Abortion Discussion

gaynorvader

TheChizler wrote: »

What if a foetus could be saved before 22 weeks?

If it could be done without harm to the woman then sure.

TheChizler

gaynorvader wrote: »

If it could be done without harm to the woman then sure.

Then by extension, before 10 weeks?

MrPudding

TheChizler wrote: »

Then by extension, before 10 weeks?

Why have pregnant women at all?

MrP

Cabaal

TheChizler wrote: »

Then by extension, before 10 weeks?

If it can be done before 10 weeks then in reality you won't need a women anymore as medical science would be good enough to grow a fetus fully outside of the womb.

Of course the Catholic Church wouldn't like that, just like it doesn't agree with IVF, so they'd be opposition to such advances in science by them.

So likelihood of that happening soon is slim due to things like this,

doctoremma

gaynorvader wrote: »

I was saying that viability will shift as scientific methods improve. Pinpointing exactly what constitutes a human life is still open to discussion. Does a foetus with a 10% chance of living outside the womb count? What about 50%? or 90%? Where should the cut off point be?

I don't think viability should 'count' for anything, whether that figure is estimated at 10% or 90%.

gaynorvader

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't think viability should 'count' for anything, whether that figure is estimated at 10% or 90%.

So a foetus has to be born to be worth saving?

gaynorvader

TheChizler wrote: »

Then by extension, before 10 weeks?

Yup, but let's not go down that route as the technology that would be needed for that would presumably be backed by a lot of other technological and sociological changes that would need to be accounted for.

TheChizler

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yup, but let's not go down that route as the technology that would be needed for that would presumably be backed by a lot of other technological and sociological changes that would need to be accounted for.

Well it is the logical conclusion of your argument.

doctoremma

gaynorvader wrote: »

So a foetus has to be born to be worth saving?

The paper I linked to earlier gave explicit reasons as to why 'viability' may legitimately be used to guide clinical practice - the need to balance potentially painful and likely costly medical intervention with a satisfactory outcome.

That has got nothing to do with the debate about how viability might inform abortion policy. You want to argue that we are duty-bound to protect the right to life of a fetus where possible, and that such measures take precedent over the subsequent and insanely complex rights of the woman involved. My argument has thus far been that you need to provide a better rationale for why we are duty-bound to protect the right to life of a fetus when it has passed an arbitrary and subjective developmental milestone.

It seems far safer to me to argue for a threshold based on the intrinsic value of a fetus. Perhaps at conception? Or when a heart beat starts? Perhaps when it achieves consciousness? Or when it achieves movement? These are solid bases for arguing for a significant change in moral status (although I am not saying we would all accept the application of moral status at any specific point - each will have their own opinion).

It seems somewhat puzzling to me that nobody can provide a solid argument for why the value of a fetus increases at 'viability', when that event is dependent only on factors external to the fetus. That's kind of dehumanising, don't you think? (And I note the irony of that charge being more commonly levelled at pro-choicers).

gaynorvader

doctoremma wrote: »

The paper I linked to earlier gave explicit reasons as to why 'viability' may legitimately be used to guide clinical practice - the need to balance potentially painful and likely costly medical intervention with a satisfactory outcome.

That has got nothing to do with the debate about how viability might inform abortion policy. You want to argue that we are duty-bound to protect the right to life of a fetus where possible, and that such measures take precedent over the subsequent and insanely complex rights of the woman involved. My argument has thus far been that you need to provide a better rationale for why we are duty-bound to protect the right to life of a fetus when it has passed an arbitrary and subjective developmental milestone.

It seems far safer to me to argue for a threshold based on the intrinsic value of a fetus. Perhaps at conception? Or when a heart beat starts? Perhaps when it achieves consciousness? Or when it achieves movement? These are solid bases for arguing for a significant change in moral status (although I am not saying we would all accept the application of moral status at any specific point - each will have their own opinion).

It seems somewhat puzzling to me that nobody can provide a solid argument for why the value of a fetus increases at 'viability', when that event is dependent only on factors external to the fetus. That's kind of dehumanising, don't you think? (And I note the irony of that charge being more commonly levelled at pro-choicers).

We're entering a grey area here that I honestly haven't fully thought through yet. I don't want to reduce a woman's rights to her own body, however if the foetus can be removed without harm to the woman, I think it should be. The woman should not be held responsible for it after this, unless she wishes it.
It's not that the foetus' value increases at 'viability', it's that prior to this it has no chance of existing independent of the woman who doesn't want it growing inside her, so it might as well be removed in the cheapest way possible (while still being safe for the woman). However after 'viability', it is possible for the foetus to become human without infringing on the woman's right to dictate what happens with her own body.
I don't think it's dehumanising to be dependent on external factors for survival (if that's what you are saying) as we all do.

Sarky

Cabaal wrote: »

If it can be done before 10 weeks then in reality you won't need a women anymore as medical science would be good enough to grow a fetus fully outside of the womb.

Of course the Catholic Church wouldn't like that, just like it doesn't agree with IVF, so they'd be opposition to such advances in science by them.

So likelihood of that happening soon is slim due to things like this,

I could think of a couple of reasons to keep women around, all the same.

kylith

But even if a foetus could be removed early in pregnancy and brought to term in an incubator, what then? Who is going to pay for the incubators for all these foetuses for 7/8 months? Not their mother, she's abdicated responsibility. The state? For, taking Irish numbers, ~5,000 foetuses a year? The cost would be astronomical, not to mention what happens when the foetus reaches full term? Who looks after it then? There are children sitting in orphanages all over the planet, and there are simply not enough families to adopt them all so why would we as a society want to replace abortion, which is relatively cheap, with incubation, which wouldn't be cheap, followed by orphanages, which also are not cheap, until they're 18? And what would the effects be on the children themselves? Raised in institutions from birth; what kind of lives would they have? Remember how these boys homes and girls homes operated in the past?

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

But even if a foetus could be removed early in pregnancy and brought to term in an incubator, what then? Who is going to pay for the incubators for all these foetuses for 7/8 months? Not their mother, she's abdicated responsibility. The state? For, taking Irish numbers, ~5,000 foetuses a year? The cost would be astronomical, not to mention what happens when the foetus reaches full term? Who looks after it then? There are children sitting in orphanages all over the planet, and there are simply not enough families to adopt them all so why would we as a society want to replace abortion, which is relatively cheap, with incubation, which wouldn't be cheap, followed by orphanages, which also are not cheap, until they're 18? And what would the effects be on the children themselves? Raised in institutions from birth; what kind of lives would they have? Remember how these boys homes and girls homes operated in the past?

It is just an extension of life, irrespective of quality, at any cost.

MrP

lazygal

MrPudding wrote: »

It is just an extension of life, irrespective of quality, at any cost.

MrP

The real pro life message.

doctoremma

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't want to reduce a woman's rights to her own body, however if the foetus can be removed without harm to the woman, I think it should be.

Why? This is an is-ought problem? Just because we can, we should?

gaynorvader wrote: »

The woman should not be held responsible for it after this, unless she wishes it.

The list of issues that will arise from any procedure is long, and many have been outlined in other posts. I don't know that this accumulated list should necessarily be trumped by the right to life of the fetus. That would be very difficult to weigh up.

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's not that the foetus' value increases at 'viability'

So why do most abortion limits go to "viability" but not beyond? Indeed, Roe .v. Wade is explicit in its use of "viability" as the maximum limit for abortion.

gaynorvader wrote: »

it's that prior to this it has no chance of existing independent of the woman who doesn't want it growing inside her, so it might as well be removed in the cheapest way possible (while still being safe for the woman). However after 'viability', it is possible for the foetus to become human without infringing on the woman's right to dictate what happens with her own body.

But when is "viability" attained? What is "viability"? At 23 weeks 6 days, I would be forced (assuming no other health difficulties) into an extraction procedure in the UK, but could reasonably argue for a destruction procedure in Jordan.

It won't be a novel scenario to see lots of women scrabbling for passports...

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't think it's dehumanising to be dependent on external factors for survival (if that's what you are saying) as we all do.

I used "dehumanising" to indicate that the value or fate of the fetus is not intrinsic, but reduced to how close the mother is to excellent clinical facilities.

Viability (of a fetus, of a patient with a brain injury, and so on) is an arbitrary measurement, and one that is only applicable to, and indeed very useful to, clinical decision-making. This arbitrary measurement has been transposed onto abortion law and I still can't get my head around why, other than as a sop to counteract the emotional nature of the whole debate.

Cabaal

MrPudding wrote: »

It is just an extension of life, irrespective of quality, at any cost.

MrP

Ok, we'll keep them alive and raise them.

In order to do so they'll be cuts to social welfare and tax must increase for everyone.

You ok with that?
Money has to come from somewhere

gaynorvader

doctoremma wrote: »

Why? This is an is-ought problem? Just because we can, we should?

Morally, yes. Practically...I honestly don't know.

doctoremma wrote:

The list of issues that will arise from any procedure is long, and many have been outlined in other posts. I don't know that this accumulated list should necessarily be trumped by the right to life of the fetus. That would be very difficult to weigh up.

I absolutely agree.

doctoremma wrote:

So why do most abortion limits go to "viability" but not beyond? Indeed, Roe .v. Wade is explicit in its use of "viability" as the maximum limit for abortion.

As I inadequately tried to explain, the foetus has no right to the woman's body. At viability, they have the chance to exist independently of the woman, before that they don't.

doctoremma wrote:

But when is "viability" attained? What is "viability"? At 23 weeks 6 days, I would be forced (assuming no other health difficulties) into an extraction procedure in the UK, but could reasonably argue for a destruction procedure in Jordan.

It won't be a novel scenario to see lots of women scrabbling for passports...

I'm sorry, but I don't know. I'm trying to look at this from a purely moral standpoint. I'm not advocating laws be made. "Viability" is when the foetus has a chance of survival independent of the woman incubating it. It would need to be measured on a case by case basis.

doctoremma wrote:

I used "dehumanising" to indicate that the value or fate of the fetus is not intrinsic, but reduced to how close the mother is to excellent clinical facilities.

Pretty much. It's like that with disease and injury too.

doctoremma wrote:

Viability (of a fetus, of a patient with a brain injury, and so on) is an arbitrary measurement, and one that is only applicable to, and indeed very useful to, clinical decision-making. This arbitrary measurement has been transposed onto abortion law and I still can't get my head around why, other than as a sop to counteract the emotional nature of the whole debate.

As I said above, it should be used in clinical decision-making, not law. I wasn't advocating law making, merely arguing the morality of it. There should be a better system put in place to support women who don't want a child, so that not having an abortion would still result in not needing to have a baby and a better outcome for both 'mother' and child.

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok, we'll keep them alive and raise them.

In order to do so they'll be cuts to social welfare and tax must increase for everyone.

You ok with that?
Money has to come from somewhere

Why are you asking me?

swampgas

I think doctoremma makes a good point about biological viability not being a useful transition point.

Viability is a fairly nebulous concept anyway. Humans are unusual among animals in that their young take so long to mature. Even if a foetus can survive outside the uterus, and it can only survive if someone is willing and able to support it, we have simply moved from a biological support system to a technological one. Both involve significant commitment by an adult or adults.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant it's pretty clear that she doesn't want the responsibility of a baby either. So why not terminate the pregnancy (regardless of viability) if there is no willing mother to take care of it? One could argue that the state should take ownership if the woman doesn't want to, but just how valid is that argument? Putting it crudely, just how far does society want to go in taking responsibility for other people's unwanted foetuses?

The key question seems to me to be this: is there a willing mother available to support a pregnancy all the way through gestation, birth, and childhood? If not, it would seem to be best to terminate the pregnancy, ideally as early as possible.

doctoremma

gaynorvader wrote: »

Morally, yes. Practically...I honestly don't know.

Why "morally, yes"?

gaynorvader wrote: »

As I inadequately tried to explain, the foetus has no right to the woman's body. At viability, they have the chance to exist independently of the woman, before that they don't.

Because they have a chance, does that mean they have a right?

gaynorvader wrote: »

Pretty much. It's like that with disease and injury too.

Your right to life and your status as being worthy of moral consideration are not determined by your proximity to a hospital. Those things are recognised independently of your ability to access appropriate medical care. This recognition arises from factors intrinsic to you, not where you live/what age you live in. Of course, practically, you might not be able to access treatment for an injury and may subsequently die. But nobody would argue that this somehow made any difference to your right to life, or to moral consideration.*

*Assuming medical care is not being deliberately withheld in an act of political terror/genocide/whatever.

Consider a case where an adult is suffering from a severe illness with a high rate of mortality/morbidity. Viability - the ability to survive - is a tool to guide clinical decisions. But we don't treat this person because they are "viable", we treat this person because they are a "person", in and of themselves. And similarly, we don't pursue viability at the cost of personhood. "Viability" may open the door to a treatment/intervention, it says nothing about whether said treatment should happen.

Bannasidhe

Anyone else remember the Romanian Orphanages?

When I read about fetus' being delivered as soon as they have reached some undetermined viability to be then placed at the tender mercies of the State that's what I think of.

Discussing the moral implications of delivery at viability seems to be ignoring the, to me, quite morally important fact that every child should feel cherished, loved and wanted.

Cabaal

MrPudding wrote: »

Why are you asking me?

mix up,

kylith

MrPudding wrote: »

It is just an extension of life, irrespective of quality, at any cost.

MrP

That's it, isn't it? Get them born. Who gives a toss what happens to them afterwards?

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

Consider a case where an adult is suffering from a severe illness with a high rate of mortality/morbidity. Viability - the ability to survive - is a tool to guide clinical decisions. But we don't treat this person because they are "viable", we treat this person because they are a "person", in and of themselves. And similarly, we don't pursue viability at the cost of personhood. "Viability" may open the door to a treatment/intervention, it says nothing about whether said treatment should happen.

My first cousin is currently undergoing experimental treatment for a very rare form of cancer. It isn't working but treatment is continuing - all it is doing is buying her precious time at a huge personal and financial cost - she had to do battle with the HSE to even get this treatment as they felt it was not a 'viable' course of action due to cost.

Her family, and herself, had the financial means to self-fund it while doing battle with HSE and her health insurers. She is bankrupting herself to try and live.

How do we determine when treatment is not viable due to cost? What happens when all of the post-natel special care units are full to capacity?
Does that mean the next 'viable' fetus is not delivered as, due to lack of capacity, in is no longer 'viable'?

gaynorvader

doctoremma wrote: »

Why "morally, yes"?

In my mind, if there's a chance that we can save a growing life without infringing on the rights of anyone else, we should from a moral standpoint.

doctoremma wrote:

Because they have a chance, does that mean they have a right?

A right to what? Life? I'm not sure. I just think it's be immoral to not try to give them the chance when we can.

doctoremma wrote:

Your right to life and your status as being worthy of moral consideration are not determined by your proximity to a hospital. Those things are recognised independently of your ability to access appropriate medical care. This recognition arises from factors intrinsic to you, not where you live/what age you live in. Of course, practically, you might not be able to access treatment for an injury and may subsequently die. But nobody would argue that this somehow made any difference to your right to life, or to moral consideration.*

*Assuming medical care is not being deliberately withheld in an act of political terror/genocide/whatever.

It's a bit sad that you felt the need to include the asterixed text. You shouldn't need to address such a point as it is intrinsically immoral. (I don't mean to call you sad, just the situation)

doctoremma wrote:

Consider a case where an adult is suffering from a severe illness with a high rate of mortality/morbidity. Viability - the ability to survive - is a tool to guide clinical decisions. But we don't treat this person because they are "viable", we treat this person because they are a "person", in and of themselves. And similarly, we don't pursue viability at the cost of personhood. "Viability" opens the door to a treatment/intervention, it says nothing about whether said treatment should happen.

Except when it comes to organ transplants.

Sarky

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's a bit sad that you felt the need to include the asterixed text. You shouldn't need to address such a point as it is intrinsically immoral. (I don't mean to call you sad, just the situation)

You'd be amazed at the petty semantics others will stoop to in order to make a shoddy point about the precious tiny baybees. Or maybe you wouldn't, you've been hanging around the forum long enough to see it in action

gaynorvader

Sarky wrote: »

You'd be amazed at the petty semantics others will stoop to in order to make a shoddy point about the precious tiny baybees. Or maybe you wouldn't, you've been hanging around the forum long enough to see it in action

I know, that's the sad part

Jan T.

Can an atheist be anti-abortion ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFRN3kp4MiA

eyescreamcone

Why not?

Atheists only thing in common with each other is that they do not believe in a god.

After that all bets are off I'd imagine.

doctoremma

gaynorvader wrote: »

In my mind, if there's a chance that we can save a growing life without infringing on the rights of anyone else, we should from a moral standpoint.

But that principle doesn't apply across the board in practice. We don't always save lives where it is technically possible to do so. We don't always use "viability" to dictate treatment choices. Why is "viability" a primary argument for dictating the need for care of a fetus but not a primary argument against the DNAR that currently sits on my mother-in-law's medical records?

gaynorvader wrote: »

A right to what? Life? I'm not sure. I just think it's be immoral to not try to give them the chance when we can.

Probably the same answer as above.

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's a bit sad that you felt the need to include the asterixed text. You shouldn't need to address such a point as it is intrinsically immoral. (I don't mean to call you sad, just the situation)

Agree. But someone will point out historical cases where humans have most definitely not been given moral consideration, nor the right to life, so I was just pre-empting that....

gaynorvader wrote: »

Except when it comes to organ transplants.

I don't follow, could you please clarify your point?