Abortion Discussion

Jan T.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's pretty much exactly what I said in both posts. I base it on my opinion that a mother has a right to choose whether she allows her body to be used by the unborn child.

Do you see what I mean?
What's your opinion?

I see what you mean, you see it as the mother having a right to a choice, but how does the mother's pecieved right to kill the child, trump the childs right to life ? I don't think it does, I'm just trying to understand why in some people's opinion it does.

doctoremma

Jan T. wrote: »

I see what you mean, you see it as the mother having a right to a choice, but how does the mother's pecieved right to kill the child, trump the childs right to life ? I don't think it does, I'm just trying to understand why in some people's opinion it does.

No, I think El Dude is saying that the mother's right is to choose to allow her body to be used by the child, not to choose to kill the child. Whether the child lives or dies as a consequence of her exerting her right to bodily autonomy is secondary.

Where's Zombrex? [crying emoticon]

Bannasidhe

Jan T. wrote: »

I see what you mean, you see it as the mother having a right to a choice, but how does the mother's pecieved right to kill the child, trump the childs right to life ? I don't think it does, I'm just trying to understand why in some people's opinion it does.

Because some people do not agree that a brainless (and I mean that literally) clump of cells is a child. It has the potential to possibly become a child but is not one yet - and, given the amount of miscarriages- this is not certain.

Turtwig

Jan T. wrote: »

I see what you mean, you see it as the mother having a right to a choice, but how does the mother's pecieved right to kill the child, trump the childs right to life ? I don't think it does, I'm just trying to understand why in some people's opinion it does.

Think of it in terms of a insect.

Most people would rather not to harm a insect. Especially if the insect is posing no harm to them. But, suppose, the insect is living in a person's skin like a botfly (Google at your own risk!). There are two distinct scenario's here. One where the insect is causing the person harm and one where it's not. In both cases though nobody would have any issue with the human surgically removing the insect from their body. Where the ethical difficulty arises is when you start thinking in terms of mammals. If it were a puppy a lot of people would be feeling iffy. Then, naturally of course, nobody wants the outcome for a human. The difficulty here is the question of how human the entity is? And whether that should matter? For example, suppose by someone extreme bizarre scenario a four year old infant gets surgically attached to your body. Should there be a legal requirement for you to maintain that attachment even if it means severing the attachment leads to the death of the infant?

The analogy to the foetus is that the mother is being forced to bear an entity inside her body at the expense of her own right to bodily autonomy. She wouldn't be forced to donate her organs to anyone. But yet when she becomes pregnant the idea is she has to give up her body for a whole nine months and possibly longer depending on the consequences of the pregnancy.

That's the right to bodily integrity taken to the extreme. The reality of course is a lot greyer. But I hope you can appreciate the framework from which one constructs their position on rights.

Jan T.

Jernal wrote: »

Think of it in terms of a insect.

Cognitively, like Hitchens, I cannot equate an unborn child to an insect.

Do some people really make that equation about human life ? That would explain a lot.

Perhaps some people can, and I can see how that would make their decision to kill the child easier.

Jan T.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because some people do not agree that a brainless (and I mean that literally) clump of cells is a child. It has the potential to possibly become a child but is not one yet - and, given the amount of miscarriages- this is not certain.

I'm a brainless clump of cells, perhaps I'm not a human life either ?

Bannasidhe

Jan T. wrote: »

Cognitively, like Hitchens, I cannot equate an unborn child to an insect.

Do some people really make that equation about human life ? That would explain a lot.

Perhaps some people can, and I can see how that would make their decision to kill the child easier.

Once again - it is not a child until such time as it is sentient.

gaynorvader

Jan T. wrote: »

Cognitively, like Hitchens, I cannot equate an unborn child to an insect.

Do some people really make that equation about human life ? That would explain a lot.

Perhaps some people can, and I can see how that would make their decision to kill the child easier.

You stopped reading after the first line?

Jan T. wrote: »

I'm a brainless clump of cells, perhaps I'm not a human life either ?

No, you have a brain and cognitive processes.

Bannasidhe

Jan T. wrote: »

I'm a brainless clump of cells, perhaps I'm not a human life either ?

Perhaps you should do some research on fetal development or do you think humans arrive in the womb fully formed?

gaynorvader

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree. I'm also not sure I'm equipped for the complexities but what the hell...

I think morally, we should always save lives where it is technically possible to do so ("viability"), as long as it is in the individual's best interests ("person"). It seems that your statement is slightly different (I assume to account for the right of a patient to withdraw or refuse treatment?). Nonetheless, it seems that both statements acknowledge that "viability" is secondary to "person".

"Viability" determines that something COULD be done, if it is determined that the something SHOULD be done. In itself, "viability" cannot say what SHOULD be done. I am not sure we'll reach an agreement here because I suspect we just have different "neurochemical illusions of meaning" about this.

Hah! Yes though, I do hold that the woman has the right to dictate what happens to her body. I do acknowledge that viability is what could be done, what I'm arguing is that it's morally wrong to not do something that costs you nothing in order to save a life. This is a little bit simplified obviously, but that's the main thrust as using viability to determine the morality of the situation.

doctoremma wrote:

I shouldn't have brought anything personal into it unnecessarily - it's not usually the done thing for me. However, as a concept, a DNAR is interesting, because it acknowledges that the medical care team could technically preserve and extend life, but that it is not always in the patient's best interests to do so. Do you think DNARs are morally wrong?

DNAR = Do Not Attempt Resuscitation? If that's wrong ignore this I don't think they are morally wrong as ultimately, it is an individual's right to choose. When it is made on behalf of the patient by a family member, it's a bit greyer, I guess it depends on too many circumstances to go into.

doctoremma wrote:

I think it's a different sense of the word "viable" though. In the case of organ transplants, I suspect everyone on the waiting list is deemed to be a "viable" candidate i.e. able to handle surgery and certain to see health benefit. It's addressing the viability of the surgery, not the viability of the person...

...However, organs are in short supply and prioritising has to be done. In the UK, teens and young adults are prioritised over pensioners (if all other factors - tissue compatibility and so on - are equal). Is a teenager deemed more "viable" than an older person? I don't think that seems the right way to define it. It will be considered as a cost:benefit ratio - how can we maximise the number of years of quality life with this one kidney?

That is it exactly. It's more or less the same idea though. We practically can't save all foetuses as we don't have the resources. However, purely from a moral standpoint it is the right thing to do.

Jan T.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Once again - it is not a child until such time as it is sentient.

At what exact point does someone become sentinent ?

And how does somone ever hope to become sentient if they are killed in their mothers womb ?

Turtwig

Jan T. wrote: »

Cognitively, like Hitchens, I cannot equate an unborn child to an insect.

Do some people really make that equation about human life ? That would explain a lot.

Perhaps some people can, and I can see how that would make their decision to kill the child easier.

I really don't know how to respond to this as you spectacularly missed the point.

Perhaps we can start by answering this question?

For example, suppose by someone extreme bizarre scenario a four year old infant gets surgically attached to your body. Should there be a legal and ethical requirement for you to maintain that attachment even if it means severing the attachment leads to the death of the infant?

Jan T.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps you should do some research on fetal development or do you think humans arrive in the womb fully formed?

At what age is a human 'fully formed', and what about humans who are not fully formed ?

gaynorvader

Jan T. wrote: »

At what exact point does someone become sentinent ?

{...}

I respectfully suggest you google this. Brain activity does begin around a certain time.

Jan T.

Jernal wrote: »

I really don't know how to respond to this as you spectacularly missed the point.

Perhaps we can start by answering this question?

I can't think of a child as an insect, so I suppose I have.

In the case of siamese twins I don't have the right to kill my brother or sister.

Turtwig

Jan T. wrote: »

Well in the case of siamese twins I don't have the right to kill my brother or sister.

That's not the specific question I'm asking you. I'm asking you in the case of a four year old child attached to an adult. Is it ethically correct for the adult to have the child surgically removed from their body? Even if the child may die in the process.

Jan T.

Jernal wrote: »

That's not the specific question I'm asking you. I'm asking you in the case of a four year old child attached to an adult. Is it ethically correct for the adult to have the child surgically removed from their body? Even if the child may die in the process.

No more or less than in the case of siamese twins, as there are two patients not one. I don't see how being an adult confers special rights to kill a child. You don't kill one patient because another patient desires it so. Unborn children are not simply detached, they are killed with chemicals, older babies are cut into pieces in the womb and their remains are then vacumed out.

Cabaal

Jan T. wrote: »

No more or less than in the case of siamese twins, as there are two patients not one. I don't see how being an adult confers special rights to kill a child. You don't kill one patient because another patient desires it so. Unborn children are not simply detached, they are killed with chemicals, older babies are cut into pieces in the womb and their remains are then vacumed out.

Right,
Ok try this one.

A mother who already has three children gets pregnant and will die alone with her fetus if she proceeds with the pregnancy.

If she dies she leaves the kids without a mother and her husband without a wife.

If she has an abortion she will live and be able to continue to be a wife and mother.

Would you agree that an abortion would provide the best outcome in such a situation?

Or would you prefer she proceeds with the pregnancy ignoring the risk to her?

El_Duderino 09

Jan T. wrote: »

No more or less than in the case of siamese twins, as there are two patients not one. I don't see how being an adult confers special rights to kill a child. You don't kill one patient because another patient desires it so. Unborn children are not simply detached, they are killed with chemicals, older babies are cut into pieces in the womb and their remains are then vacumed out.

Its not the fact that one is an adult. The woman has the right to determine what happens to her body even if her decision leads to the death of another person. it's the same as someone deciding not to donate an organ even if it leads to the death of another person.

No matter what the opinion of the person in need of the donated organ or the unborn child.

The principal is easier to identify in the case of transplants, but its the same principal of the right to decide what happens to your body

Jan T.

Cabaal wrote: »

Right,
Ok try this one.

A mother who already has three children gets pregnant and will die alone with her fetus if she proceeds with the pregnancy.

If she dies she leaves the kids without a mother and her husband without a wife.

If she has an abortion she will live and be able to continue to be a wife and mother.

Would you agree that an abortion would provide the best outcome in such a situation?

Or would you prefer she proceeds with the pregnancy ignoring the risk to her?

You treat both patients as best you can, but in the case of Savita they did not diagnose her condition correctly or remove the already non viable child in time.

If only it were so simple, but 95% of abortions in the UK and USA are carried out where there is no risk of life to the mother. So in 95% of abortion cases its not a justification. That's a lot of dead children that were killed and could be alive today.

Sarky

I presume you have stats to back all those claims?

Jan T.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The woman has the right to determine what happens to her body even if her decision leads to the death of another person.

How so ? and how does it confer the right to kill an innocent child ?

Jack Kyle

My own views are pretty clear.

Abortion on demand or as a form of contraception should never be allowed.

Abortion where there's a medical threat to the mother life (e.g. the Savita case) is a medical issue and should be allowed.

Abortion where the mother's suicidal should not be allowed - It's hard to envisage circumstances where abortion is a cure for being suicidal.

Jan T.

Sarky wrote: »

I presume you have stats to back all those claims?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Sarky

Oh hello, Johnstonsarchive! Still ranting about how Pluto should be a planet, and complaining about everything Obama does, presumably because he's a dirty Muslim commie? That's a wide range of expertise you have for a doctor of physics. I see you've stopped advertising Christian fundie organisations too. Well, apart from the massive section on Baptists, but baby steps, baby steps.

So how's the bias problem these days? Oh, that bad, huh? You say people just won't stop citing you as if you're a balanced, trustworthy source? Yeah, I can see that getting annoying after the first dozen or so links. Oh well. Chin up, as they say. I'm sure those guys will learn how to cite reliable sources some day, and you can do your bigot-thing in peace.

Jan T.

I presume you have statistics to refute the figures ?

Sarky

Funnily enough, the stats on the very site you linked do a pretty good job of that. I've gone through this before on After Hours, most of the time the stats anti-abortion people fling at you don't say what they say they do. Usually, they show the polar opposite.

Edit:

Whoops, my mistake, he's still advertising Christian fundies. This is at the bottom of the About Me page: http://www.sbc.net/knowjesus/theplan.asp

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

Oh hello, Johnstonsarchive! Still ranting about how Pluto should be a planet, and complaining about everything Obama does, presumably because he's a dirty Muslim commie? That's a wide range of expertise you have for a doctor of physics. I see you've stopped advertising Christian fundie organisations too. Well, apart from the massive section on Baptists, but baby steps, baby steps.

So how's the bias problem these days? Oh, that bad, huh? You say people just won't stop citing you as if you're a balanced, trustworthy source? Yeah, I can see that getting annoying after the first dozen or so links. Oh well. Chin up, as they say. I'm sure those guys will learn how to cite reliable sources some day, and you can do your bigot-thing in peace.

That's a nice rant but really you did nothing to address the point that you were replying to. Even if a person believes you can get sick from a computer virus it doesn't mean that a single viewpoint they have on virology is necessarily incorrect. Deal with the point, not the pointer. For the pedants, your post fell under the poisoning the well fallacy .

El_Duderino 09

Jan T. wrote: »

How so ? and how does it confer the right to kill an innocent child ?

I gave this example in the post above.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The woman has the right to determine what happens to her body even if her decision leads to the death of another person. It's the same as someone deciding not to donate an organ even if it leads to the death of another person.

No matter what the opinion of the person in need of the donated organ or the unborn child.

The principal is easier to identify in the case of transplants, but its the same principal of the right to decide what happens to your body

Can you see how it's the same argument; although the person in need of a transplant has the right to life, they cant make demands of other people.

Can you see why I think it's using the same principal to say a woman has the right to decide whether to carry a fetus to birth?

I commend people who donate organs but I respect their right to refuse on the grounds that they have the right to determine what happens to their body.

Jack Kyle

A woman's right to do as she sees fit with her own body does not supercede a baby's right to life.

That's the salient point that the pro-choice lobby miss.