Abortion Discussion

lazygal

Nick, what is your solution for children and women who want to end their pregnancies because they don't want to remain pregnant? What would you say to them when they tell you they want an abortion rather than to remain pregnant?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Let's get this clear. So it's a baby if you want it, but stops being a baby and becomes a foetus if you don't want it? And, if you decide it's not a baby, then no-one else should be allowed to call it a baby?

Why does anyone else get to call what's in my uterus a baby if I don't call it a baby? Why do you care what any women refers to the content of her uterus as?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Why does anyone else get to call what's in my uterus a baby if I don't call it a baby? Why do you care what any women refers to the content of her uterus as?

I don't care what you call the unborn child in your uterus. You can call it a Martian for all I care.

What I do object to is 'pro-choice' campaigners condemning others referring to a foetus as a baby, but then doing so themselves when it suits them.

Nick, what is your solution for children and women who want to end their pregnancies because they don't want to remain pregnant? What would you say to them when they tell you they want an abortion rather than to remain pregnant?

I think every situation is different, so I can hardly pretend to have a glib answer that fits all situations.

We don't always get what we want. I didn't want to spend five years caring for a disabled daughter, but life doesn't always give us what we want. And, funnily enough, I wouldn't swap those five years for anything.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

There is an obvious distinction in that one is legal and the other isn't.

So if it became legal to kill one's born children (as in Roman times) do you think that would change people's attitudes in general?


Isn't the truth that it is illegal to kill born children because we find it horrifying, and not the other way around? Whatever the law might say?

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

So if it became legal to kill one's born children (as in Roman times) do you think that would change people's attitudes in general?

Years ago I would have said not. But I've spent some time meeting and talking with survivors of genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Human beings have a depressingly great capacity for self-justification when it comes to such things.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

Let's get this clear. So it's a baby if you want it, but stops being a baby and becomes a foetus if you don't want it? And, if you decide it's not a baby, then no-one else should be allowed to call it a baby?

No. Technically it's a fetus until it's born. Then it's a baby. Just as a teenager isn't a teenager until, well, it reaches its teens. But people still call their babies "little man" or "little woman" - it doesn't mean they literally are men or women, it's part of how we bond with babies. Assuming we actually want them. So you can call your own pregnancy "bean" if you like, some people do. It's still a fetus until it's born. Not really a baby. That's why another term is "unborn baby" - because it's not yet born. Like you're an undead cadaver. Only that's not so cute!

Shrap

Nick Park wrote: »

I do mind, actually. It makes a post appear under my name that does not reflect what I believe.

Fair enough, sorry. Yes it does, and it shouldn't.

I am informed enough to know that polls in the US and the UK consistently show that a majority of women do not favour unrestricted abortion.

And yet they have unrestricted abortion services for the most part, and where they don't they are severely impacted by socio economic problems. One would wonder how the majority would feel if their unrestricted services were taken away.

There is an obvious distinction in that one is legal and the other isn't.

Bear in mind that I wouldn't see a soldier who kills in a battle as a murderer, or an executioner who kills a condemned criminal as a murderer. But I do see such killing as immoral and warfare and capital punishment as barbaric and uncivilised. So I think my views are more consistent on this than you give me credit for

Yes, ok you are being consistent. However, while you don't see a soldier who kills as a murderer, do you see them as personally acting immorally? Or wrongly? By having the job that they do, which clearly will involve killing people if necessary to their job?

After all, it is usually through great personal need to be unbound from a pregnancy that a woman will have an abortion, and kill a foetus. Is that less wrong, or more wrong than a soldier who may have no personal investment except their career in the cause they are killing for?

I can live with you seeing any kind of killing as immoral, but I can't live with you getting to decide if I should be allowed to take that choice for myself.

Shrap

Nick Park wrote: »

Years ago I would have said not. But I've spent some time meeting and talking with survivors of genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Human beings have a depressingly great capacity for self-justification when it comes to such things.

Ah, human behaviour. Just can't civilise some things out of us very far. We could all turn feral when we're up against a wall, I take your point on that, and we're astoundingly good at cruelty to each other and can justify that to the hilt.

But I still don't see it as wrong, or immoral to get yourself out of a crisis pregnancy by killing a non-sentient human foetus who won't know what hit it and won't be missed by anybody. We do what we have to do, unpalatable as it is to you that people do this. It's a good bit different to killing a born person who's family and others will have formed relationships with him/her.

Nick Park

Shrap wrote: »

Yes, ok you are being consistent. However, while you don't see a soldier who kills as a murderer, do you see them as personally acting immorally? Or wrongly? By having the job that they do, which clearly will involve killing people if necessary to their job?

I see them as participants in an immoral act. They do, in my opinion, act wrongly - but they usually do not realise that what they are doing is morally wrong.

After all, it is usually through great personal need to be unbound from a pregnancy that a woman will have an abortion, and kill a foetus. Is that less wrong, or more wrong than a soldier who may have no personal investment except their career in the cause they are killing for?

It depends. No one-size-fits-all categories of morality.

I can live with you seeing any kind of killing as immoral, but I can't live with you getting to decide if I should be allowed to take that choice for myself.

I don't get to decide - and neither do you. We are both free to express our opinions, but eventually the State decides (either through the votes of TDs or a Referendum). And that's how it should be. We don't let hangmen decide whether they are allowed to execute people or not. Neither do we leave it to each individual soldier whether he wants to declare war and kill people from another country's army.

Shrap

Nick Park wrote: »

I see them as participants in an immoral act. They do, in my opinion, act wrongly - but they usually do not realise that what they are doing is morally wrong.

Well, I guess if they themselves don't feel it's morally wrong, and they're not informed by public opinion and law that it's morally wrong, they'll hardly be thinking that you were the one they should have asked in the first place as to what is right or wrong.

I don't get to decide - and neither do you. We are both free to express our opinions, but eventually the State decides (either through the votes of TDs or a Referendum). And that's how it should be. We don't let hangmen decide whether they are allowed to execute people or not. Neither do we leave it to each individual soldier whether he wants to declare war and kill people from another country's army.

Essentially, every vote is a decision that is counted, so if you were to vote against abortion services in this country in favour of it continuing to be a necessity shipped abroad, indeed you would be making my choice for me. As would every other individual who votes against choice. Obviously, that decision you would be making regarding my choice might or might not be carried, but you would still be making a decision on my ability to choose abortion or not.

You do get to decide. If you didn't, I wouldn't be here debating this with you.

Nick Park

Shrap wrote: »

Essentially, every vote is a decision that is counted, so if you were to vote against abortion services in this country in favour of it continuing to be a necessity shipped abroad, indeed you would be making my choice for me. As would every other individual who votes against choice. Obviously, that decision you would be making regarding my choice might or might not be carried, but you would still be making a decision on my ability to choose abortion or not.

You do get to decide. If you didn't, I wouldn't be here debating this with you.

I see. So when you said "but I can't live with you getting to decide if I should be allowed to take that choice for myself" then you are saying that you can't live with me having the right to vote?

So would you prefer it if only people who agreed with you were allowed to vote on this issue?

Shrap

Nick Park wrote: »

I see. So when you said "but I can't live with you getting to decide if I should be allowed to take that choice for myself" then you are saying that you can't live with me having the right to vote?

So would you prefer it if only people who agreed with you were allowed to vote on this issue?

Yes, of course I'd prefer it! But no, I can live with you voting on this if it ever comes to it in the sense that your opinion is as justified as mine and you're of course entitled to it, but I can't accept that your opinion to curtail my choice to have/not have an abortion in this country is right.

I just plain old disagree with you, and I'm finding it harder and harder to live in a country that won't even ask the question of people, never mind the distinct possibility that it'd still possibly be voted against by the majority. I honestly have in myself the knowledge that it is my right to decide whether or not to have a baby, and I consider it a human right to decide that. I also think I'm a thoughtful and moral person, although self-praise is no praise.

I do respect your opinion though. It's at least not the perpetual bleating of most pro-life proponents who come up here, and you are consistent. I think that on this issue, when neither side can persuade the other to see a bigger picture (in your case that I could see all killing of human life as immoral, presumably - in mine that you could possibly see the human foetus in it's early stage as rather more expendable than you do) well, at least we tried.

I'm off to bed, got an early start. For all that we might feel the other is uncivilised in outlook, it was a good discussion, thanks.

obplayer

Nick Park wrote: »

Let's get this clear. So it's a baby if you want it, but stops being a baby and becomes a foetus if you don't want it? And, if you decide it's not a baby, then no-one else should be allowed to call it a baby?

No, an early stage foetus is not a baby it is a collection of cells (no nervous system let alone a brain) which have the possibility of turning into something which itself in due course may become a baby. To equate the two as in any way comparable, let alone equal, is to ignore all science and indeed common sense. If that is the view you wish to take then so be it but you are not entitled to enforce that view on the rest of us.

Nick Park

obplayer wrote: »

but you are not entitled to enforce that view on the rest of us.

I don't know why that silly line has to be recited so often.

I have not once expressed a desire to force anything on you. I'm simply participating in a debate and, hopefully, the State will give us all a chance to participate in the democratic process on this issue.

Imagine if I kept saying to 'pro-choicers' "You can disagree with me but you're not entitled to send me to a concentration camp." I think someone would, pretty quickly, point out that no-one was advocating sending me to a concentration camp.

So how about we do what the title of the thread says and have a discussion about abortion, rather than making up stuff about anyone wanting to force their views on others?

obplayer

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't know why that silly line has to be recited so often.

I have not once expressed a desire to force anything on you. I'm simply participating in a debate and, hopefully, the State will give us all a chance to participate in the democratic process on this issue.

Imagine if I kept saying to 'pro-choicers' "You can disagree with me but you're not entitled to send me to a concentration camp." I think someone would, pretty quickly, point out that no-one was advocating sending me to a concentration camp.

So how about we do what the title of the thread says and have a discussion about abortion, rather than making up stuff about anyone wanting to force their views on others?

Very well, what evidence do you have that an early stage foetus is equivalent to a new-born baby?

Nick Park

obplayer wrote: »

Very well, what evidence do you have that an early stage foetus is equivalent to a new-born baby?

Where did I make such a claim about an early stage foetus?

I referred to the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those who would lambast pro-lifers for emotional blackmail for calling an unborn child a 'baby,' yet are happy, while advocating for the abortion of an unborn child, to refer to it as a 'baby'.

alaimacerc

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't pretend to know much about the process of IVF. It certainly sounds a very wasteful way of doing things - but I would rather garner information from somewhere other than a Tory rag like the Daily Telegraph.

I commend your attitude about the Torygraph. Personally, I try not to dismiss it as a source... it at least it's a slight journalistic step up from the Mail and the Express. OTOH, I do feel a little bit like Alan Partridge in that I then feel I need two other links, one to offset the Daily Hellograph, and one to... have an actual source. Also, they seem to be semi-paywalled these days, so I'm in any case restricted to a certain number of visits per month. How bad.

I suppose it depends on what sort of "waste" you're concerned with. In principle, it would be possible to a) harvest one ovum, b) harvest one sperm, c) attempt to combine the two in vitro, d) try to implant. That'd be the "sin-minimising" approach, as far as the "every gamete is sacred" religions are concerned. It would be more intensive of medical labour and other resources, financially costly, less successful per "cycle", more invasive and more stressful, too. Which sort of "waste" is the more important?

Sorry, I understand you would prefer me to have a hard and fast opinion on every subject - but real life is rarely like that.

I think it's not unreasonable that people ask other people, in the course of debate and discussion, that try to connect their opinions and stances on connected issues. They don't have to think the same thing about everything, but at least some sort of "why these cases are crucially distinct" reasoning would be good.

Loafing Oaf

Nick Park wrote: »

Where did I make such a claim about an early stage foetus?

You said you regarded the unborn child as a human being. What I've been trying to tease about with my questions about IVF etc. is whether you regarded it as fully-fledged one, from the moment of conception, entitled to the same protection from the state as everyone else.

alaimacerc

Shrap wrote: »

This question: Why IS a non-sentient foetus with no central nervous system more important than the chicken you may be eating for dinner? Seriously.

"Sentience" is far from clear-cut, but strictly speaking any foetus (as distinct from embryo) does have a CNS.

obplayer

Nick Park wrote: »

Where did I make such a claim about an early stage foetus?

I referred to the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those who would lambast pro-lifers for emotional blackmail for calling an unborn child a 'baby,' yet are happy, while advocating for the abortion of an unborn child, to refer to it as a 'baby'.

"An unborn child is, in my opinion, a human being. That is a view, I believe, that is shared by many, possibly most, people in this country. "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92639523&postcount=7029

So is an early stage foetus an unborn child, in your view?

alaimacerc

Nick Park wrote: »

All I said was it is unreasonable to restrict them legally from doing so on the basis of what they might be about to do.

You ever see the movie Minority Report?

Ah yes. The favourite Cruise/Spielberg move of the anti-abortion(*) lobby. If your only concerns are freedom of movement per se and of the threshold of evidence for inchoate offences, those are clearly addressable. It's not impossible to criminalise material preparation, attempt, and conspiracy in Ireland for acts to be carried out. It's not impossible to universalise jurisdiction for the purposes after-the-fact prosecution of said acts. (If you look back through this thread you'll find pages and pages of discussion of this, in large part consisting of hand-wringing to the effect of "we don't do this Because Reasons, but yeah, we could.") Or indeed, as in the cases of the TFMR people referred to earlier, potentially prosecuting them during the act concerned.

In fact, if you feel these acts are "barbarbic", then surely it is more unreasonable not to do these things than to do them, no?

(*) So long as they're in Ireland, at least.

alaimacerc

obplayer wrote: »

"An unborn child is, in my opinion, a human being. That is a view, I believe, that is shared by many, possibly most, people in this country. "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92639523&postcount=7029

So is an early stage foetus an unborn child, in your view?

Judging by the claim of moral equivalence between abortion of a 12-week foetus and the infanticide of a six-month child, one presumes no later than then. Perhaps earlier?

alaimacerc

Actually, in this post, lazygal refers to "an eight week foetus". Subsequently, NP says "whether I oppose killing unborn children or, like Lazygal, am fine with it." Any advance on eight weeks, in this particular Dutch auction?

(Gestational age of eight weeks would actually be at the upper end of the "embryonic" range, so this could also be interpreted as eight weeks developmental age, i.e. 10 weeks gestationally.)

Nick Park

obplayer wrote: »

"An unborn child is, in my opinion, a human being. That is a view, I believe, that is shared by many, possibly most, people in this country. "

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92639523&postcount=7029

So is an early stage foetus an unborn child, in your view?

That's hard to say, and I don't know that anyone can give a definite answer.

I certainly believe that, at some stage between conception and birth, a human being comes into existence. This may happen at conception itself, or at some later stage in the process. Given the behaviour of unborn children in the womb, and their ability to survive if delivered early in, say, the event of an accident, I would be confident that it is at some point prior to birth.

So, how do we construct an ethical approach when we cannot state categorically at what point personhood begins?

1. We can define personhood in the way that is most convenient for us. This approach happily underpinned slavery from Aristotle to Lincoln, where slaves were viewed as less than full persons and so could be exploited to produce the maximum economic benefit and personal comfort for others.

2. We can play it safe by assuming that since personhood may start much earlier, that we grant the protection that people should be afforded at the earliest possible point. This is the approach to ethics that encourages us not to drink at all when we are driving, rather than drinking a little and assuming that we will probably OK on the road.

Obviously if we take the first approach concerning pregnancies, then we will opt for a late stage at which to ascribe personhood, thus maximising our own comfort and convenience.

If we take the second approach then we will opt for the second approach, treat early stage foetuses as people deserving of protection, and make sacrifices of comfort and convenience in the process.

I believe the second approach is wiser and, looking at the history of how human rights have tended to be afforded to wider numbers of people as civilisation develops, less likely to result in our great-children looking back and thinking we were moral monsters. Yes, maybe we will be overly scrupulous, but on the whole we are less likely to commit atrocities.

There is of course a third approach to the ethics of abortion, and that is to say, "I don't care if if it is a person or not - it's my body and I can do what I like with it." If we go down that path then it is our own humanity, rather than that of the unborn child, that is in doubt.

I guess it's easier to have a hard and fast opinion on where personhood begins if your stance is based on religious dogma. But, since mine is based on the concept of human rights and the protection of the weak and vulnerable, a more nuanced approach is necessary.

Nick Park

alaimacerc wrote: »

Judging by the claim of moral equivalence between abortion of a 12-week foetus and the infanticide of a six-month child, one presumes no later than then. Perhaps earlier?

Actually there wasn't a claim of moral equivalence. There was an argument that the same logic applies as to why their right to live is more important than our right to choose - namely that our choices impact on others.

Actually, in this post, lazygal refers to "an eight week foetus". Subsequently, NP says "whether I oppose killing unborn children or, like Lazygal, am fine with it." Any advance on eight weeks, in this particular Dutch auction?

Actually lazygal made a straightforward assertion that "I'm fine with killing the unborn". She then went on to cite an 8-week foetus as an example, without in any way stating that by 'the unborn' she was setting a term limit of 8 weeks.

It seems as if your 'Dutch Auction' is one where you pretend to see people bidding when they aren't bidding at all. (Which reminds of a car auction I attended where the auctioneer shouted to a guy "I don't know why you're winking at that woman on the other side of the room, but you've just bought a sports car!")

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And the morning-after pill and the destruction of embryos as part of IVF? You can't get anything 'weaker' or 'more vulnerable' than those embryos surely...

MAP's mechanism of action is not currently understood to include contragestion (post-fertilisation prevention of implantation) at all. So opposition to it either rises to "we're so opposed to 'abortion' (broadly defined, as against the narrower Irish legal definition) we'll oppose anything vaguely associated with it as a possibility, regardless of the best science". Or is simply opposition to contraception (after the fact, or in general).

obplayer

Nick Park wrote: »

That's hard to say, and I don't know that anyone can give a definite answer.

I certainly believe that, at some stage between conception and birth, a human being comes into existence. This may happen at conception itself, or at some later stage in the process. Given the behaviour of unborn children in the womb, and their ability to survive if delivered early in, say, the event of an accident, I would be confident that it is at some point prior to birth.

So, how do we construct an ethical approach when we cannot state categorically at what point personhood begins?

1. We can define personhood in the way that is most convenient for us. This approach happily underpinned slavery from Aristotle to Lincoln, where slaves were viewed as less than full persons and so could be exploited to produce the maximum economic benefit and personal comfort for others.

Slaves are very clearly human beings, even the fact that they can talk and hold a discussion is a real clue. This is a nonsensical analogy.

2. We can play it safe by assuming that since personhood may start much earlier, that we grant the protection that people should be afforded at the earliest possible point. This is the approach to ethics that encourages us not to drink at all when we are driving, rather than drinking a little and assuming that we will probably OK on the road.

We can also play it safe by assuming that every sperm is a human being. We can play it safe by assuming that a collection of cells is a human being. Or we can be rational and say that as a rough dividing line for when a collection of cells becomes a human being it is around the time that a working brain develops and debate from there; not from conception.

Obviously if we take the first approach concerning pregnancies, then we will opt for a late stage at which to ascribe personhood, thus maximising our own comfort and convenience.

It is not about "maximising our own comfort and convenience", it is about thinking rationally.


If we take the second approach then we will opt for the second approach, treat early stage foetuses as people deserving of protection, and make sacrifices of comfort and convenience in the process.

I believe the second approach is wiser and, looking at the history of how human rights have tended to be afforded to wider numbers of people as civilisation develops, less likely to result in our great-children looking back and thinking we were moral monsters. Yes, maybe we will be overly scrupulous, but on the whole we are less likely to commit atrocities.

There is of course a third approach to the ethics of abortion, and that is to say, "I don't care if if it is a person or not - it's my body and I can do what I like with it." If we go down that path then it is our own humanity, rather than that of the unborn child, that is in doubt.

I guess it's easier to have a hard and fast opinion on where personhood begins if your stance is based on religious dogma. But, since mine is based on the concept of human rights and the protection of the weak and vulnerable, a more nuanced approach is necessary.

And I do have to ask, what are your religious views?

alaimacerc

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually there wasn't a claim of moral equivalence. There was an argument that the same logic applies as to why their right to live is more important than our right to choose - namely that our choices impact on others.



Actually lazygal made a straightforward assertion that "I'm fine with killing the unborn". She then went on to cite an 8-week foetus as an example, without in any way stating that by 'the unborn' she was setting a term limit of 8 weeks.

It seems as if your 'Dutch Auction' is one where you pretend to see people bidding when they aren't bidding at all. (Which reminds of a car auction I attended where the auctioneer shouted to a guy "I don't know why you're winking at that woman on the other side of the room, but you've just bought a sports car!")

After a promisingly trenchant start, it seems we're back to the realm of "plausible" deniability more familiar in these pages. Someone makes a statement, in a particular context; several people make a reasonable inference from that statement, taking that context into account; the first person, without actually clarifying their original statement in any way whatsoever, professes himself highly offended at the inference, and challenges people to "prove" they said what they were inferred as saying. It's a fun way to spend many pages! (Unfortunately, it goes on for many, many, many pages.)

We can proceed either way. You could, on the one hand, just tell us when you believe a developing embryo or foetus becomes an "unborn child" (and/or a "human being", if you're not simply regarding the two as synonymous). I'm fairly sure everyone will be happy to accept an after-the-fact clarification, regardless of earlier flights of rhetoric and their apparent implications otherwise. Or on the other, we can play the textual analysis game for as long as it transpires to take.

If you have hopes of playing bait-and-switch indefinitely and no-one calling you on it, though, I wouldn't get them too far up.

alaimacerc

Nick Park wrote: »

So, how do we construct an ethical approach when we cannot state categorically at what point personhood begins?

"Personhood" is yet a third concept, and not necessarily synonymous with either of the other two. In particular, it clearly has a ton of legal baggage, just as "human being" has more by way of biological connotations. ("Child" is essentially just upping the emotional ante, without any real step towards clarity. If anything, the reverse.)

1. We can define personhood in the way that is most convenient for us. This approach happily underpinned slavery from Aristotle to Lincoln, where slaves were viewed as less than full persons and so could be exploited to produce the maximum economic benefit and personal comfort for others.

I think we need a FAQ for some of this stuff at this stage. Just for starters, do you acknowledge that there's a distinction between "person with fewer rights" and "not a person"? (If not, you might wish to review the text of the 14th Amendment, which in abolishing same does not say, "Yeah, well. About that definition of 'person' we've been using...", but rather, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property".)

We can play it safe by assuming that since personhood may start much earlier, that we grant the protection that people should be afforded at the earliest possible point.

And "earliest possible" being what? Conception? Definite biological individuation? Heartbeat? Neural formation? Neural activity? Sentience?

alaimacerc

obplayer wrote: »

Ob, this may just be a pet peeve of mine, but can I ask that you not reply to people's messages by quoting en bloc and embedding your own comments in the quoted text? It makes it much less clear who said what, and far harder to re-quote to reply to in turn (since the bb software doesn't include "double-quoted" material).