Abortion Discussion

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

thats not true as there is ample evidence of primitive societies abandoning older practices when education is introduced. How many Europeans could be convinced to kill Albinos for good luck? but Im sure you are aware that is it possible to judge societies and for both groups to agree.

Well, to stick with your example, how many Saudis would say your values are superior to theirs? I'm aware that you're offering subjective judgement of societies compared to your own, I'm just not seeing any objective standard being forward that all societies would agree to. Which is to say, so far all you've managed to say is mine is better than theirs.

silverharp wrote: »

you have lost me, if you want to restate this point again from scratch Ill look at it again

Here you go:
Some people think it's paradoxical for a person to espouse one view, but not another which some people think they ought to espouse, based on some peoples view of that persons initial view. Others think it's nonsensical to think the two views are necessarily exclusive. Just because a person thinks one thing, and you believe that means they must therefore think another, doesn't make it true. This applies as much to those who are pro-choice as those who are pro-life.
Someone (like Kiwi in IE) might think that there is therefore a a paradox between two positions (say, on abortion & the death penalty), however that is only the case if you approach all the positions from a particular perspective (for instance that how it affects bodily integrity is the primary consideration). If you choose not to consider that a factor, the paradox does not occur.
For instance, if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, it is not unreasonable to say that an unborn person has the potential to add value to society, whereas an unredeemable murderer and rapist has demonstrated the potential to remove value from society. From that perspective, it makes senses to preserve one and dispose of the other, and no consideration of the initial perspective (the paramount consideration of bodily integrity) is required at all to hold the views without a paradox.

silverharp wrote: »

but history of the development of western culture is clear that preserving bodily integrity is an essential ingredient in an open open and free society which is why slavery is illegal or why societies do not demand that people donate spare organs or even blood for that matter even though it might be possible to "calculate" a positive utility

That may be the case (though to be honest I don't think it is; for instance the abolition of slavery probably had more to do with economics than a cultural desire to preserve the bodily integrity of slaves), but it's not to the point, the western society you're imagining obviously isn't the society I posited, which is one that approaches abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society.

silverharp wrote: »

lots of things could be unethical, it only matters when "frowned upon" become a law. take a simple issue like blood donation I mentioned above, no western society forces the general public to donate blood. People are asked to volunteer and that its the right thing to do or some such language. Only a dictatorship would see things as you do.

I think you're missing the point again; in a society which approaches abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, it could well be considered unethical not to volunteer genetic material for the advancement of society, and no dictators would be needed at all.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, to stick with your example, how many Saudis would say your values are superior to theirs? I'm aware that you're offering subjective judgement of societies compared to your own, I'm just not seeing any objective standard being forward that all societies would agree to. Which is to say, so far all you've managed to say is mine is better than theirs.
Here you go:
Some people think it's paradoxical for a person to espouse one view, but not another which some people think they ought to espouse, based on some peoples view of that persons initial view. Others think it's nonsensical to think the two views are necessarily exclusive. Just because a person thinks one thing, and you believe that means they must therefore think another, doesn't make it true. This applies as much to those who are pro-choice as those who are pro-life.
Someone (like Kiwi in IE) might think that there is therefore a a paradox between two positions (say, on abortion & the death penalty), however that is only the case if you approach all the positions from a particular perspective (for instance that how it affects bodily integrity is the primary consideration). If you choose not to consider that a factor, the paradox does not occur.
For instance, if you approach abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, it is not unreasonable to say that an unborn person has the potential to add value to society, whereas an unredeemable murderer and rapist has demonstrated the potential to remove value from society. From that perspective, it makes senses to preserve one and dispose of the other, and no consideration of the initial perspective (the paramount consideration of bodily integrity) is required at all to hold the views without a paradox.
That may be the case (though to be honest I don't think it is; for instance the abolition of slavery probably had more to do with economics than a cultural desire to preserve the bodily integrity of slaves), but it's not to the point, the western society you're imagining obviously isn't the society I posited, which is one that approaches abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society.
I think you're missing the point again; in a society which approaches abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, it could well be considered unethical not to volunteer genetic material for the advancement of society, and no dictators would be needed at all.

I'm sure that the majority of Saudis would disagree with me now for the very reason the society is oppressive and socially backward. While its possible the society could exactly be the same in a hundred or 200 years its more likely that there will be shift to values that are more compatible with the west. What will not happen is a shift in western values to be more in line with Saudi.
I'll leave your next point its giving me a headache trying to read it
The society that demanded body parts would have abandoned western values and would be operating off some other set of principles likely a dictatorship. Even any similar suggestion relating to the dead calls for opt outs at the most extreme. So we are left with the odd situation that the dead in Ireland have more rights to bodily integrity than pregnant women unless the pregnant women herself is being artificially kept from dying.

volchitsa

silverharp wrote: »

So we are left with the odd situation that the dead in Ireland have more rights to bodily integrity than pregnant women

It's worth pointing this out again. This woman's dead body effectively had more "rights" than she did when alive.

It's just another of the unwanted knock-on effects of the 8th amendment negatively affecting medical care for pregnant women in Ireland.

(I can't really say "unexpected" as it was pointed out at the time that all sorts of problems unrelated to requests for non medical abortions would necessarily arise as a result of the amendment, though of course Binchy and Casey denied that anything could possibly go wrong.)

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I'm sure that the majority of Saudis would disagree with me now for the very reason the society is oppressive and socially backward.

Or, they'd disagree with you because your society is oppressive and backward? Hmm... sounds like just another opinion again.

silverharp wrote: »

While its possible the society could exactly be the same in a hundred or 200 years its more likely that there will be shift to values that are more compatible with the west. What will not happen is a shift in western values to be more in line with Saudi.

You'll forgive me if I don't think your ability to see the future appears sufficiently believable to add any credence to your argument, I hope? I don't think even our religiously motivated Saudi friends would lay claim to prescience.

silverharp wrote: »

I'll leave your next point its giving me a headache trying to read it

That's a pity; it is the point that you actually decided to reply to, so it's odd that it's the one thing you don't want to talk about....

silverharp wrote: »

The society that demanded body parts would have abandoned western values and would be operating off some other set of principles likely a dictatorship.

Maybe, though in fairness if everyone agreed on them it wouldn't be a set of principles anything like a dictatorship, it would be a set of principles just like a democracy really.

silverharp wrote: »

Even any similar suggestion relating to the dead calls for opt outs at the most extreme. So we are left with the odd situation that the dead in Ireland have more rights to bodily integrity than pregnant women unless the pregnant women herself is being artificially kept from dying.

Interesting. How did we get left with that odd situation exactly? Pretty sure I didn't posit anything about the dead having any rights at all. My democratic society which approaches abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, and feels it is not unreasonable to say that an unborn person has the potential to add value to society, whereas an unredeemable murderer and rapist has demonstrated the potential to remove value from society, as well as feeling it is ethical and a civic duty to contribute genetic material to further the advancement of society is not likely to ever condone such a thing. In fact (well... fiction), I imagine they'd be horrified at such a thing!

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

It's worth pointing this out again. This woman's dead body effectively had more "rights" than she did when alive.

You have to wonder though... exactly what extra rights did the corpse acquire over the woman?
I mean, it couldn't vote, it couldn't own anything, it wasn't entitled to a minimum wage, or freedom of assembly, or religious liberty, or freedom to travel.
Most of the rights I can think of don't apply to a corpse, so it's hard to see what new rights a corpse acquires to have more than a living person.
Maybe we should make a list of all the rights a corpse has, and compare them to all the rights a person has? It probably wouldn't take long.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

You have to wonder though... exactly what extra rights did the corpse acquire over the woman?
I mean, it couldn't vote, it couldn't own anything, it wasn't entitled to a minimum wage, or freedom of assembly, or religious liberty, or freedom to travel.
Most of the rights I can think of don't apply to a corpse, so it's hard to see what new rights a corpse acquires to have more than a living person.
Maybe we should make a list of all the rights a corpse has, and compare them to all the rights a person has? It probably wouldn't take long.

Be a bit difficult for a corpse to avail of those rights, though, wouldn't it? So your counter examples are a bit odd, to say the least.

The only one that's relevant is the one the corpse wa found by the courts to have - the right not to be considered as primarily an incubator for the fetus within it. The living woman didn't have that right.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Or, they'd disagree with you because your society is oppressive and backward? Hmm... sounds like just another opinion again.

You'll forgive me if I don't think your ability to see the future appears sufficiently believable to add any credence to your argument, I hope? I don't think even our religiously motivated Saudi friends would lay claim to prescience.
That's a pity; it is the point that you actually decided to reply to, so it's odd that it's the one thing you don't want to talk about....
Maybe, though in fairness if everyone agreed on them it wouldn't be a set of principles anything like a dictatorship, it would be a set of principles just like a democracy really.
Interesting. How did we get left with that odd situation exactly? Pretty sure I didn't posit anything about the dead having any rights at all. My democratic society which approaches abortion and capital punishment from the perspective of potential value to society, and feels it is not unreasonable to say that an unborn person has the potential to add value to society, whereas an unredeemable murderer and rapist has demonstrated the potential to remove value from society, as well as feeling it is ethical and a civic duty to contribute genetic material to further the advancement of society is not likely to ever condone such a thing. In fact (well... fiction), I imagine they'd be horrified at such a thing!

Its possible to make predictions about the future based on history , the fact that you might not like the conclusion is not grounds for dismissing the idea. If I was to say that no one in Ireland will be tried for being a witch in the future . your thinking process doesn't allow you to have any confidence in that statement? How odd

On your value to society does it mean that its OK to abort a disabled foetus as they will be a liability to society? Or euthanise people with severe brain injury because they are not in a position to be of value to society or old people with dimentia? Your value to society idea lacks any universality about it. As for killing prisoners there is a difference between not adding value , which is not legally required of us to do and someone who risks being a repeat menace to society, so again not seeing your idea as useful or robust. I have no particular position on capital punishment but it wouldn't be based on the usefulness of the individual. If the prisoner is entitled to not be agressed against physically outside of self defence then capital punishment is off the cards.

jill_valentine

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Yep that's her name, couldn't think of it, in truth there's no point in debating people like that, their opinions are cast in stone and any evidence to the contrary just won't register.

I absolutely hate it when men come out against abortion (I'm a man myself) because we're never going to get pregnant so what right do we have to force women into having a baby if she's not ready for it. But women coming out against abortion, I have to say I'm really struggling to understand that one, is it a religious thing or what because it doesn't really make a lot of sense?

I have no idea. Puts me in mind of the recently unavoidable Paddy Manning though, who gave me the distinct impression he enjoyed the peculiar kind of elevation he got from his creepy friends for being a "good" gay. Not like those other weaklings who took the "easy" way out, oh no.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I think it goes back to the point; just because someone believes one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they believe something you think they ought to, and that just might be why they're not doing what you think they should.

So the murder etc of the "baby" is ok as long as it happens in another country then? After all you don't want to restrict travel.

You either think the fetus is equal to a born baby in every country or none, its seriously hypercritical to be against abortions in Ireland but perfectly fine with women traveling to avail of them freely.

If you think its murder then its like saying its ok to travel to murder somebody but against the law in your own country.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I think it goes back to the point; just because someone believes one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean they believe something you think they ought to, and that just might be why they're not doing what you think they should.

This business of thinking several mutually impossible things at the same time is terribly Alice in Wonderland, IMO. It's like arguing with the White Queen : logical, within its own parameters! "You can't have jam today, you have jam every other day - yesterday and tomorrow!"

(Will I get banned for that? I'm trying to be good, but it's headbanging stuff, it really is! And that needs pointing out, IMO.)

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

It's worth pointing this out again. This woman's dead body effectively had more "rights" than she did when alive.

It's just another of the unwanted knock-on effects of the 8th amendment negatively affecting medical care for pregnant women in Ireland.

This is just pure nonsense.

volchitsa wrote: »

The only one that's relevant is the one the corpse wa found by the courts to have - the right not to be considered as primarily an incubator for the fetus within it. The living woman didn't have that right.

No such right exists. The corpse was found to be unsuited to that macabre purpose after a certain length of time, that's why life support was switched off.

tipparetops

Imagine for a moment we had no abortion, populations would be out of control and governments would intervene to enforce abortions.
China and Vietnam are examples of this.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

This is just pure nonsense.

No such right exists. The corpse was found to be unsuited to that macabre purpose after a certain length of time, that's why life support was switched off.

So am I remembering wrong that part of the judgment referred to the right to a respectful burial then? (I may be - I know it was mentioned, but perhaps the decision was that no such right existed, I'm not certain.)

Edit : no, it was indeed part of the judgment: her right to be buried to be weighed against the right of the fetus to attempt to reach viability. Otherwise there'd have been no reason to stop until the fetus was actually dead (which was the fear the medical team had of being accused of killing the fetus.)

The judge added: “To maintain and continue the present somatic support for the mother would deprive her of dignity and subject her father, her partner and her young children to unimaginable distress in a futile exercise which commenced only because of fears held by treating medical specialists of potential consequences.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/26/ireland-court-rules-brain-dead-pregnant-womans-life-support-switched-off

Compare that with Savita Halappanavar, whose pain and discomfort was considered of no value at all, even though her fetus was known to be dying. It's really not very dignified to be left in pain for days while they check and recheck whether the fetus inside you has died yet. The only right she had (and even that they didn't manage to grant her in practice) was the right not to die because of her fetus.

So yes, the dead woman acquired a right to dignified treatment that she wouldn't have had while alive.

drkpower

volchitsa wrote: »

So yes, the dead woman acquired a right to dignified treatment that she wouldn't have had while alive.

That wasn't the basis of the decision at all.

The basis was that the continuance of somatic support was not in the foetus' best interests. And that was primarily on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the foetus being born alive. The maternal rights, while,mentioned' were not central to,the case at all.

volchitsa

drkpower wrote: »

That wasn't the basis of the decision at all.

The basis was that the continuance of somatic support was not in the foetus' best interests. And that was primarily on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of the foetus being born alive. The maternal rights, while,mentioned' were not central to,the case at all.

Yes, and I quoted the part about the fetus' poor prospects, but my point was that the dead woman's right to be buried with dignity was weighed against the right of the fetus not to be "killed" before it died a natural death. Savita Halappanavar's fetus also had no reasonable prospect of being born alive, and yet there was no question of her right to dignity having any weight against the right of the fetus not to be killed before it died naturally.

I'm not sure what's unclear about that. The woman was already dead, so there was no question of her having a right to life to be measured against that of the fetus. It was the recognition of a right to be buried within a reasonable time, ie with dignity, that meant that the fetus could be knowingly let die by switching off the machine. Otherwise they could have gone in a few more days or weeks until the fetus died of its own accord. As they did with Savita.

aloyisious

For info: there's a Bread and Roses Festival event hosted by ROSA in Dublin at The Generator Hostel in Smithfield Square on the 5th & 6th June covering several issues, including abortion. The photo image of Ad poster is bad.

Link address:https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fallevents.in%2Fdublin%2Forganising-meeting-for-bread-and-roses-festival%2F1849037088655617&ei=tvRoVbKzLoGV7Aat7YOYCg&usg=AFQjCNF35EHNZ-5NESaBXa2eZV4BKeXlrg&sig2=GW-G9zjfx9LWiJVa7sgocw

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Be a bit difficult for a corpse to avail of those rights, though, wouldn't it? So your counter examples are a bit odd, to say the least.

A bit difficult for a corpse to avail of any rights I should think, including the right not to be considered as primarily an incubator for the fetus within it that you said the high court gave it.

volchitsa wrote: »

The only one that's relevant is the one the corpse wa found by the courts to have - the right not to be considered as primarily an incubator for the fetus within it. The living woman didn't have that right.

Can you point out exactly where the court said she had such a right? I can't even find the word incubator in their judgement. Or even, since you seem to have changed your mind about the right conferred, the right to be buried, which doesn't appear in the judgement either.
Anyway; say that's one. How exactly does one constitute more than the half dozen rights I mentioned? I can point out a few more if you like, but I'm pretty sure that even if a living person has only two rights, it counts as more than the one you imagine a corpse has.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So the murder etc of the "baby" is ok as long as it happens in another country then? After all you don't want to restrict travel.

i suppose you could find someone who says abortion is murder and a foetus is a baby, and doesn't want to restrict travel, and ask them? For what it's worth I suspect anyone who feels they match your criteria would probably say no, but I certainly wouldn't want to tell them their opinion, I'm sure they could manage to voice it themselves.

Cabaal wrote: »

You either think the fetus is equal to a born baby in every country or none, its seriously hypercritical to be against abortions in Ireland but perfectly fine with women traveling to avail of them freely.

Why? You might not think a foetus is equal to a born baby but oppose abortion for a start, but even if you did you might still recognise that other countries are entitled to make their own laws, and it is not practicable to try and enforce all of ours in those countries.

Cabaal wrote: »

If you think its murder then its like saying its ok to travel to murder somebody but against the law in your own country.

But if you think it's unlawful destruction of human life? Then it's perfectly sensible to understand that what is unlawful in one place is not unlawful in another.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Its possible to make predictions about the future based on history , the fact that you might not like the conclusion is not grounds for dismissing the idea. If I was to say that no one in Ireland will be tried for being a witch in the future . your thinking process doesn't allow you to have any confidence in that statement? How odd

I'm pretty sure it's not that odd that I don't believe you know what will happen in the future. No one has ever proven they could do it, and you haven't even tried.

silverharp wrote: »

On your value to society does it mean that its OK to abort a disabled foetus as they will be a liability to society? Or euthanise people with severe brain injury because they are not in a position to be of value to society or old people with dimentia? Your value to society idea lacks any universality about it.

it certainly sounds like a possibility; I guess it depends on the bar I set for value really. If I said the joy a newborn gives to their parents despite their disability is sufficient to add value, then we needn't worry ourselves. As for universality, that's a doddle; I've already posited it's a democratic society, so it's as close to universality as can be.

silverharp wrote: »

As for killing prisoners there is a difference between not adding value , which is not legally required of us to do and someone who risks being a repeat menace to society, so again not seeing your idea as useful or robust. I have no particular position on capital punishment but it wouldn't be based on the usefulness of the individual. If the prisoner is entitled to not be agressed against physically outside of self defence then capital punishment is off the cards.

well, obviously legal requirements would have to be part of how the society works, like any other, and obviously in this case capital punishment would be based on usefulness (well, value) so no problem there. Obviously since capital punishment is on the cards, your notion of a prisoner being entitled to not be agressed isn't going to work out; you may want to modify it to suit the proposition.

drkpower

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, and I quoted the part about the fetus' poor prospects, but my point was that the dead woman's right to be buried with dignity was weighed against the right of the fetus not to be "killed" before it died a natural death. Savita Halappanavar's fetus also had no reasonable prospect of being born alive, and yet there was no question of her right to dignity having any weight against the right of the fetus not to be killed before it died naturally.

I'm not sure what's unclear about that. The woman was already dead, so there was no question of her having a right to life to be measured against that of the fetus. It was the recognition of a right to be buried within a reasonable time, ie with dignity, that meant that the fetus could be knowingly let die by switching off the machine. Otherwise they could have gone in a few more days or weeks until the fetus died of its own accord. As they did with Savita.

You may be mixing up a few things here.

First, in PP, you are right to say that the maternal right to die with dignity was recognised. However the court immediately went on to say that the foetal rights 'must prevail'. So,while they recognised that the right exists, it had no part to play in the actual decision to allow the foetus to die, or in the timing of it. That was solely because it was in the foetal best interests to let it die, there and then.

Re savita, there was no court case so a court never balanced the relevant rights in that case. However, the doctors were obliged themselves to conduct that balancing exercise. Whether they did, and how they did, is obviously the subject of debate. Had a court been involved, again, we can debate how they may have balanced those competing rights. That's a whole other debate, but one thing that is certain is that the maternal rights (to life, health etc etc) would have carried far more weight than the maternal right (to die with dignity) was afforded in PP.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's not that odd that I don't believe you know what will happen in the future. No one has ever proven they could do it, and you haven't even tried.
it certainly sounds like a possibility; I guess it depends on the bar I set for value really. If I said the joy a newborn gives to their parents despite their disability is sufficient to add value, then we needn't worry ourselves. As for universality, that's a doddle; I've already posited it's a democratic society, so it's as close to universality as can be.
well, obviously legal requirements would have to be part of how the society works, like any other, and obviously in this case capital punishment would be based on usefulness (well, value) so no problem there. Obviously since capital punishment is on the cards, your notion of a prisoner being entitled to not be agressed isn't going to work out; you may want to modify it to suit the proposition.

so the legal system should be based on your subjective view about value and that it might be something as fluffy as how parents react to newborns. na not buying it

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

so the legal system should be based on your subjective view about value and that it might be something as fluffy as how parents react to newborns. na not buying it

Well, I suppose since I'm only making it up it can be based on pretty much anything I like?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I suppose since I'm only making it up it can be based on pretty much anything I like?

Im sure you can but its unlikely to be defendable against criticism if they go against important values

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure you can but its unlikely to be defendable against criticism if they go against important values

Surely that depends only on what values are important to the society I'm making up; values are entirely subjective.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Surely that depends only on what values are important to the society I'm making up; values are entirely subjective.

no they are not , you might as well say that you are not in a position to say whether adding Cholera or taking it out of the water supply is a good or bad thing. Take an issue like FGM and overlay it on a map of the world, without checking I know opinions on will not be random.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

no they are not , you might as well say that you are not in a position to say whether adding Cholera or taking it out of the water supply is a good or bad thing. Take an issue like FGM and overlay it on a map of the world, without checking I know opinions on will not be random.

I said they're subjective, not random. And I'm afraid they are entirely subjective, if they were objective we would all agree entirely on what we value. This thread alone is ample evidence of how much people disagree about what we do, or should, value, both as individuals and as societies, without even touching on imaginary societies.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I said they're subjective, not random. And I'm afraid they are entirely subjective, if they were objective we would all agree entirely on what we value. This thread alone is ample evidence of how much people disagree about what we do, or should, value, both as individuals and as societies, without even touching on imaginary societies.

you said there were entirely subjective, they are not, there are certain practices etc that could never be legal or endorsed in a western country for instance, because they would break deeper values in such societies. FGM on the NHS? eh, not going to happen

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

you said there were entirely subjective, they are not, there are certain practices etc that could never be legal or endorsed in a western country for instance, because they would break deeper values in such societies. FGM on the NHS? eh, not going to happen

Yet FGm is practised and endorsed in other countries, so the objection to it is subjective. If it were objective, no one anywhere would want to do it ever.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Yet FGm is practised and endorsed in other countries, so the objection to it is subjective. If it were objective, no one anywhere would want to do it ever.

which comes back to values that in many instances are gradable either due to values based on religion of an obvious defect in knowledge of science. So we have examples like FGM or Albino Africans being killed for good luck. these are values that would be impossibe to be accepted in a modern open society and if these backward societies choose or are able to advance themselves they are more likely to dump their obscene practices.
As this is supposed to be an abortion thread , my one observation here which a few others have mentioned as well is that science advances could lead to change in ethics. If for instance a foetus could be transferred to an artificial womb at any stage then the ethics of abortion would need to be looked at again.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

which comes back to values that in many instances are gradable either due to values based on religion of an obvious defect in knowledge of science. So we have examples like FGM or Albino Africans being killed for good luck.

That sounds pretty subjective to me.

silverharp wrote: »

these are values that would be impossibe to be accepted in a modern open society and if these backward societies choose or are able to advance themselves they are more likely to dump their obscene practices.

And that is also subjective; your opinion of of what it is possible for a modern open society to accept is worth no more (objectively speaking) than the opinion of someone who says it is impossible for a society to be considered modern and open unless it practices FGm and kills albino Africans for good luck.

silverharp wrote: »

As this is supposed to be an abortion thread , my one observation here which a few others have mentioned as well is that science advances could lead to change in ethics. If for instance a foetus could be transferred to an artificial womb at any stage then the ethics of abortion would need to be looked at again.

And ethics too, are subjective. It's not a startling observation to say they have always changed as society has changed.