Abortion Discussion

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Thousands of women choose this option every year. If Cora thinks it is not an option, she is denying reality.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Just one I don't think everyone shares.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But actually, I think you just misspoke: Cora thinks nothing of the sort, and you are just tying yourself in knots rather than admit it.

Well, I haven't asked her, so I wouldn't speak so certainly on her behalf. But it doesn't take any knots to say so.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I love this post, you are getting ever more twisted up in those twisty knots you have got yourself entangled in!

I did try to make it easier for you to follow....

volchitsa wrote: »

Just to reply to one bit for instance, the bolded part : whereas multiple speculations by you about her opinions are not fruitless? :cool:

And I guess if that's the one bit you felt able to reply to, I think I managed

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Just one I don't think everyone shares.

If thousands of people are choosing an option, and you say Cora thinks it is not an option, you are simply wrong.

Unless she is completely mad.

And it seems a bit uncharitable to suppose she is mad just to avoid saying that you wrote something silly.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If thousands of people are choosing an option, and you say Cora thinks it is not an option, you are simply wrong.

Well, no. If Ms Sherlock thinks it is an option, then I'm wrong.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Unless she is completely mad. And it seems a bit uncharitable to suppose she is mad just to avoid saying that you wrote something silly.

In fairness, I'm not the one drawing the conclusion she is mad; you are.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I did try to make it easier for you to follow....
And I guess if that's the one bit you felt able to reply to, I think I managed

Well if you think you have made some sort of point, I'm delighted for you. I suspect it is completely incomprehensible to everyone else though!

You think she thinks something, but it would be fruitless to speculate on what someone else might think of what you think about what she thinks!

Yeah, good one that!

(And it would be easy, if time consuming, to reply in much the same way to the rest of your crazy nonsense - but I prefer to protect my will to live!)

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Well if you think you have made some sort of point, I'm delighted for you. I suspect it is completely incomprehensible to everyone else though!

I'm sure everyone can ask if they want...

volchitsa wrote: »

You think she thinks something, but it would be fruitless to speculate on what someone else might think of what you think about what she thinks! Yeah, good one that!

Or they can go with how you comprehend it...

volchitsa wrote: »

(And it would be easy, if time consuming, to reply in much the same way to the rest of your crazy nonsense - but I prefer to protect my will to live!)

And I've no doubt you could continue to reply in much the same way if you wanted... and it's your will to live that prevents you.

Nodin

"The Health Service Executive has "paused" its inquiry into the treatment of Ms Y after a medical report found she was not well enough to participate."

"The development is another setback for the HSE, which has been criticised over its handling of the Ms Y case, which is now the subject of two reviews. As well as the review of her care, a second review is under way into the "reasonableness or otherwise" of the "legal approach" taken by the health authority."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/ms-y-too-fragile-to-help-inquiry-into-her-treatment-30710561.html

Not the best situation in the world, but if shes not up to it, shes not up to it.

Frito

Not sure if many consider this relevant to abortion discussion but I thought I'd post this as it's relevant to my opinion on the autonomy of pregnant women (which informs my position on abortion) - I'm still considering the effect on my position.
Essentially a seven year old girl in the UK is suing her birth mother for injuries she sustained in utero (foetal alcohol syndrome). The court will make a decision later this month.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29614413

I think the point of the suit is to allow the girl to petition the state for compensation for her injuries (as a victim of crime I assume) rather than send the birth mother to prison.

---

edit

---

The case is with the Court of Appeal, I vaguely remember this case making the news a while ago.
Some articles state the girl is six.
According to The Independent, the UK govt ceased granting compensation to children with FAS in Nov 2012.

Absolam

Frito wrote: »

Not sure if many consider this relevant to abortion discussion but I thought I'd post this as it's relevant to my opinion on the autonomy of pregnant women (which informs my position on abortion) - I'm still considering the effect on my position. Essentially a seven year old girl in the UK is suing her birth mother for injuries she sustained in utero (foetal alcohol syndrome). The court will make a decision later this month. I think the point of the suit is to allow the girl to petition the state for compensation for her injuries (as a victim of crime I assume) rather than send the birth mother to prison.

That'll be an tricky judgement; it seems to me that to acknowledge the plaintiff as a victim of crime would be to acknowledge that they are as a foetus a legal person, or at least to some degree a legal person to whom a duty of care is owed. So as not to interfere with current legislation, which is not compatible with a foetus being owed a duty of care prior to 24 weeks, it would need to be shown that the damage was done post 24 weeks. Or is there another way of looking at it?

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

That'll be an tricky judgement; it seems to me that to acknowledge the plaintiff as a victim of crime would be to acknowledge that they are as a foetus a legal person, or at least to some degree a legal person to whom a duty of care is owed. So as not to interfere with current legislation, which is not compatible with a foetus being owed a duty of care prior to 24 weeks, it would need to be shown that the damage was done post 24 weeks. Or is there another way of looking at it?

Yes there is. Simply, if you are intending to give this collection of cells in your body the chance to become a person then you owe a degree of care to the person they might become. This does not preclude the right of a woman to say that this non-sentient blob of cells should be expelled from her body.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Yes there is. Simply, if you are intending to give this collection of cells in your body the chance to become a person then you owe a degree of care to the person they might become. This does not preclude the right of a woman to say that this non-sentient blob of cells should be expelled from her body.

Blobs and sentience aside though, would it really be reasonable to have a Court determine a duty of care based on an original intention asserted after the fact ?

For instance, in the given case, would the mother declaring she never intended at the time she was drinking to proceed with the pregnancy absolve her of the duty of care she would have had if she had intended to proceed with the pregnancy?

Frito

Absolam wrote: »

That'll be an tricky judgement; it seems to me that to acknowledge the plaintiff as a victim of crime would be to acknowledge that they are as a foetus a legal person, or at least to some degree a legal person to whom a duty of care is owed. So as not to interfere with current legislation, which is not compatible with a foetus being owed a duty of care prior to 24 weeks, it would need to be shown that the damage was done post 24 weeks. Or is there another way of looking at it?

I agree, and my (lay) understanding is that the damage starts early and is ongoing. If affected children or adults could sue for damage caused in the first trimester, or if action could be taken by a third party on behalf of an at-risk foetus in the first trimester then theoretically there could be implications for abortion.
I don't foresee it will get that far, it's more of a thought exercise for me.

Absolam

Frito wrote: »

If affected children or adults could sue for damage caused in the first trimester, or if action could be taken by a third party on behalf of an at-risk foetus in the first trimester then theoretically there could be implications for abortion.I don't foresee it will get that far, it's more of a thought exercise for me.

It is interesting; since there's no constitutional imperative in the UK, the existing situation is based on the fact that abortion is legal where it obviates a threat to the health of the mother, and continuing any pregnancy past the first trimester poses a greater threat to the mothers health than terminating it, allowing de facto abortion at will.
A legal requirement to consider the health of the foetus as well could potentially alter the landscape significantly, which makes me think it's unlikely there will be any straightforward finding of a duty of care.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Blobs and sentience aside though, would it really be reasonable to have a Court determine a duty of care based on an original intention asserted after the fact ?

For instance, in the given case, would the mother declaring she never intended at the time she was drinking to proceed with the pregnancy absolve her of the duty of care she would have had if she had intended to proceed with the pregnancy?

First of all I should make clear that my thoughts on this are based around abortion being available to the woman. That said, if she brings a foetus to term and introduces a new life to the world when she had the option of abortion but did not use it, then she is responsible for any gross misbehaviour on her part which affects that new being's subsequent life. Perhaps something along the lines of the American crime of reckless endargement would cover it. Other than that I cannot see how a woman's behaviour once she is pregnant should have any bearing on her right to an abortion. If anything heavy drinking habits should make an abortion more sensible.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

First of all I should make clear that my thoughts on this are based around abortion being available to the woman. That said, if she brings a foetus to term and introduces a new life to the world when she had the option of abortion but did not use it, then she is responsible for any gross misbehaviour on her part which affects that new being's subsequent life. Perhaps something along the lines of the American crime of reckless endargement would cover it. Other than that I cannot see how a woman's behaviour once she is pregnant should have any bearing on her right to an abortion. If anything heavy drinking habits should make an abortion more sensible.

I think the point is that abortion is available to women in the UK, but due to the nature of the legislation that permits it, the circumstances under which abortion is available in the UK could change as a result of a ruling in this case.
If a duty of care during the first trimester is established, how can it not have a bearing on a womans right to an abortion? And if a duty of care is found not to exist in the first trimester, how is the damage done during that period excluded from the reckless endangerment of the balance?

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

I think the point is that abortion is available to women in the UK, but due to the nature of the legislation that permits it, the circumstances under which abortion is available in the UK could change as a result of a ruling in this case.
If a duty of care during the first trimester is established, how can it not have a bearing on a womans right to an abortion? And if a duty of care is found not to exist in the first trimester, how is the damage done during that period excluded from the reckless endangerment of the balance?

The duty of care only exists if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term. If she does not want this collection of cells to progress further then she has a perfect right to an abortion. Again, if she chooses or allows the collection of cells to become a human being then, and only then, does she owe it a duty of care.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

The duty of care only exists if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term. If she does not want this collection of cells to progress further then she has a perfect right to an abortion. Again, if she chooses or allows the collection of cells to become a human being then, and only then, does she owe it a duty of care.

I'm guessing you mean the duty of care should only exist, since a determination hasn't taken place yet. But that comes back to the idea of intent I was asking you about; how is it reasonable to have a Court determine a duty of care based on an original intent which is not asserted until after the fact?
For instance, in the given case, would the mother declaring she never intended at the time she was drinking to proceed with the pregnancy absolve her of the duty of care she would have had if she had intended to proceed with the pregnancy?

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

I'm guessing you mean the duty of care should only exist, since a determination hasn't taken place yet. But that comes back to the idea of intent I was asking you about; how is it reasonable to have a Court determine a duty of care based on an original intent which is not asserted until after the fact?
For instance, in the given case, would the mother declaring she never intended at the time she was drinking to proceed with the pregnancy absolve her of the duty of care she would have had if she had intended to proceed with the pregnancy?

Read my posts please. "if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term". What I am saying is if she does not make use of her right to abortion then she can be held to account for the consequences, if only for being reckless. This does not in any way impact on her right to abortion. I don't see any way I can make it clearer.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Read my posts please. "if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term". What I am saying is if she does not make use of her right to abortion then she can be held to account for the consequences, if only for being reckless. This does not in any way impact on her right to abortion. I don't see any way I can make it clearer.

Well, the point is there's a difference between intending and allowing, and that's what I was asking about.
If a woman allows a foetus to come to term, and when prosecuted for failing in her duty of care to that foetus claims that she didn't intend to allow it to come to term, are you suggesting that her claimed intent ought to be accepted as exculpatory? Or is the fact that the foetus was allowed to come to term sufficient to demonstrate that there was no intent not to allow it to come to term, and a duty of care existed?
If it is established that a duty of care can exist, does a duty of care exist in the first trimester? If it does, then that seems likely to impact a womans right to abort. If not, it seems likely to impact a decision on liability for what occurs in the last two trimesters.
What if a woman drank heavily during the first trimester, intending all along to have an abortion (on the basis that continuing the pregnancy would be injurious to her health), failed to have the abortion, so didn't drink at all during the second two trimesters, and the child was born with FASD. She could not be said to have failed in a duty of care during the second two trimesters, yet there could be no doubt that she was the cause of the childs disorder.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the point is there's a difference between intending and allowing, and that's what I was asking about.
If a woman allows a foetus to come to term, and when prosecuted for failing in her duty of care to that foetus claims that she didn't intend to allow it to come to term, are you suggesting that her claimed intent ought to be accepted as exculpatory? Or is the fact that the foetus was allowed to come to term sufficient to demonstrate that there was no intent not to allow it to come to term, and a duty of care existed?
If it is established that a duty of care can exist, does a duty of care exist in the first trimester? If it does, then that seems likely to impact a womans right to abort. If not, it seems likely to impact a decision on liability for what occurs in the last two trimesters.
What if a woman drank heavily during the first trimester, intending all along to have an abortion (on the basis that continuing the pregnancy would be injurious to her health), failed to have the abortion, so didn't drink at all during the second two trimesters, and the child was born with FASD. She could not be said to have failed in a duty of care during the second two trimesters, yet there could be no doubt that she was the cause of the childs disorder.

If you have not grasped what I have been saying then I cannot help you any more. I have explained several times in several ways. My final explanation is that the woman in your example was reckless for what she did in the first trimester but still entitled to an abortion. One last time, and I do mean the last time: there is no duty of care to a zygote / foetus. None. None at all. If you hope / intend / or just allow it to be given the chance to become a human being then there is a duty of care to that potential human being.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

My final explanation is that the woman in your example was reckless for what she did in the first trimester but still entitled to an abortion.

I never questioned whether she was entitled to an abortion, what I was talking about was if it were established that she had a duty of care to the foetus, depending on how that duty of care might be expressed, how that could impact her entitlement to an abortion.

obplayer wrote: »

One last time, and I do mean the last time: there is no duty of care to a zygote / foetus. None. None at all. If you hope / intend / or just allow it to be given the chance to become a human being then there is a duty of care to that potential human being.

Yes. I think you're really missing the point, which is that this case could establish a duty of care to a foetus.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the point is there's a difference between intending and allowing, and that's what I was asking about.
If a woman allows a foetus to come to term, and when prosecuted for failing in her duty of care to that foetus claims that she didn't intend to allow it to come to term, are you suggesting that her claimed intent ought to be accepted as exculpatory?

But surely this, like many other questions of intent that are resolved every single day in courts of law, is merely an evidential matter...? The court could look at the evidence present to see if there was any indication that the woman did not intend to continue with the pregnancy.

Even if we ignore the evidential side of it, UK law has a handy little thing called oblique intention. That covers situation where the person did not specifically intend a particular consequence, but that consequence was a virtual certainty in light of the person's actions, to lack of them. Applied to this case, the woman did not intend to to continue the pregnancy but she took not actions to end the pregnancy. By not taking any actions to end the pregnancy (though perhaps it might be argued that the excessive drinking was an act to end the pregnancy, but she would likely have to adduce some evidence to support that)the pregnancy was virtually certain to continue, therefore she intended the pregnancy to continue.

Absolam wrote: »

Or is the fact that the foetus was allowed to come to term sufficient to demonstrate that there was no intent not to allow it to come to term, and a duty of care existed?

As I explained above, it could be if the court used oblique intention. This could be rebutted by producing evidence to show that attempts were made to terminate the pregnancy, but these attempts were unsuccessful through no fault of the mother.

Absolam wrote: »

If it is established that a duty of care can exist, does a duty of care exist in the first trimester? If it does, then that seems likely to impact a womans right to abort. If not, it seems likely to impact a decision on liability for what occurs in the last two trimesters.

This is tricky. If it can be shown that the intention was to continue with the pregnancy, whether that is direct or oblique intention, then it is possible that a duty of care could be held to exist in the first trimester, but I am not sure this would, necessarily effect a woman's right to an abortion. The duty of care in the first trimester would only exist, if it existed at all, because of the intention to continue with the pregnancy. If there was no intention to continue with the pregnancy then there would be no first trimester duty of care.

Absolam wrote: »

What if a woman drank heavily during the first trimester, intending all along to have an abortion (on the basis that continuing the pregnancy would be injurious to her health), failed to have the abortion, so didn't drink at all during the second two trimesters, and the child was born with FASD. She could not be said to have failed in a duty of care during the second two trimesters, yet there could be no doubt that she was the cause of the childs disorder.

The law has difficulties with outlying cases, of which I think this is one. In theory, I think this would be an evidential matter. A tricky one all right.

MrP

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

I never questioned whether she was entitled to an abortion, what I was talking about was if it were established that she had a duty of care to the foetus, depending on how that duty of care might be expressed, how that could impact her entitlement to an abortion.

Yes. I think you're really missing the point, which is that this case could establish a duty of care to a foetus.

You hope of course. I fully understand that you are looking for anything you can use to bolster your belief that all abortion is wrong and that your view should be backed up by law, that is why I have worded my posts the way I have. If you like you could place 'in a sane world' in front of posts I have made such as

The duty of care only exists if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term. If she does not want this collection of cells to progress further then she has a perfect right to an abortion. Again, if she chooses or allows the collection of cells to become a human being then, and only
then, does she owe it a duty of care.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

You hope of course.

Well, no not really. I don't live in the UK; it's up to the people that live there to decide what rules they want.

obplayer wrote: »

I fully understand that you are looking for anything you can use to bolster your belief that all abortion is wrong and that your view should be backed up by law, that is why I have worded my posts the way I have. If you like you could place 'in a sane world' in front of posts I have made such as

That's not a belief I've ever expressed; in fact I have quite specifically pointed out where I think abortion is right. Interesting that you appear to think a sane world is one where everyone conforms to your notions though.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Well, no not really. I don't live in the UK; it's up to the people that live there to decide what rules they want.

That's not a belief I've ever expressed; in fact I have quite specifically pointed out where I think abortion is right. Interesting that you appear to think a sane world is one where everyone conforms to your notions though.

Ok, let me ask a question. Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand? You should understand that I am asking for a yes or no answer to a simple question in order to try and pin down your views. For information purposes my answer to "Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?" is yes. What is yours please?

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, let me ask a question. Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand? You should understand that I am asking for a yes or no answer to a simple question in order to try and pin down your views. For information purposes my answer to "Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?" is yes. What is yours please?

Sure. Can I ask a question first?
In what way is my opinion on the conditions of availability of abortion in the first trimester (under any or all legislative regimes?) relevant to a discussion of the merits and potential consequences of the current suit in the UK?
It's just that, if you're engaging in a discussion of that subject purely to proselytise your opinions on the general desirability of abortion on demand, it would be nice to know upfront that you're not interested in discussing the actual subject.
You should understand, I think your simple yes or no question to try and pin down my views rather than reading the more expansive posts I've made on the subject in the past, appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the point in hand to your own agenda. Which is fine as far as it goes, I'm just wondering if that's the case.

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Sure. Can I ask a question first?
In what way is my opinion on the conditions of availability of abortion in the first trimester (under any or all legislative regimes?) relevant to a discussion of the merits and potential consequences of the current suit in the UK?
It's just that, if you're engaging in a discussion of that subject purely to proselytise your opinions on the general desirability of abortion on demand, it would be nice to know upfront that you're not interested in discussing the actual subject.
You should understand, I think your simple yes or no question to try and pin down my views rather than reading the more expansive posts I've made on the subject in the past, appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the point in hand to your own agenda. Which is fine as far as it goes, I'm just wondering if that's the case.

This thread is called 'Abortion Discussion'. How have I diverted the discussion from that? On the basis of the original thread please answer "Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?" If you are not willing to answer such a simple question, directly and obviously relevant to the thread, then how can anyone debate with you? Answer the question please.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

This thread is called 'Abortion Discussion'. How have I diverted the discussion from that? On the basis of the original thread please answer "Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?" If you are not willing to answer such a simple question, directly and obviously relevant to the thread, then how can anyone debate with you? Answer the question please.

Ah, I think you mistook what I was saying. I was saying that you seem to be diverting from the subject introduced by Frito,
and I think your simple yes or no question to try and pin down my views rather than reading the more expansive posts I've made on the subject in the past, appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the point in hand to your own agenda. Which, as I said, is fine as far as it goes, I was just wondering if that was the case.
If you are desiring to abandon Fritos topic and return to the more general Abortion Discussion, then I wholeheartedly recommend you read my posts in the thread. If nothing else, it will help you to not make the mistake of telling me I believe something I don't, and will bring the added benefit of some insight into the answers to the questions you're asking.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Ah, I think you mistook what I was saying. I was saying that you seem to be diverting from the subject introduced by Frito,
and I think your simple yes or no question to try and pin down my views rather than reading the more expansive posts I've made on the subject in the past, appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the point in hand to your own agenda. Which, as I said, is fine as far as it goes, I was just wondering if that was the case.
If you are desiring to abandon Fritos topic and return to the more general Abortion Discussion, then I wholeheartedly recommend you read my posts in the thread. If nothing else, it will help you to not make the mistake of telling me I believe something I don't, and will bring the added benefit of some insight into the answers to the questions you're asking.

Of course another way of achieving the same thing would be to answer yes or not.

You do seem oddly reluctant to do so.

And no, it's not true that that would be abandoning Frito's sub-topic. All of us are arguing here from our own point of view, which of course doesn't exclude simply not being sure about certain aspects. It certainly can be very relevant to know where a particular poster is situated on the spectrum, when considering his/her posts. Not all the time, but on such a polarized issue, I'd say it usually is.

And secondly, independently of that, the fact that someone feels unable to state their views honestly is, itself, relevant to how honest they are being, or rather, not about their own views. For example, a refusal to give a simple yes/no may be so as to allow the poster to say something completely contradictory in the future to the views he is putting forward now.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course another way of achieving the same thing would be to answer yes or not. You do seem oddly reluctant to do so.

Of course it would, but I suspect I'll be more entertained by the pigeon hole my odd reluctance supposedly places me in.

volchitsa wrote: »

And no, it's not true that that would be abandoning Frito's sub-topic.

Ah, so you can tell us what obplayer thinks the relevance is then?

volchitsa wrote: »

All of us are arguing here from our own point of view, which of course doesn't exclude simply not being sure about certain aspects. It certainly can be very relevant to know where a particular poster is situated on the spectrum, when considering his/her posts. Not all the time, but on such a polarized issue, I'd say it usually is.

That sounds like a plea for pigeon holing, but I suppose there's no harm in asking.

volchitsa wrote: »

And secondly, independently of that, the fact that someone feels unable to state their views honestly is, itself, relevant to how honest they are being, or rather, not about their own views.

But if they don't feel unable to state their views honestly, we needn't worry? That's grand so.

volchitsa wrote: »

For example, a refusal to give a simple yes/no may be so as to allow the poster to say something completely contradictory in the future to the views he is putting forward now.

That indeed may be the case. Which obviously also means it may not be the case, so it doesn't actually get us anywhere, but I suppose participating is important