumably face a similar prison term to someone carrying out an abortion in Ireland?

Yes, totally agree. Why, if the "sacredness" of human life is so cut and dried with the "pro-life" side, are IVF clinics not being picketed? Perhaps because those potential humans aren't in a womb and therefore their death isn't seen as emotionally as when a woman decides to kill one that would probably be born otherwise. You'd think there was enough people in the world to care about already really.....

Shrap

Ps. Is that a saying in Russian? What is it's meaning in English and was there a context to it?!

volchitsa

Shrap wrote: »

Ps. Is that a saying in Russian? What is it's meaning in English and was there a context to it?!

No, nothing, sorry!

S/He just asked me in Russian why I had the user name I have (it's a transcription of the word for a she-wolf) - and I answered that it was because I liked wolves, and if I was a wolf, I would be a she-wolf.

Sorry to have mystified you.

Shrap

volchitsa wrote: »

No, nothing, sorry!

S/He just asked me in Russian why I had the user name I have (it's a transcription of the word for a she-wolf) - and I answered that it was because I liked wolves, and if I was a wolf, I would be a she-wolf.

Sorry to have mystified you.

Oh, cheers! Thought it was maybe a relevant and interesting russian take on the meaning of life! ;-)

volchitsa

Shrap wrote: »

Yes, totally agree. Why, if the "sacredness" of human life is so cut and dried with the "pro-life" side, are IVF clinics not being picketed? Perhaps because those potential humans aren't in a womb and therefore their death isn't seen as emotionally as when a woman decides to kill one that would probably be born otherwise. You'd think there was enough people in the world to care about already really.....

I'd be a lot more cynical than that. I think that (often subconsciously) it's about controlling women, and punishing the ones who have unsuitable sexual relationships by deciding whether or not their reasons for wanting not to be pregnant are "good enough".

It's the only way I can make sense of someone being strongly "pro life" yet prepared to accept abortion in the case of rape. It has to be because that isn't the woman's "fault" so she is allowed to get out of the resulting pregnancy. It can't be because the rape baby is less deserving or less human than the "oops" one. Can it?

volchitsa

Shrap wrote: »

Oh, cheers! Thought it was maybe a relevant and interesting russian take on the meaning of life! ;-)

Sort of Slavic melancholy, sort of thing? We'd probably all just go and drown our sorrows in lots of vodka, and sing songs until we fell under the table. Sort out our problems that way!

Shrap

volchitsa wrote: »

I'd be a lot more cynical than that. I think that (often subconsciously) it's about controlling women, and punishing the ones who have unsuitable sexual relationships by deciding whether or not their reasons for wanting not to be pregnant are "good enough".

It's the only way I can make sense of someone being strongly "pro life" yet prepared to accept abortion in the case of rape. It has to be because that isn't the woman's "fault" so she is allowed to get out of the resulting pregnancy. It can't be because the rape baby is less deserving or less human than the "oops" one. Can it?

Well I've often been that cynical, and I remain so but didn't get into it this time. Since you mention it though, I've said before that it would be a much less popular move for the church to come out against embryos being destroyed by people who really, really WANT a family (They want one so bad, they'll kill embryos to get one, but shhh! Don't mention that!).

As for the rest, yup. Totally agree again. Same for TFMR. It's the "genuine" need for an abortion (based on it not being the woman's "fault") that they'd consider ok to fire ahead with killing a foetus. Although the difference between an "oops" foetus and a "rape" foetus isn't clear to me either, in terms of their viability or humanity.

Shrap

volchitsa wrote: »

Sort of Slavic melancholy, sort of thing? We'd probably all just go and drown our sorrows in lots of vodka, and sing songs until we fell under the table. Sort out our problems that way!

Yeah - something like "Ah, when the she-wolf decides, then and only then will she breed" kind of thing, with some hidden wisdom relevant to our question. Damn. Thought you had it all sorted out there for a minute. More vodka. Definitely. We'll have all the answers by the end of the second bottle ;-)

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

Я люблю волков. Я - женщина. Так она-волк, волчица

Konyeshno, ya ponemayo "volk/volchitsa", a ya xotel yznat6 pochemy t6i ispolzovala russkii slov - t6i c rashoi?

...i izveni za angliskie bukvi - trydnee perevodit6 za nerusskigovoryayoshie ludei

alaimacerc

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know, this whole "potentiality" argument seems illogical to me. My eggs have thpotential to become adults, it just requires a few steps more than an embryo.

Eggs aren't "totipotent" in biological terms, so there's a distinction here beyond "just" developmental steps. (Not that there's anything very "just" at all about developmental steps, unless one is a genetic determinist of very High Church indeed.) Well, human eggs aren't, some other species' are, so it's not the most fundamental biological difference in the world, either.

And really, I would feel the same about giving away any unwanted eggs I had as I would surplus embryos, if I had been through IVF and had some spare.

I suspect most people would feel broadly similarly. Indeed, were you to be asked to donate some eggs and some of your partner's sperm, the two are logically pretty much equivalent, give or take another pretty straightforward step in the "method". Or give or take lots and lots of magical thinking, as the case may be.

So it's not having the full complement of genes that makes a difference, it's the likelihood of there being a real person one day who would either be happy or angry that you had given him/her away to an unknown future.

They have all the genes (or one "copy" of each, as against the two of diploid humans, to be precise), just not all the chromosomes/genome, to split hairs. Hence the fundamental feasibility of parthenogenesis.

Also, if it were about the fertilized/unfertilized egg, then proponents of this technique would presumably face a similar prison term to someone carrying out an abortion in Ireland?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/11163128/Embryonic-stem-cells-transplanted-into-eyes-of-blind-restore-sight.html

I think they'd be treated differently in Irish law. Zygotes aren't "the unborn" per the X Case ruling, and the recent statute. Only post-implantation embryos. So potentially both of these are "grey areas", unless they're legislated for separately.

Yet it is being reported on in glowing terms, for its potential (again!) results.
And the Irish media are delighted when there is any chance of stem cell research being carried out here too : http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/university-lab-in-stem-cells-move-29953151.html

That story's about adult stem cells, note. Is embryonic stem cell research legal, or indeed covered by any regulation, in these parts? I seem to recall it being up in the air a while ago, so I'm guessing it still is.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

Konyeshno, ya ponemayo "volk/volchitsa", a ya xotel yznat6 pochemy t6i ispolzovala russkii slov - t6i c rashoi?

...i izveni za angliskie bukvi - trydnee perevodit6 za nerusskigovoryayoshie ludei

Oh, I don't really speak much Russian, I'm only a beginner! I just needed a user name I would remember, and I knew волчица. It never really occurred to me to write it in Cyrillic (I think that was the last bit of what you asked, why I didn't write it in Cyrillic?)

130Kph

Hanna Rosin on Slate.com writes:

“We shouldn’t need a book explaining why abortion rights are important [after 40 years]. We should be over that by now.
The reason we’re not, according to [Katha] Pollitt, is that we have all essentially been brainwashed by a small minority of pro-life activists. Only 7 to 20 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want to totally ban abortion, but that loud minority has beaten the rest of us into submission with their fetus posters and their absolutism and their infiltration of American politics. They have landed us in the era of the “awfulization” of abortion, Pollitt writes, where even pro-choicers are “falling all over themselves” to use words like “thorny,” “vexed,” “complex,” and “difficult” instead of doing what they should be doing, which is saying out loud that abortion is a positive social good.”



This struck a chord with me since this is the same clique which funded our own vocal pro-life extremists in 1983.

This guilt forcing meme has successfully suffused the discussion for decades.

Maybe at this time, we need a new ‘line in the sand’ in our discourse especially on radio/tv debates “abortion is a positive social GOOD”

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

Although we commonly use “sacred” in a religious context, its meaning is not intrinsically religious. <...>
So I think you’re onto something, Shrap, when you suggest that those who take the line that “a foetus is not human” or “. . . not alive” are basically doing the same thing as those who take the “life is sacred” line.

I'd be wary of concluding one from the other, since whilst the term sacred may not be rooted in the religious sense of being reserved to a deity, as a result of the process you described, it's normal usage now is exactly that sense, and it would be a mistake to imagine that when the word is used, it is used with any intent to convey a sense of the original Latin meaning rather than the current English meaning. It is more than possible that those taking the line that a foetus may be considered 'not yet alive' or 'not yet human' are not connecting their reasoning to any deity, whereas those taking the view that 'the life of the foetus is sacred' assuredly are.
This leads to the mistake of assuming, as Shrap has, that we can define 'sacred' as having a secular meaning of

Shrap wrote: »

"only to be approached with reverence and respect"."

which I think is wide of the mark intended by those who choose to use the term 'sacred'.
We're then led down the path of

Shrap wrote: »

The mismatch between what (our) society says in law is the "reverence and respect" afforded to all stages of human life, and what we can actually cope with in reality/practical terms means that the justifications for an Irish woman having an abortion can not include "the law giving the right to kill", as it does when killing an animal.

When in fact our law does not refer either to life as being 'sacred' or as being due 'reverence and respect', it quite specifically acknowledges the right to life, and guarantees to respect, defend, and vindicate that right.
The idea that the law does or should say that life should be treated as 'sacred' or 'due reverence and respect' is, as alaimacerc says, at odds with the concept of secular legislation in my opinion, it drags what is currently an intrinsically (in modern terms) religious concept into the law, to no benefit anywhere that I can see. You're then led into the discussion;

Shrap wrote: »

I'm just wondering where (if we were allowed to decide) and on what basis we (society) would decide the point that "human life becomes sacred" or "reverence and respect" is due. How would we even determine HOW to decide that, never mind what decision we'd come to?

When realistically, society (or at least, a secular society) really has no business deciding on what basis human life becomes sacred; that's a question for religions. The question before a secular society, as Robindch has pointed out, is at what point(s) and to what degree(s) do we a society determine human rights are conferred on (since I disagree that any right is inherent in ) a human entity.