Abortion Discussion

Pherekydes

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

When it's the baby's/ foetus'/ clump of cells biologically distinct from the woman carrying it...

So a woman who'd been raped would have no right to remove the sperm of her rapist from her body?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

what i am arguing against is

Women should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, and there is no good enough counter argument to challenge this

and putting forward a counter argument that its not just their body, at some stage you have to take into account the foetus/ baby/ clump of cells, thats all

volchitsa

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

what i am arguing against is

and putting forward a counter argument that its not just their body, at some stage you have to take into account the foetus/ baby/ clump of cells, thats all

So the question you were asked, which you haven't answered, is: at what stage is the fetus/baby/clump of cells to be considered as separate from the woman, and therefore not under her control?

Possible answers would be :
- Immediately sexual intercourse occurs (ie sperm is not actually part of the woman's body)
- at birth
- at any one of the various points in between, depending on personal opinion.

And of course an explanation of the logic behind the reply would be important too, unless of course you're talking only of your own personal opinion and not something that could be used to legislate by.

stevejazzx

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

and putting forward a counter argument that its not just their body, at some stage you have to take into account the foetus/ baby/ clump of cells, thats all

robdonn

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

what i am arguing against is

and putting forward a counter argument that its not just their body, at some stage you have to take into account the foetus/ baby/ clump of cells, thats all

Granted, but the question of when the foetus/baby/clump of cells is a separate entity is an important one because the stage of development will determine if the foetus can survive without the mother. Anything up to that point and the foetus can essentially be considered part of the mother's body and therefore her decision.

alaimacerc

robdonn wrote: »

Granted, but the question of when the foetus/baby/clump of cells is a separate entity is an important one because the stage of development will determine if the foetus can survive without the mother. Anything up to that point and the foetus can essentially be considered part of the mother's body and therefore her decision.

I think that's to present the viability consideration in more essentialist terms than it warrants. Suppose medical tech were to advance vastly, and effective viability made earlier than whatever point you currently consider it to the "essentially part of the mother". Do you then just revise when that is?

alaimacerc

Pherekydes wrote: »

So a woman who'd been raped would have no right to remove the sperm of her rapist from her body?

And indeed, if we take "clump of cells biologically distinct from the woman carrying it" literally, this would seem to be a charter for the Right to Life of cancerous tumours.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

That wouldn't accord with my observations!

How are we measuring this, exactly? Can we set a pop quiz for a median-ranking forum poster and the same for each of several religious denominations?

My prediction would be that Chabad Judaism and Mormonism will prove the class swots, and Irish Catholicism will be going home sheepishly with a note to its parents...

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

As repeatedly claimed, but also as repeatedly rejected.

I think the usual sequence -- or rather, cycle! -- of events is that by the time we've gone though "life begins...", "no silly, not 'life' 'a life'", and to the actual biology of chimeric mosaics and monozygotic twins, not so much "rejection" as "awkward silence". Followed after a sufficient fallow period (or a fresh anti-abortion poster starting it all over) starting all over from the beginning...

And, in neither case, as proved in any empirical way.

Any sense that "life begins at conception" that has been made precise and testable clearly has been disproved.

The issue here is whether we assign moral value to the human conceptus, such that destroying it is a morally problematic act.

If that's the issue, you should take that up with the slogan-chanters, not with the people unpicking the slogan.

[...] but the claim that the life of the recently-conceived entity is not "definitive" or "meaningful" invokes concepts which are not capable of empirical demonstration.

Of course it is. I add the qualifiers regarding biological individuation simply to anticipate objections if I'd left them in. Along the lines of "mostly we're individuated at conception -- good enough for government work", "I'm not going to say what I actually mean, so you'll never actually prove that what I say is incorrect per se", and so on.

Um. Religion can certainly act as a "social brake" on attitudes changing. Equally, though, it can act as an accelerant. Most historians ascribe the social and legal condemnation of child exposure to the spread of Christianity, for example. And I suspect it's a timing thing; during a time of the growth of a new religion, or the significant reform/development of an existing one, religion may tend to act as an accelerant of social change; at other times as a brake.

(I'd add that the same is likely to be true of non-religious ideologies - with Soviet Socialism, for instance, we can easily see periods of rapid change followed by periods of stifling conformity and stagnation.)

Insofar as it distinguishes itself from other mammalian politics and social phenomena (and "heaven knows", very often it does not), religion is characterised by claims of access to moral absolutes from sources not susceptible to normal contradiction or validation. Yes, in some cases, that's about a revelation that occurred last Tuesday, or via a mystical experience anyone can undergo (and here's how). Those are what are generally regarded as the "really wacky" ones. (Think spectrum of perceived oddness that starts around "Mormonism", and continues through "Scientology".) The predominant trend is where the source of the authority is some mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek 2400 years ago, and personal experience only at seventeenth hand. Those are very heavily going to trend "conservative".

And, of course, either way the social change may be one which we view positively or negatively.

Obviously. There's a case that important personal choices shouldn't be made on an impulse -- especially when tad squiffy. Or that important constitutional decisions about a polity be done on the bounce of electoral stumping. (Coughcoughdavidcameroncough.) The question is when "due deliberation" and "consideration" tips over into "obstruction" and "ossification".

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

So the question you were asked, which you haven't answered, is: at what stage is the fetus/baby/clump of cells to be considered as separate from the woman, and therefore not under her control?

Possible answers would be :
- Immediately sexual intercourse occurs (ie sperm is not actually part of the woman's body)
- at birth
- at any one of the various points in between, depending on personal opinion.

And of course an explanation of the logic behind the reply would be important too, unless of course you're talking only of your own personal opinion and not something that could be used to legislate by.

The same question might be asked of you.
And is then even less likely to elicit a reply.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

The same question might be asked of you.
And is then even less likely to elicit a reply.

Oh I can give a a reply, but I don't pretend that it's more than my own personal opinion. Which is why I wouldn't be happy to impose it on any other couple. Because if there is no single unequivocal answer to it, then it can only ever be a matter of personal opinion, which isn't a good basis for legislation.

Whereas those wanting to fit the law to their own personal opinion are under an obligation to explain why that should be the case.

obplayer

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh I can give a a reply, but I don't pretend that it's more than my own personal opinion. Which is why I wouldn't be happy to impose it on any other couple. Because if there is no single unequivocal answer to it, then it can only ever be a matter of personal opinion, which isn't a good basis for legislation.

Whereas those wanting to fit the law to their own personal opinion are under an obligation to explain why that should be the case.

Ok, I'll give my personal opinion but with the proviso that I am not certain how willing I would be to impose this on women by law. When the foetus is at a stage where it can survive without the mother's body then we should be looking at induced birth rather than a termination. With the further proviso that the woman who would rather terminate should be in no way responsible for the child; if the state wants to decree that the child be born then let the state take responsibility.

lazygal

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, I'll give my personal opinion but with the proviso that I am not certain how willing I would be to impose this on women by law. When the foetus is at a stage where it can survive without the mother's body then we should be looking at induced birth rather than a termination. With the further proviso that the woman who would rather terminate should be in no way responsible for the child; if the state wants to decree that the child be born then let the state take responsibility.

This is already the law in Ireland. Termination of pregnancy often results in a live delivery, as in the Ms Y case.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

lazygal wrote: »

This is already the law in Ireland. Termination of pregnancy often results in a live delivery,

really?

the woman who would rather terminate should be in no way responsible for the child

roughly how often would these terminations occur?

lazygal

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

really? roughly how often would these terminations occur?

Yeah both my pregnancies were terminated, one before my due date, by c section. In Ireland doctors are obliged to deliver the foetus alive if possible. Did you not know that termination of pregnancy can mean a birth occurs?

Brian Shanahan

B9K9 wrote: »

A & A discussing theological positions on a moral /social issue hmmm....

Well when the theological position is immoral, reprehensible, misogynist and murderous do you not think it is right to discuss it and show it for the empty shell that it is?

Or is your position vis a vis freedom of speech that anyone who doesn't agree with fundamentalist reigious nuts should shut up and not make waves?

Brian Shanahan

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, I'll give my personal opinion but with the proviso that I am not certain how willing I would be to impose this on women by law. When the foetus is at a stage where it can survive without the mother's body then we should be looking at induced birth rather than a termination. With the further proviso that the woman who would rather terminate should be in no way responsible for the child; if the state wants to decree that the child be born then let the state take responsibility.

I'd go a step farther than this, I'd make it the stage when the foetus can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb without suffering severe physical or mental developmental defects from being removed from the womb. No point making a baby survive when all it's got to look forward to is a short existence of constant pain, or a life in a vegetative state.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

lazygal wrote: »

Yeah both my pregnancies were terminated, one before my due date, by c section. In Ireland doctors are obliged to deliver the foetus alive if possible. Did you not know that termination of pregnancy can mean a birth occurs?

yeah, but we're talking about unwanted pregnancies, abortion, etc...

recedite

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'd go a step farther than this, I'd make it the stage when the foetus can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb without suffering severe physical or mental developmental defects from being removed from the womb. No point making a baby survive when all it's got to look forward to is a short existence of constant pain, or a life in a vegetative state.

But what is so magical about the moment it leaves the womb?
If its OK to kill it up to that point, under these specific circumstances, why not afterwards? Lets say for example, it got starved of oxygen while leaving the womb, and had no reasonable prospects of anything except "a short existence of constant pain, or a life in a vegetative state".

Kev W

recedite wrote: »

But what is so magical about the moment it leaves the womb?
If its OK to kill it up to that point, under these specific circumstances, why not afterwards? Lets say for example, it got starved of oxygen while leaving the womb, and had no reasonable prospects of anything except "a short existence of constant pain, or a life in a vegetative state".

Then by all means let's extend that period of suffering as long as possible.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

But what is so magical about the moment it leaves the womb?
If its OK to kill it up to that point, under these specific circumstances, why not afterwards? Lets say for example, it got starved of oxygen while leaving the womb, and had no reasonable prospects of anything except "a short existence of constant pain, or a life in a vegetative state".

Why the strawmanning?

recedite

Just pointing out that one arbitrary point in time is as good (or as bad) as another.

Kev W

recedite wrote: »

Just pointing out that one arbitrary point in time is as good (or as bad) as another.

Which would be an excellent point if anyone on either side of the argument were picking an arbitrary point in time.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

Just pointing out that one arbitrary point in time is as good (or as bad) as another.

But it's not an arbitrary point in time. The point in time we are discussing is where a foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb. A twelve week old foetus has no such chance, nor does an 18 week old foetus. These points are not chosen arbitrarily, they are based on our knowledge of human biology.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Just pointing out that one arbitrary point in time is as good (or as bad) as another.

Would you be unfamiliar with "bodily autonomy" as something of a crux in this discussion? Because I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned a time or 126. Apologies if you were somehow indisposed. Every single time.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Would you be unfamiliar with "bodily autonomy" as something of a crux in this discussion? Because I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned a time or 126. Apologies if you were somehow indisposed. Every single time.

In fairness, hardly a crux; bodily autonomy of the mother has been a feature of the pro choice argument throughout, however, bodily autonomy of the nascent child as such has not been really presented as a reasonable point for which pro choice posters wished for human rights to be afforded. As far as I recall, the argument put forward turned more on the fact that at birth a child is no longer dependent solely on its mother, but rather dependent on any competent caregiver. Which is far from autonomous.

recedite

obplayer wrote: »

But it's not an arbitrary point in time. The point in time we are discussing is where a foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb. A twelve week old foetus has no such chance, nor does an 18 week old foetus. These points are not chosen arbitrarily, they are based on our knowledge of human biology.

That's both arbitrary and variable.
Variable because that point depends on the level of current medical technology.
Arbitrary because you have given no particular reason for assigning more human rights to this human entity just because it is outside the womb, as opposed to inside.
As a premature baby, outside the womb, and inside an incubator, it is still fully dependent on others for the maintenance of life. As absolam points out the only difference then is that its dependency can shift away from a dependency on one particular person, which is an arbitrary point in terms of whether or not to consider its life worthless.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

That's both arbitrary

Untrue. See above.

and variable.

And unimportant!

There, that was easy, wasn't it?

recedite

Bodily autonomy of the mother is an important right, which may conflict with the right to bodily autonomy of the unborn.
But you have given no reason why the right to bodily autonomy of a human only starts at the magical moment it is removed from the womb.
Its an arbitrary choice then, except that it does suit a particular agenda.
It gives the illusion of removing the conflict between the two sets of competing rights, and thereby makes everything seem simple.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

That's both arbitrary and variable.
Variable because that point depends on the level of current medical technology.
Arbitrary because you have given no particular reason for assigning more human rights to this human entity just because it is outside the womb, as opposed to inside.
As a premature baby, outside the womb, and inside an incubator, it is still fully dependent on others for the maintenance of life. As absolam points out the only difference then is that its dependency can shift away from a dependency on one particular person, which is an arbitrary point in terms of whether or not to consider its life worthless.

A 3 day old foetus has 150 cells (a fly's brain contains 100,000). Is a 3 day old foetus deserving of the same rights as a new born baby? Is a foetus which has not yet developed a nervous system? These are not arbitrary points, they are determined by biology and science. In theory any human cell can, with modern technology, be turned into a new born baby so every time you scratch your ar*e you are committing genocide.