I'm a regular poster on a football bulletin board (click here for the link: www.magpies.net/nick/bb), at which I have been involved in many fascinating debates and discussions. Here, I'm presenting the transcript of a debate on the board about abortion.
This is a subject that I have a lot of interest in, and rather passionate views on (who doesn't?), and therefore, I think it would be great to present a discussion between 20 or so people with varying political viewpoints in blog form. While I've only included the most relevant posts to the discussion (as it went for 12 pages on the site), and omitted personal details and experiences that I would feel uncomfortable posting here without permission, I've endeavoured to preserve the main gist of each argument. For the complete, unedited discussion, please click on this link: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=41866
All the same, this is a very, very long blog post and you're probably going to need to take a little time out to read it all.
Oh, and, of course, I should mention that I am the poster known as 'David'.
Right to Life, or Pro Choice?
Poll:
Do you support the right of a woman to have an abortion?
Yes [21]
No [5]
Stui: I thought this would be an intersting topic to poll. Hopefully we can do it without degenerating to personal abuse.
My definition of pro choice is supporting the right of a woman to have an abortion if she wants to. If she gets pregnant and she doesn't want to have the baby, for whatever reasons (I don't want to analyse the reasons) she should be able to choose to have an abortion if that's what SHE wants.
There are all sorts of different arguments about what when and why, so I'm deliberately trying to simplify it as much as possible.
You may be personally against abortion. That's not the question. The question is, whether you would support the right of someone else who may or may not share your moral stance to have an abortion or would you deny them that right.
I support the right of women to chose in this instance. Naturally there are medical and legal constraints around timing. My understanding is that the current law (unless it's changed since about 1988) is that if a child is born dead prior to 20 weeks gestation, it's considered a "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage. After 20 weeks, it's a still birth. Prior to 20 weeks, it's not considered to be a baby.
So the current law again as I understand it is to restrict abortions to less than 20 weeks unless there are serious compelling circumstances. That part is up for the doctors and lawyers to decide, I won't go there.
So, that's the question. Do you support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. Yes or No. If anyone thinks I've mangled the definition of "pro choice" or oversimplified the question here, let's discuss it.
David: Stui, I have always been very against abortion.
Firstly, on a theoretical level, I believe issues like this have to be decided on a societal level. Sure, if we come to the honest conclusion that there is nothing ethically wrong with abortion (say, of a child that is less than 20 weeks old), then it should be the woman's choice, but if not, such a conclusion is hypocritical.
In other words, what I'm saying is: declaring the decision to be the woman's choice, in my view, is wholeheartedly endorsing abortion. Which may or may not be your opinion anyhow.
As for the abortion question, I think that one question must be asked above any other:
Why exactly do we have laws against murder? Why is it against the law for you to kill me?
Others may have different answers to those questions (which I would really appreciate), but here's mine:
Laws are, at their most basic level, designed to protect the property or person of the individual. Theft, murder, rape, assault, burglary... and, naturally, the most heinous crime is the willful ending of another person's life.
Now, which members of society have the right to have their lives protected? Only the people who vote? Only the people who have the ability to vocalise their wish to be protected? Only the fully-formed human beings, i.e., adults?
The answer, of course, to all of those, is no. It is, to my knowledge, as much of a crime to kill a newborn baby as it is to kill a full-grown adult (didn't Lindy Chamberlain receive the equivalent of a life sentence in the beginning?). Therefore, here we have a human member of society that is certainly not 'fully developed', not really necessarily conscious of a desire to live, nor able to voice an objection to any misuse of its rights as a human being. Why is the baby still allowed the rights of any other human being? Because, in a general context at least, human society helps those that can't help themselves.
So then, what is the difference between a newborn and a partially formed fetus? Some will claim that the latter cannot feel pain, while the former does. My response to that is to use the hypothetical of a leper (i.e., someone who is unable to feel anything). It immediately becomes ridiculous to suggest that such a person has any less right to live just because of his inability to feel pain - besides, there are many relatively painless ways of ending someone's life, it doesn't make it acceptable.
Why else would there be a difference between a newborn and a fetus? Others might use the argument that the latter is still dependent on its mother, but I'm pretty skeptical about that response - a newborn needs it's mother's milk to survive, in the absence of any substitute... and yes, substitutes do exist, but one could also argue that in the future, with advanced technology, a human could gestate entirely outside a uterus. Anyhow, I don't really see the point of this argument... what does dependence really have to do with right to life?
My conclusion is this: I have a right to not be killed now, and, by the same token, I have the right not to have been killed before I was old enough to realise it.
Please feel free to respond.
Stui: Damn David. This is an emotional topic, I know. I appreciate your reasoned post and understand your stance.
OK. My stance. the difference between a new born and a foetus is that the foetus has not yet been born. While it is still in the womb, it is not a new born.
The issue of when does a foetus become a human being is very, very topical. Some believe that it happens at conception, other's don't believe it happens till it's actually born. When does it become a "life" to be saved or killed? I don't know.
What I do know is that the current law (in Victoria as I understand it) declares that less than 20 weeks gestation is a foetus, after that it's a baby. If that was to be changed downward, I would have no problem. Upward, I would.
I believe that there are a large number of different situations where a woman could find herself pregnant when she doesn't want to be.
I believe it's her right to be able to decide not to go through with the pregnancy and bring an unwanted child into the world.
I believe it's her right to be able to do that in an environment that is as professional as possible, the same as any other medical procedure, rather than submit to barbaric back yard practices.
Bwphantom: I think I have mentioned this before. The Pre person by Phillip K Dick explores the issue as to when is a Human Being classed as Viable. In the Pre Person, set in the future, you are not classed a person until the age of 12.
So when is a person a person? When first conceived, or 10 weeks, 20 weeks, when born or 12? Just a state of conceptualisation?
Craig: Pro choice.
No other person has the right to decide what is right or wrong in the management of the womans body. If this means abortion, then we have an obligation to provide the safest possible conditions for this procedure.
Omar: Stui, I'm going to stay relatively silent as a means of paying my respect to your perfect perspective on this issue.
Dave. My right to life doesn't require another being to sacrifice their autonomy. If it did, then I wouldn't have that right.
Somebody needing dialysis has a right to life, but if the dialysis machine broke down, s/he wouldn't have the "right" to force somebody else to donate their kidneys to substantiate her "right to life".
Following from this, I believe the mother has the right to expel the foetus from her body at ANY time, but not demand the foetus' death. If it can survive alone, by all means keep it alive.
Oh, and 4 people have said they wouldn't grant women the right to control their own bodies. Dave, EBB, who else? I think it's only fair to stand up publicly, given that your position means the active oppression up to 50% of society.
Greg: Pro-Life except in certain circumstances.
You lose the right to have your say about your body the moment you partake without contraception.
Once you accept you may be creating life and do, then you should have no choice in it, save for certain circumstances.
The message is then dont be like an animal, use contraception and if you dont, then accept the responsibility for the decision you have made which was indeed your decision.
Frankiboy: Been down this road so I'd have to say pro choice. I was always anti abortion till I found myself in a position where a choice had to be made. Well, ok, the decision was already made by the other party, but I agreed. It's something that plays on my mind often. What if?
I still believe the right decision was made in the end, but it's not something I took lightly. Toughest thing I've ever had to endure.
David: (In response to Omar): I think we've gone down this path before, but once again, I fundamentally disagree with this. Surely right to life is greater than right to autonomy. What about a mother who can't stand looking after her (newborn) baby any more? Would she have a right to terminate its life, seeing as this baby, not in a physical sense, but in practically every other sense, requires sacrificing of 'autonomy'?
(In response to Frankiboy): Franki I've wondered in the past about what I'd do if the situation actually arose. I could see why the decision might seem the best option in a lot of ways, but I would see no way to get around my theoretical objections to it.
One of my close mates recently decided with his (then) girlfriend to have an abortion at 12 weeks. Knowing his situation, I could understand why they made this choice, and that in some ways it was by far the most practical choice, but looking at the bigger picture, I am more sure than ever that it should not even have been a choice in the first place.
Bwphantom, you raise a very good point, and one that I have often considered. Development of the human is not something that begins at conception and concludes at birth, but something that begins at conception and concludes (perhaps) at adulthood.
Jacqui: You will never ever have a rational debate/discussion on a topic such as this. It's far to contentious and an extremely emotive issue.
People are entitled to their opinions, but that's just what they are, opinions, until you are faced with the facts as frankiboy was.
Bwphantom: Women do have the right to choose, however it should be well thought out beforehand and should be avoided as a means of mass Birth Control. Prevention is the best method, but not in all cases is that possible. And I can understand that it should be made more available so that Women do not use Back Yard butchers (so to speak). A hygenic professional solution should be available.
Zakal: Im not really sure where i stand on this issue. I think i can understand both arguments...especially when extracted to the extremes as both sides are wont to do.
For instance, i would be very hard pressed to tell a woman who has been raped and impregnated without access to the morning after pill (which i suppose is another debate for another day)...that she must go thru 9 months of pregnancy, and the excurciating pain of delivery to carry her attackers child.
However, i still have a fundamental problem with the "its my body, i can do what i want" argument. There are many laws that stop you doing what you want with your own body. Certain surgeries are banned. You cant clone yourself. You cant inject certain substances. Hell, you are not even allowed to end your own life. And even on a more conceptual level, i find the argument that the unborn baby/foetus/thing has a body too, so why does the woman's right to control of her body trump the baby/foetus/things right to similar control?
I also have a problem with Omar's argument that right to life is trumped by right to autonomy. In my opinon that is not, and never has been the case. We routinely deprive the right to liberty and autonomy from people who we decide, as a society, endanger the right to life of others.
I think i would support a choice of abortion up until the point the baby/foetus/thing can be said to have 'attained life'.
On the basis of the above, i think the issue becomes one of assessing Life.
When does it start? Is it birth? Conception? 20 weeks? Are sperm/eggs "alive" already?
Isnt the latter premise the argument against the use of contraception? Not one i can say i agree with in any way, but it exists none the less.
I think it is absurd on many levels to say life begins at birth. We have recognised the rights of those of our society who are en ventre sur mere for hundreds of years. When in that state, you can receive beneficial interests in property, you can sustain injuries that can later form a basis for legal action, and as studies show, you can hear, remember, react, feel....you are concious.
So in my mind, the moment "life" is attained happens sometime at or after conception, but prior to birth. But when?
20 weeks? It seems fairly abitrary, and as Stui says, a 20 week old baby/foetus/thing does seem to look a hell of a lot like a baby.
Its not really a question i believe can be answered by the lay among us. An argument i head recently suggested the life begins at the point when, without further interevention or disaster, a human baby will result. I.e. upon successfull conception. If left to its own devices (i.e. no pills, crude implements, diseases, injury) a successfully fertilised egg will grow and eventually be born. This is where David's "unformed, but perhaps still 'alive' " argument comes in. Plenty of deformed births occur in which those born have even less faculty than a healthy pregancy still in the womb...yet one is born, one is not.
I think the youngest successful birth was 22 weeks. Given that i dont agree with the "only alive at birth" argument, and if we assumed that this birth was on the absolute cusp of "life"...i.e. that at 21 weeks they wernt, but at 22 they were. Then i would probably support abortions prior to this period. Which i suppose is where the 20 weeks figure comes from.
The problem is its not a very scientific method of determining the correct time, and conceptually just because nothing earlier has been recorded, it doesn't mean its impossible. I would be interested to see more research into the area...but its such a polarised conceptual area that the chances of getting a neutral report are pretty slim.
Stui: Zakal, in the situation you describe, the woman would simply be using abortion as her primary means of birth control. I wouldn't support that.
My view is that with sex education and easy availability of contraceptives, including the morning after pill, if someone doesn't want kids then they have a responsibility to take precautions. That also applies to the bloke.
However, accidents haappen. Contraceptives fail, people forget to take the pill, an encore performance in the early hours of the morning while still 3/4 asleep, any number of things (and I'm sticking to consensual sex here).
I fully support people taking responsibility for their own actions but I think the consequences for making a mistake being required to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term are too severe.
My daughter is 16. She's been on the pill since she was 14. I have told both her and her boyfriend that if/when they have sex, make sure they use a condom as well.
If she was to fall pregnant, I would support her in whatever decision she chose to make. If that was to have an abortion, I would make sure she spoke to her GP and a councillor first. I wouldn't be looking to apportion blame and consequence and I certainly would not consider carrying a pregnancy to full term against her will.
To those who do advocate not giving the woman the option of abortion and therefore forcing her to carry to full term, have you considered the unintended consequences of this?
Women actively resenting the foetus and therefore not behaving appropriately eg, drinking, smoking, taking drugs, not looking after themselves as opposed to a woman who cares and takes care to do the right thing?
Woman who chose to use other more barbaric methods to remove the foetus because they've been denied a safe proper method?
Going through a pregnancy and bringing a child into the world that they don't love or even care about.
I completely respect the opinion of those who disagree with abortion. Someone who agrees with your stance is very very unlikely to actually want to have an abortion. Someone who disagrees on the other hand, why should they be forced to abide by moral values they don't hold if they aren't acting outside the law?
Zakal: Without being antagonistic, why wouldnt you support the use of abortion as a 'primary means of birth control'? (which by the way, is a far better way of describing what i was getting at)
If no life is taken to exist before 20 weeks, then whats the big deal?
Stui: Nice one. ;)
Ok, having given this one some thought, I have 4 main objections.
1. If you don't want to have children, then you should have a responsibility to take reasonable precautions or preventative action
2. An Abortion is a physically invasive medical procedure. Having potentially multiple abortions over any period of time could have physical consequences and complications
3. The Psychological impact. Even if the person has zero moral issue with what they are doing, there is still the psychological impact of going the cycle of discovering you're pregnant, making a decision to have an abortion, going through the necessary pre checks, having the procedure and recovery.
4. The potential. Every sperm is a potential child (which means most teenage boys are guilty of genocide) but only in potential. That sperm still has to get to an egg, at the right time and under the right conditions before it has the chance of triggering conception. Once conception actuially occurs, you are in a different area. It is no longer a sperm or egg, but not yet a baby. What you have is something that with no external intervention, should (rather than may possibly) become a viable baby. The longer that something remains in the womb, the more it's viability as a baby increases. So, even if it's not considered a baby at less than 20 weeks, it is a far more viable potential baby than either a sperm or egg alone. Therefore the decision to abort should be a far more weighty decision than whether to take preventative action.
Omar: The fact is, who the fuck are we to decide if a woman does something to her body or not.
Going back to what Zakal said; euthanasia is illegal, but illness-caused suicides happen all the time (ie. not a good outcome). If we illegalise abortion women will still do it when they want to do it, but they'll face massively increased risks.
Then what will you do Dave, will you arrest them for murder?
David: I would hope that the law would deal with it in the manner that was most appropriate, whatever that would be. My primary wish is that the procedure is illegalised... or more specifically, that an intelligent, unemotional, fact and logic-driven public debate be had, following which perhaps a referendum is held to decide on the merits of the issue.
Omar: What a cop out. What do you actually support. Again, would you charge a woman who has undergone an (illegal) abortion with murder?
David: It's not a cop-out Omar, because as I've discussed with you before, I'm not even sure if a mother who kills her 6 month old baby should receive the same kind of sentence as someone who kills a 20 year old. These are the kind of theoretical arguments I want to discuss - what is murder? Why exactly do we have these laws? My personal conclusion is that abortion is wrong but it doesn't stop me from wanting to honestly debate the issue.
As for my opinion on whether the woman should be charged with murder, I suppose in theory, I agree that she should. However, a) if I had my way it would be common knowledge that such a practise was illegal, and b) it would be one of those things that would be very difficult to police. Hopefully the risks involved and knowledge of possible consequences would be very heavy deterrents from the procedure occurring in the first place.
Susan: So David – a male and a female go out for the night – they meet and sparks fly and before you know it they end up having sex.
Some weeks later the woman discovers she is pregnant and decides to have an abortion – an abortion that by your reasoning is now illegal. Given that the morally outraged religious right have had a victory and we have returned to backyard butchers and the “coat hanger” method she takes her life in her hands even having such a procedure – the associated guilt and shame that in the past resulted in so many women dying from haemorrhage post procedure, as they were afraid to seek medical help , the numerous women who ended up infertile due to botched procedures – let alone the lifelong in many cases emotional impact of such a decision!
Big brother has eyes everywhere and she is arrested and charged with ? murder ? manslaughter.
Tell me will the male who conceived this child be charged with being an accessory? After all if HE had taken some responsibility with contraception then there is a very good chance that conception would not have occurred – or is contraception the sole responsibility of women who AS YET cannot conceive without the assistance of men through the contribution of their sperm?
The closest I have ever come to physically smashing another human being was when on arriving at the Women’s Clinic I attended – some smarmy male runt shoved an ultrasound of a foetus in utero under my nose and accused me of being a murderer.
I was 27 and attending for hormone therapy post cancer and a hysterectomy – I can’t even begin to imagine the impact this would have had on a female who had made the agonising choice to terminate a pregnancy – so before you make such broad sweeping judgements as the old saying goes “walk a mile in my shoes”
Zakal: (in response to Stui): On my reading, your first 3 objections seem to be centred around the premise that the process of abortion is potentially harmful to the woman, and thus abortion as a method of birth control should not be allowed because of the risk it carries? (feel free to correct of course)
The fourth seems to take a different path, and its what i was kind of driving at with my question. While still seperate, the egg and sperm will NEVER...on their own...become a human life. Never. (Catholics beliving in the immaculate conception of Jesus can read that as 'never without divine intervention' if they wish).
But when properly combined, it sets off a chain of events that (i assume) is highly likely to result in a baby. And its from this point that i believe the difficulty arises in saying "one week its not alive, the next week it is"....yet nothing has externally changed except the passage of time. Drawing an arbitrary line (sometimes) more than halfway thru this process doesn't seem terribly convincing to me. Nor does it inspire me with any degree of confidence as to the correctness of this distinction. Rather it seems a way to avoid that unpleasant thought by resorting to something of a technicality. Although as ive said, if it were to be reliably established in some way that no life had begun until X weeks...then i could not see the problem with it.
What concerns me however is the development in recent times of this notion of the "pre-natal." Not that long ago, it was commonly believed that you could only really influence the child once born. The idea that the child could "hear you" while still en ventre was ridiculous. Now it has been proved that its not absurd at all. Music stimulates it, as does a parents voice or presence. I dont think it would be met with too many objections for me to say, somewhat categorically, that at some point before birth...the child is most definitely concious and alive. The time that this is 'deemed' to occur seems to have gotten earlier of late, and im not convinced we know all there is to know about this issue.
Without wanting to draw too extreme an analogy, it was once considered that certain races of people were not human (or sub-human), and as a result killing them was perfectly acceptable. Why? Ignorance...pure and simple. Now i know that sounds like one of those ridiculously abstract pro-lifer analogies...and i know that in some ways it is...but look at it for what it is in relation to peoples ignorances, and i think it has a small degree of merit.
David: (in response to Susan): You make some good points, and yes, I suppose perhaps the father should bear some responsibility if the mother goes through with an abortion. Also, if I haven't said it already, the court would certainly have to be more lenient on the woman in your scenario, than someone who kills a spouse, for example.
I'm sorry though, but this is really not what I either want, or am able, to debate. As I have already said, I have no respect for those who try to take the law into their own hands and bomb abortion clinics or harass women or staff of said places. Neither, as I said above, do I necessarily wholeheartedly support abortion being equated with murder in the future. I was asked a question by Omar that cannot be related to this current time or legal system, as you would need a completely different thinking on abortion by the majority of people in this country, completely different laws on the issue, and thus a completely different environment for any actions or consequences of said actions.
(in response to Zakal): great point on the backyard-method argument - should we make heroin legal, so people can inject it in safe environments?
Susan: My argument would be that those who personally disagree with abortion based on their values are entitled to their opinion and can based on their values make their decisions accordingly should the need arise.
Prohibition or making any thing illegal has never worked. Making something illegal will not stop people doing it - surely it is better to have trained counsellors, skilled clinical staff and an asceptic environment for women who have made the choice to terminate a pregnancy rather than forcing them to rely on dodgy backyard operators?
It is worth remembering that many women suffered life long emotional and psychological effects as a result of being forced by law or public opinion to carry a child and surrender that child into anothers care following birth - is that a better outcome because a life was preserved? And what of the impact on the child "given away" by their mother?
David: Killing people is illegal, last time I checked. Should we have safe rooms for bumping off your annoying neighbours? As for the first paragraph, I argue that the decision has to be made by society as a whole.
Omar: I think 'life' begins as soon as the foetus is capable of surviving without the mother, but for me this is not even the relevant question. I think that at any stage in a pregnancy a woman can opt out of carrying the foetus on the grounds of basic autonomy over one's own body.
Again, not kill the baby, but opt out of carrying the foetus.
I still haven't heard anyone explain why women are required to sacrifice their own fucking bodies (and in many cases; jobs, financial and social independence, etc.) for the right to life of another being. Nobody else does it.
To those who are against abortion: Are YOU going to support these unwanted children for the first 18 years of their lives? Because otherwise you're making a(n im)moral decision that destroys the lives of others while you continue living your own, unaffected. Most of you have no idea what your arguments actually mean for the real lives of women. Do you have any concept of how many women have used the morning after pill (let alone abortion) as a means of saving their lives from unwanted children, humiliation, and early-school-leaving? (note; I'm not saying that all early pregnancies are unwanted) A pill which you would make illegal, thereby destroying the lives of the mothers forced against their will to keep the unwanted child.
David: Your use of the phrase 'destroying their lives' is exaggeration - it may negatively impact their lives, may severely negatively impact their lives, but it's not going to literally destroy them. Unlike the developing humans which do, in the literal sense of the word, have their lives destroyed.
What the majority of your argument seems to be based on, is the (quite understandable) concept that the rights and personal happiness of real people have to be made priority over political and religious opinions. I see where you're coming from, but I view this issue as way more significant than just political/religious viewpoints.... as I am arguing that that priority is trumped by the need to protect actual human lives. If you can theoretically assume for a moment that fetuses are indeed human beings in every sense of the world, can you see where I'm coming from? Even if you still wouldn't agree with it, necessarily.
Zakal: (in response to Omar): This is an interesting argument because it raises the question of how much of a duty we owe our fellow human beings. Again, refering to the law insofar as it reflects societal principles, there is no positive duty of rescue imposed upon another. If i see you drowning, i have no LEGAL obligation imposed on me to try and save you...i can, by turning away, condemn you to death. I know you wont survive...but the sea is a little rough for me to risk it. I could get someone else to help you...but my phone is all the way back in my car...it'd take me AGES to walk back to get it...and its up a hill..it'd probably hurt like hell. So...youre dead. Legally im clean...but am i right morally?
IF the foetus is alive, with our present state of medical science, opting out of the pregnancy condemns the foetus to death prior to a certain point in time. However its interesting to consider with appropriate medical advances....could an "abortion" occur at any time, whereby allowing medicine to take up what the mother could not, and effectivley "incubate" the foetus to term? Might be less of an ethical dillema if that were the case...though it doesnt address your next point.
[The idea that women should be required to sacrifice their own bodies has merit] because our society is built upon the premise that the right to life trumps everything else. Freedom, autonomy, everything is subservient to the existence of life, and this isnt a concept that is unique to western civilisation...its something that appears to have developed independantly and consistantly throughout human civilisation.
It seems unfair in this example...but imagine a society that reverses this order, and puts, as you say, jobs, and financial and social independance ahead of the right to life of other human beings. Your my boss...i just dont feel financially independant on the shit wages you pay me. If you were dead...i'd get your job. Why should i sacrifice my financial independance for your right to life?
Nobody else does it? Everybody else does it. Not in the same way, but everyone does it. By NOT killing someone to gain an advantage, by not stealing to ensure your financial independance, by not killing the cop who deprives you of your liberty (lawfully or otherwise). Anyone who doesn't do it, society tries to deal with.
Greg: Reading all the opinions here both for and against has resulted in me strengthening my anit-abortion views.
On the whole some well though out points but Zakal and a few others on the same side of the fence have argued the case very well.
Especially find the argument curious about if people are going to break a law anyway then that action should not be made illegal.
Also society has every right to say what a woman does with her body as society is also responsible for the other human being in question, the unborn child. Whether it is fair or not is irrelevant unless you have someway of changing the anatomy of the sexes.
Susan: Just to claify I am not advocating that you make something - in this case abortion legal because people will do it anyway - my view is more that making it illegal doesn't stop people doing it and given that it is such an intensely personal decision I don't think a law one way or another will make a scrap of difference - woman will or won't based on their circumstances - if need be they will seek and find alternative methods outside the law - my concern is the health of the woman pure and simple.
Women seeking termination in Victoria must attend a mandatory counselling session - in many instances their initial decision to abort is changed as all the options and support available is discussed - this has not been and will not be the case if illegality is attached.
There are so many variables in this argument - you could argue that to carry and birth is always better than abortion - BUT then what of the woman who has a stroke late in pregnancy (it may be natural to give birth but there are also substantial physiological effects on the woman's body) that leaves her significantly incapacitated and the babe severely brain damaged?
A risk with all pregnancies true but what if the woman had significant risk factors and comorbities that increased the risks and the pregnancy was unwanted?
And what of a victim of rape - should they be forced to carry and birth a child resulting from a violent invasion of their body?
Do we make exceptions based on some predetermined criteria and if so who determines that criteria - the law makers, the church, popular opinion?
Is there a maximum number of weeks gestation before a termination cannot be performed - and if so is this not back to the argument of when does a human life begin - conception? when able to sustain life independantly?
Perhaps I have nursed too long - for IMO life at any cost regardless of quality and meaning is a theory held by those who have not watched prolonged and agonising death - it may offend but I subscribe to the "better to die on your feet than live on you knees" theory.
Nomadjack: Don't mean to detract or belittle the debate by using a ridiculous example Omar but would you hold true to the same principle [that women should not be required to sacrifice their own bodies for the sake of another being] if we were talking about conjoined twins who shared the same life critical organs instead of a mother and foetus? What I mean is would one twin have the right to end their own life knowing that that decision would also end the life of the other without choice?
I've always been and remain very much pro-choice, but I must admit, since becoming a parent and watching a foetus grow into a viable and conscious life my thoughts on this issue have been challenged. I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you make out Omar because once a foetus reaches an advanced stage of development (somewhere post 20-24 weeks) fundamentally you have two individuals dependent on the same body. In this situation the womens right to control her own body which I would regard as a basic human right, fundamentally clashes with the baby's right to life. As far as I see it it's a situation that cannot be resolved.
Stui: The resolution is maybe to put a cap on the term. Something like 16 weeks as a max unless there is a genuine medical issue. Which is what I believe happens unofficially now.
Craig: A womans right to decide for her own body. End of argument.
David: Just one more thing to add: after posting the above, I thought, why would an abortion be less of a tragedy than a child of mine dying post-birth? I am sure most of you, even those who also oppose abortion, would agree that this would be the case.
I think that point right there is the reason why abortion hasn't been made completely illegal. It's very easy not to care too much (relatively) about a child that you never even see - as the proverb says, out of sight, out of mind. A similar scenario is one where you find out you had a long-lost brother, but then find out a week later that he died 10 years ago. Sure, you'd be sad about it, but not nearly as upset as you would be if you lost a brother that you'd known your entire life.
I just thought I'd throw that out there.
Stui: Women have miscarriages all the time. The danger period is generally in the first 3 months. The impact on the woman varies depending on how much she wants to have a baby (some women who are desperate to have a baby are shattered by repeated miscarriages) but at less than 13 weeks, there's nothing to hold, nothing to greive for except what might have been. The majority of women recover from a miscarriage far far easier than they do from a still birth or from delivering a baby that later dies.
Using your argument about life and killing people, it isn't against the law to turn off the respirator on someone who's brain dead.
If a woman aborts the foetus before the brain has developed, was it alive or was it a potential life?
David: My point is, it is because of the (relative) lack of emotional attachment with the foetus that abortion is deemed to be ok by most - because nobody really cares all that much about the unborn baby (relatively speaking people, relatively speaking), issues like women's rights and civil liberties do seem to become more important than the child's right to life.
My argument is that, is emotional detachment really relevant to a being's rights? My conclusion (which Zakal expanded on and made clearer) was that no, certainly not, using the example of the long-lost brother compared to the family member who you've spent your life with.
As for development of the brain, I guess I'll put a theoretical forward - would it be lawful to turn off the respirator if there was a chance that that person would recover their brain activity? Could the same scenario then be applied to a foetus? Interesting stuff. What if there was a 90-95% chance that the patient was going to recover from the lack of brain activity? Would it still be legal to end their lives?
Zakal: Maybe Trees arn't really alive....but an animal is. We seem to have a thriving animal rights movement that protects the right to life and to a greater degree, the freedom from cruelty of animals. Some vegetarians don't eat meat because they dont wan't an animal to die or suffer.
I would hestiate to venture that a 'majority' of people don't have a problem with killing animals for food. They're alive, yet we put down our pets and we kill and eat chickens, cows whatever. So maybe its not life that we hold sacred at all.
Maybe its only sentient life. Which brings me back to the brain dead. The argument runs, that when brain function has ceased they are no longer alive. But maybe its their sentience they have lost, nto their life. Because on ANY other definition of life (trees, animals, aeomeba) they are still "alive." Not life as we would like it to be, but alive nonetheless. But with their brain dead, perhaps the essence of sentience is forever lost to them. Without wanting to sound callous or cruel....like animals, they are alive, but no longer sentient (if you extend the previous argument).
Maybe thats what makes it okay...if indeed it is okay...to end their life.
...but that doesnt really explain it either. At least not as society views it.
Because you can't END that person's life. You can only withdraw external support for it. Like Omar's argument about "discontinuing" the pregnancy. If the person on life support has support withdrawn, and still keeps breathing or whatever on their own...thats as far as society allows you to go at the moment.
And even then, its not a decision that can be made unilaterally by some doctor. You need the consent of that person to remove their life support. If they haven't given their support prior to being incapacitated, you need their next of kin to stand in their shoes and give their support. If that can't happen either, a person is appointed by state appointed tribunal to make that decision in their place. It is not a decision that is made lightly.
And each time it equates to more consideration than is given to a collection of cells growing exponentially, and in some places, and in some instances, this is despite that collection of exponentially growing cells having more claim to sentience than a brain-dead person.
Then of course there is the "but for" argument that was raised before. But for some intereference taking place, most of the time the foetus will become a human baby. Alive, sentient, self-aware and concious. On the other hand, 'But for' some intervention, a brain dead person will, most of the time, proceed to die. Im not sure its an argument that i find overly convincing however.
David: I just want to return to Stui's analogy at the moment:
if a person was in a theoretical coma that, somehow, was only going to last a year and the doctors were somehow almost certain that the person would recover after that time period, would it be lawful to pull the plug on them during this stage? Why, or why not, or perhaps more relatively, should it be lawful to do so?
It's a bizarre analogy, I know, but perhaps it is a little apt. Could we consider a foetus as a person who has suffered brain damage, but WILL recover from it? Does this point of view have any credence? Just a thought I had after reading Stui's post.
Just to throw another thought out there (make of it what you will), I remember doing a first aid course when I was about 10 or 11. The guy running the course fielded some questions at the end of it, and one of them was "if you have two people about to die, and you have the chance to save one, who do you pick?" His response was that, if, say, there was a baby and a middle-aged man, he would always pick the baby, as it had more life to live. Just added this to add another perspective to the debate - does development/more advanced 'humanity' really result in a greater right to life?
Stui: David,
If the person were in a position to recover from their brain damage, then it wouldn't be ethical to pull the plug. Refer Zakal's posts on this, he said it more eloquantly than I can.
I suppose where I'm coming from is that (along the lines of being sentient) the human who is brain dead, is a human. Once brain dead, they are no longer really alive. If there is a reasonable probability they will recover then they should have that time.
A mother choosing to end a pregnancy is a different proposition. IMO, a foetus is not a life, it's a potential life. At about 12 weeks, you have something that is about 10 cm in length, with zero chance of living if removed from the womb and not sentient. if you want to mix things around, a foetus doesn't become sentient or 'aware" until after it's born. It may be able to respond to stimuli prior to that, but so can a plant.
The foetus hasn't actually drawn breath, hasn't been born, doesn't have the same rights as a human who's passed through the gates and drawn breath.
My personal opinion is that the 20 week mark is the crossover point.If a foetus is to be aborted it should be prior to 20 weeks, but as early as possible prior to that. Post 20 weeks, only in exceptional circumstances. After 20 weeks, you are getting to the stage of taking out a viable human being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's pretty much it. Once again, I hope I have been fair to both sides. Sorry about any spelling/punctuation errors as well, this was a bit of a copy and paste job.
It is interesting comparing the poll results to the number of posts on each side of the debate. It even seems at times that there were a greater (or at least equal) number of people opposing abortion compared to those supporting it, despite the poll results being roughly 4:1 in favour of a woman's right to choose. Regardless, I am pleased to say that it was one of the most informative and well-argued debates I have been involved in, and it never reverted to personal attacks or off-topic arguments.
Anyhow, I hope this has provided a few new perspectives on the abortion debate, regardless of your existing opinions on the matter.
pro-life
