Abortion discussion

[Lyanna Stark]

Scot:

I understand what you are saying. I certianly hope there are no problems. During both of Laura's pregnancies she chose not to have the genetic testing done, because of her beliefs regarding abortion. Her logic was simply "If I will not choose to abort because of a genetic abnormality why would I want to know ahead of time?"

Well, as she (and I assume you as well) had already made the decision, that is fine. Many other prospective parents are in a different position and don't have the same abilities to take care of a Down's Syndrome child. Nymeria Sand has an example of that above as well.

All, in all, these are extremely hard decisions and I think removing people's ability to make these choices carry such heavy implications as to make them impossible.

[CiaranAnnrach]

I don't think I agree with this. There is a right thing and a wrong thing, and that will be independent of the person doing it. Circumstances alter cases, of course, including the circumstance of the condition of the person making the choice, and what the right thing is will depend on the circumstances, but if the only change is swapping out my moral sense for yours I disagree that the right choice is shifted thereby. A choice is not automatically made right because it was made by the person making it. And of course I believe my moral code is the best; if I didn't, it wouldn't be my moral code -- I would have changed my moral code to suit.

There are no absolutes in life, nothing that is absolutely "wrong" or "right", I hope you can agree to that much. There will always be a time where a lie is justifiable, and perhaps considered the right thing. Same with stealing, killing, and whatever else. I mean, is it wrong to lie to someone who is dieing, so that their last few moments may be those of hope and joy? Is it wrong to kill the person trying to kill your family? By the same token, is it right to tell someone the truth, and remove all hope and joy they might have felt, on their deathbed? To watch someone murder your family because of your pacifistic views?

The circumstances surrounding these actions, they are what matter. They can turn what is normally viewed as an evil act into a kind, or justified, act. The circumstances can also change what is normally the "right" thing into an act of cruelty. But the problem with it is now you've introduced a level of interpretation. Shades of gray. What level of gray are acceptable to you, what you view as "right", might not be acceptable to me, despite the both of us having more or less similar moral codes. That's because we interpret the circumstances differently, and it affects us in different ways. And the spectrum of gray is quite large, and since you and I won't place the same value on the same things, it will change from circumstance to circumstance.

For example. Is it right to kill someone who is trying to rape your friend? Some will say no, because nobody's life is in danger, and I'd disagree. And I know some people who have strong moral codes as well, and think it'd be the "right" thing to shoot an intruder in their home. Others would disagree, personally I don't know where I stand on that particular issue but let's not get into that.

The point is, this concept of "right" and "wrong" is entirely based on your perception, interpretation, and the influence of society. This will change and vary from person to person, because we are all different people with different experiences and different thoughts, and who is to say whose is the best? To claim yours is the absolute best moral code ever, well, that's just egotistical and alienating. To claim yours is the best moral code for you, then that is 100% right and nobody can tell you otherwise. Not I, not any of these administrators, nobody.

This is why I say there is no absolute "right" and "wrong", but rather it varies from person to person. There are few cases that are black and white where 95% of the people can agree on, but most of them are shades of gray, where everyone will feel something different is right, or that it's right or wrong to differing degrees. We live in that gray, breathe it, and ultimately we have to accept it.

[mouse]

You aren't pushing hypo too far. The Hypo itself opens a lot of problems. If the "exo-uterus" exists do those embryo's then have a right to be implanted and developed? Under my idea of an independent right to exist for pre-birth humans that could be the result of such a right that I hadn't considered before you pointed it out. How many frozen embryos are out there that would then have the right to be grown to birth?

How many froxen embryos are out there? I would venture to say that there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos out there. In IVF, typically 5-20 eggs are retrieved (but then there are outliers who produce 30 or more eggs); about 60-80% fertilize; about 50% of those make it to the point that they can be transferred or frozen. Most women/couples do choose to have any extras frozen (for possible future transfers), but the clinics typically will maintain them only for 3-5 years, after which time the couple can choose to dispose of them, donate them to science, or donate them to another infertile couple.

So, under your scenario, Scot, you're looking at a huge number.

[ljkeane]

All, in all, these are extremely hard decisions and I think removing people's ability to make these choices carry such heavy implications as to make them impossible.

I don't think many people think it is unreasonable that parents are able to make a decision about whether they want to have a child who would suffer from a severe condition.

I think it does get more debateable when you talk about possible circumstances that might arise in the future. What if it became possible to test for the sexuality of a baby, would it be acceptable for parents to choose to have an abortion on that basis?

[Jaerv]

Nymeria,

Your definition of life obviously was created for the application to groups of entities, for example bacteria, viruses etc, not for single individuals. No human is able to “reproduce on its own.“ Its absurd to use this definition it in an abortion thread where the discussion is about single individuals. That’s why I was laughing my ass of…

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nymeria,

Very interesting post.

Ultimately, the question of when life begins isn't going to be answered by religion. It's going to be answered by science, just as it's science that's given us the definition and criteria for death.

Just to clarify. The issue isn't when "life" begins? It is when does "human life" begin? Heck there are people like Peter Singer who argue a child isn't really human until after age 2 and as such they shouldn't be entitled to full human rights. He even argues in favor of infanticide on demand.

This is a difficult issue there is no question. Where I've settled is that I believe life begins at conception. However, political reality is such that it is highly unlikely that abortion will be prohibited in the first trimester of pregnancy. As such, holding to my belief, I accept that abortion is going to be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy. As for the second and thrid trimesters I would like to see it legally restricted to those situations where a woman's life or physical health are put at risk by the pregnancy.

As to aborting fetuses with genetic abnormalities that would still allow them to survive into adulthood, that's a really (really) hard question. I'm not sure where I come down.

Mouse,

How many froxen embryos are out there? I would venture to say that there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos out there. In IVF, typically 5-20 eggs are retrieved (but then there are outliers who produce 30 or more eggs); about 60-80% fertilize; about 50% of those make it to the point that they can be transferred or frozen. Most women/couples do choose to have any extras frozen (for possible future transfers), but the clinics typically will maintain them only for 3-5 years, after which time the couple can choose to dispose of them, donate them to science, or donate them to another infertile couple.

So, under your scenario, Scot, you're looking at a huge number.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Boy my hypothetical blastocyte right to exist would really open a huge can of worms.

BTW it's good to see you posting. I hope you are well.

[Nymeria Sand]

Scot:

Well, as she (and I assume you as well) had already made the decision, that is fine. Many other prospective parents are in a different position and don't have the same abilities to take care of a Down's Syndrome child. Nymeria Sand has an example of that above as well.

All, in all, these are extremely hard decisions and I think removing people's ability to make these choices carry such heavy implications as to make them impossible.

I agree, Lyanna. I don't think any woman makes the decision to have an abortion lightly. And those who do, for whatever reason, do suffer from it. They're doing the best they can in the circumstances, and I for one would never judge them for it. Who am I to say what's best for them? I probably would not do it myself, but that doesn't give me the right to impose my morality on them, because I have no idea what they're going through.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lyanna,

Scot:

Well, as she (and I assume you as well) had already made the decision, that is fine. Many other prospective parents are in a different position and don't have the same abilities to take care of a Down's Syndrome child. Nymeria Sand has an example of that above as well.

All, in all, these are extremely hard decisions and I think removing people's ability to make these choices carry such heavy implications as to make them impossible.

To be clear, I'm not saying you and your husband should do what Laura and I did. Your circumstances are not ours.

[Nymeria Sand]

Nymeria,

Very interesting post.

Just to clarify. The issue isn't when "life" begins? It is when does "human life" begin? Heck there are people like Peter Singer who argue a child isn't really human until after age 2 and as such they shouldn't be entitled to full human rights. He even argues in favor of infanticide on demand.

That's a good point, Scot. (Even though I think Singer is a nutcase and way too extreme in is views.) I'll clarify and say human life, but the criteria are still the same.

This is a difficult issue there is no question. Where I've settled is that I believe life begins at conception. However, political reality is such that it is highly unlikely that abortion will be prohibited in the first trimester of pregnancy. As such, holding to my belief, I accept that abortion is going to be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy. As for the second and thrid trimesters I would like to see it legally restricted to those situations where a woman's life or physical health are put at risk by the pregnancy.

I think this is a reasonable position. I'll only add that it should be allowed late if the mother's life is in danger. I don't see the point in allowing two to die if one can be saved, and if it's only one, Mom gets my vote. Not out of any contempt for the fetus, but I do think the mother-to-be (she's not a mother until the baby is born!!) should come first.

As to aborting fetuses with genetic abnormalities that would still allow them to survive into adulthood, that's a really (really) hard question. I'm not sure where I come down.

It's a quality of life issue, Scot. We do this at the other end of the life spectrum, when someone is near death. A person--be it an old person or a baby or a young child--is hooked up to all kind of tubes, wires, with very little hope they will ever be able to improve their condition. What kind of life is that? We'd give an adult the choice to withhold food, water, and other necessities and let them die in dignity, but we're squeamish when it comes to babies and children. Most adults would not want to live that way...yet we deny that option to our children. Sometimes hanging on is more selfish than letting them go.

[Zahir al Daoud]

I asked this hypothetical once before. If a doctor or biologist invented an exo-uterus and it was possible to transfer a fetus from a woman to an exo-uterus, at medicial risk equal to that of abortion, should women still have the right to choose to abort the fetus where their lives and physical health are not at immediate risk?

I'm trying to see if you and others believe fetuses have some right to exist after implantation that should be weighed against a woman's right to bodily integrity?

While this adds another option (to those who could afford it) I don't see how it changes my essential point.

In another forum I suggested such an "synthetic womb" idea as a way to cut down on abortions, and the Anti-Choice posters attacked the idea as immoral. Really.

The issue isn't when "life" begins? It is when does "human life" begin?

Actually, I would argue it is a question of when does a collection of cells become a human person. After all, every single living cell in my body is a "human life" but that doesn't entitle them to equal status as humans.

I think it does get more debateable when you talk about possible circumstances that might arise in the future. What if it became possible to test for the sexuality of a baby, would it be acceptable for parents to choose to have an abortion on that basis?

Acceptable to whom? Myself, I would posit that while this is (probably) objectionable in most circumstances by my personal values the notion of legislating such a thing seems extreme. Unless it were becoming a common problem. I've read that is the case in China, where young women are supposedly a shrinking minority in recent generations--outnumbered two to one or more. And due to precisely such acts, because culturally the Chinese value girls so much less than boys.

Which again comes round to the value put upon women.

[Jaerv]

Actually, I would argue it is a question of when does a collection of cells become a human person. After all, every single living cell in my body is a "human life" but that doesn't entitle them to equal status as humans.

I agree with the first sentence. But the arguement in the second sentence ist still wrong. See my upper post (No. 95).

[LCOTNW]

Lyanna,

All very good questions that would be prompted by the creation of a viable exo-uterus.

<snip>

Should such technology ever be created, I think it would have much deeper ramification than that. I wonder how many women would choose to go that route even if they *want* the resulting baby. It would be a way to avoid the process of childbirth for those that do not want to deal with the health consequences of carrying a baby to term, as one advantage. An exo-uterus might eliminate the possibility of miscarriage almost entirely, and it might allow us to completely eliminate a wide range of birth defects, etc. One would have to ask whether the state would be allowed to force a drug addict to transfer her fetus to such a device in the interests of avoiding in-utero addiction and related health consequences. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Taking the long view of history, our sense of morals and ethics do evolve over time, and changes in technology and advancements in science have a great impact on that. I know that some people feel that there are immutable moral standards, and there probably are some. In the case of abortion, there does not appear to be agreement on whether that inflexible standard should be applied. We don't all believe in a god, and those that do are not in agreement as to how god's teachings should be applied.

If technology changed the parameters of the question of viability, then we no longer have to consider the conflict between the proposed rights of the fetus against the rights of the mother when the choice is mutually exclusive.

It does not change the issue of whether the mother should have the right to refuse such a transfer and be allowed to insist on an abortion even if she would have no legal responsibilities for the fetus/infant after the procedure. If one believes that the fetal material is not deserving of legal protection, then I can see where a mother might want to exert control over whether that biological mass eventually becomes a baby. I can certainly see where the moral opinion of the general populace might oppose such a decision when there is a viable alternative to abortion besides carrying the fetus to term. I don't think, however, that a speculative thought experiment about non-existent technology would force us to change our moral choices under the limitations of current technology.

On the other hand, if we devoted our energies into developing better methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, then these difficult moral questions would not have to be addressed. My interpretation of Obama's address was to promote this idea so that we don't have to find a way to reconcile what is clearly irreconcilable.

[El-ahrairah]

But how do you work that out in regards to abortion? A father can never carry the baby. Hence it is inherent that it HAS to be the mother who always have to lay down her life, not the father. Pregnancy is mostly uncomplicated, but it can also be a lifethreatening condition.

Pregnancy is but one the first of many aspects of parenthood. And it does happen to only apply to mothers, but as a general rule in any situation, say if a kid's in front of a speeding car, I hold that the parent, male or female, has the responsibility to save him, if needed by giving up life. Obviously many parents would not do so, but I see this as the ideal.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you plan on making mothers carry to term if it may threaten their own life, threaten the life of the child, the child is likely to be born with severe defects or the mother doesn't want the child. How is this going to happen without removing women's human rights for nine months or until they die of the complications?

It's not a positive action that the mother is compelled to do, but a negative one that is forbidden to her. And what is forbidden is not a "human right", but a premeditated homicide.

El-ahrairah,

You postulate that the life of a child is more important or valuable than that of an adult, in that a parent should sacrifice him/herself for a child if faced with a life or death situation. You don't seem to make any attempt to elaborate on this belief though. Why exactly does the child's life take priority?

Because the adult has already lived life, while the child has only begun it. Because the great making way for the lowly is the noblest thing I can comprehend, and the great treading on the lowly is likewise the worst. Maybe it can't be justified logically, except for the cold fact that the survival of the race demands new blood, and not retention of the old that already has given birth. Call it chivalry, call it "women and children first", call it "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" - call it hopeless romanticism. By whatever name, though choosing who will live and die is not easy, when the choice is as such the answer is clearer to me than anything else in the world.

The law cannot compel a mother (or anyone else) to commit such selfless acts, but it can and should prevent her from doing what is the polar opposite of the maternal ideal - to snuff out the life whose bearing is the very reason she herself was born, in order to unnaturally prolong her allotted span.

In another forum I suggested such an "synthetic womb" idea as a way to cut down on abortions, and the Anti-Choice posters attacked the idea as immoral. Really.

Is it immoral? Yes, every child deserves "real" parents. But the alternative is so vastly more immoral that it doesn't bear debating.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Pregnancy is but one the first of many aspects of parenthood. And it does happen to only apply to mothers, but as a general rule in any situation, say if a kid's in front of a speeding car, I hold that the parent, male or female, has the responsibility to save him, if needed by giving up life. Obviously many parents would not do so, but I see this as the ideal.

No, that's a poor analogy. With child-birth, there's no guarantee that the child will survive and be healthy. With your scenario there is. And, there are always extraneous circumstances that you've not considered that blur the lines you've so carefully drawn around your "parental responsibility." You may see the world in black and white, but most of us see grays.

It's not a positive action that the mother is compelled to do, but a negative one that is forbidden to her. And what is forbidden is not a "human right", but a premeditated homicide.

Seeing as how it is not a forbidden action, and that currently it is a human right, what you've said has no bearing. But, I realize what you meant, even if it's not what you said. Your basic plan is to strip people of their rights and enforce your strict beliefs on everyone. Remove their freedom of individual choice and their own personal privacy. You would become a tyrant with an iron fist with no compassion for understanding what the other person feels.

Because the adult has already lived life, while the child has only begun it.

Please tell me how a 15 year old girl has "already lived her life." Or someone who is 25, who has lived a third to a fourth of their full life. (This is also completely ignoring the fact the child may not live past 10.) They've only just reached adulthood, and they are only just then beginning their lives. And you would have them throw all that away on a gamble with poor odds.

Because the great making way for the lowly is the noblest thing I can comprehend, and the great treading on the lowly is likewise the worst.

Again, this is you and your opinion speaking. Stop trying to enforce your opinion on other people, it's one of the best ways to piss them off and alienate you from them.

Maybe it can't be justified logically, except for the cold fact that the survival of the race demands new blood, and not retention of the old that already has given birth.

No, logical would be for the (young) mother to abandon the child. The mother can always have more children, and can survive in the world alone as she is. The child can not. If you want to be 100% logical and heartless about it. If we were talking about a 60 year old woman, then, ok sure, maybe your argument has some teeth, but we're not.

Call it chivalry, call it "women and children first", call it "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" - call it hopeless romanticism. By whatever name, though choosing who will live and die is not easy, when the choice is as such the answer is clearer to me than anything else in the world.

It would be "women and children first"...if you were sacrificing your own safety. But you're not. You're saying "children first, then women." The other saying you mentioned also does not apply, because quite simply, not every woman is going to love their child. Especially if that child is unwanted, or due to a rape, and - oh yeah, killing her. Even those that do love their babies, it's still not an easy choice, especially when the girl in question is young and still has her life and all her dreams in front of her.

And, honestly, the answer is not clear to you, otherwise you wouldn't have admitted that you don't know what you would do if it happened to the woman you love, and that you probably would have picked the "wrong" choice. The answer is only clear to you because it's not you who has to pick, and it's not you who has to live with this choice. Your words are contradictory, and this is precisely why I said you don't have the right to tell anyone what to do. You can't even keep your story straight on what you yourself would do!

The law cannot compel a mother (or anyone else) to commit such selfless acts, but it can and should prevent her from doing what is the polar opposite of the maternal ideal - to snuff out the life whose bearing is the very reason she herself was born, in order to unnaturally prolong her allotted span.

Again, you would play the tyrant. How...compassionate of you. Oh, and how very sexist as well. Women are only born to give birth? Ladies, I think I'll let you field this one.

Is it immoral? Yes, every child deserves "real" parents. But the alternative is so vastly more immoral that it doesn't bear debating.

Only in your own little world of blacks and whites. The rest of us are living in grays.

[El-ahrairah]

Seeing as how it is not a forbidden action, and that currently it is a human right, what you've said has no bearing. But, I realize what you meant, even if it's not what you said. Your basic plan is to strip people of their rights, and enforce your strict beliefs on everyone. Basically, strip them of their freedom of individual choice and of their own personal privacy. You would become a tyrant with an iron fist with no compassion for understanding what the other person feels.

Hm... So was the U.S. pre-Roe v. Wade a "tyrant with an iron fist"? Is the modern Republic of Ireland a "tyrant with an iron fist"? And I can't see how abortion is a "right", aside from groundless extrapolation from Amendment XIV, which would be laughable if it weren't thought true by so many.

Again, this is you and your opinion speaking. Stop trying to enforce your opinion on other people, it's one of the best ways to piss them off and alienate you from them.

It's true that it's my opinion, but opinions are the only things that drive my actions, just as they drive yours. And imposing opinions is the cornerstone of democracy. A few months ago some 50 million Americans had a President "imposed" on them by the opinions of others.

It would be "women and children first"...if you were sacrificing your own safety. But you're not. You're saying "children first, then women." The other saying you mentioned also does not apply, because quite simply, not every woman is going to love their child. Especially if that child is unwanted, or due to a rape, and - oh yeah, killing her. Even those that do love their babies, it's still not an easy choice, especially when the girl in question is young and still has her life and all her dreams in front of her.

And, honestly, the answer is not clear to you, otherwise you wouldn't have admitted that you don't know what you would do if it happened to the woman you love, and that you probably would have picked the "wrong" choice. The answer is only clear to you because it's not you who has to pick, and it's not you who has to live with this choice. Your words are contradictory, and this is precisely why I said you don't have the right to tell anyone what to do. You can't even keep your story straight on what you yourself would do!

Again, at this moment, I am thinking clearly and without distress, and know what is right. But I can't know the future, when these conditions might not be met. If you're throwing darts, you know the "right thing" is to hit the center of the target, but if you strike the edge, the object of the game is not changed. I don't see what's so hard to understand about it. Do you believe whatever you might do will always be right? Or maybe can you infallibly predict the future?

Again, you would play the tyrant. How...compassionate of you. Oh, and how very sexist as well. Women are only born to give birth? Ladies, I think I'll let you field this one.

Well, it's not exactly something men are born to do, is it?

Only in your own little world of blacks and whites. The rest of us are living in grays.

The choice is between two evils - that is not black and white. But the obligation is to always choose the lighter shade of gray.

[denstorebog]

Well, it's not exactly something men are born to do, is it?

holy shit

[CiaranAnnrach]

Hm... So was the U.S. pre-Roe v. Wade a "tyrant with an iron fist"? Is the modern Republic of Ireland a "tyrant with an iron fist"? And I can't see how abortion is a "right", aside from groundless extrapolation from Amendment XIV, which would be laughable if it weren't thought true by so many.

Roe v Wade is a red herring and you damn well know it. Before the ruling, the state abortion laws had a clause that allowed abortion in the case of where the woman was raped, or birth endangered the life of the mother. So does Ireland.

So, yes, demanding that the mother die for a chance to give birth to a child is, I'd say, tyrannical.

It's true that it's my opinion, but opinions are the only things that drive my actions, just as they drive yours. And imposing opinions is the cornerstone of democracy. A few months ago some 50 million Americans had a President "imposed" on them by the opinions of others.

Popular opinion, yes. Yours is not popular. Yours is, "I'm right, and this is how I want everyone to act." You want to impose your morals on people, not a policy. And it is the height of arrogance to go around and mandate that everyone conform to your opinion, instead of accepting the fact that everyone is going to feel differently. I know where you are coming from, and I don't fault you for your opinion. I fault you for trying to impose it on everyone else.

ETA: Laws are also in place to protect society. They are not in place to enforce morals, that's religion's job. The issue of abortion in these circumstances does not, in any way, protect society. If it did, then society would have collapsed by now.

Again, at this moment, I am thinking clearly and without distress, and know what is right. But I can't know the future, when these conditions might not be met. If you're throwing darts, you know the "right thing" is to hit the center of the target, but if you strike the edge, the object of the game is not changed. I don't see what's so hard to understand about it. Do you believe whatever you might do will always be right? Or maybe can you infallibly predict the future?

You're making excuses, and we're not talking about darts. We're talking about what you would do, and what you've said. You've said you would most likely pick the "wrong" choice. So either you were lying, you don't know what your moral code really is, or your moral code isn't strong enough to endure the emotional duress you would experience in that situation. Either way it marks you a hypocrite, since you are condemning everyone else for doing what you've admitted you yourself would likely do.

And, there is absolutely no shame in admitting you don't know what you'd do. Most people don't. Just don't go around telling everyone else what to do in that same situation. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Well, it's not exactly something men are born to do, is it?

Wow. I thought you'd have backpedaled some, maybe admitted that women have other reasons to be born besides giving birth. You know, that whole contribution to society, helping make the world a better place, that kind of thing that's not necessarily related to just being a "baby maker." But no, you went full steam and more or less said men don't need women at all if it wasn't for that pesky childbirth thing. A snarky reply was not your best choice here.

So, if a woman decides she doesn't have children, she has no reason to live? That's what you're saying, and that's a pill I have a hard time swallowing.

The choice is between two evils - that is not black and white. But the obligation is to always choose the lighter shade of gray.

Your lighter shade of gray is dictated by a sharp line you've drawn in the sand of which there can be no variation. That's not a shade of gray, that's black and white.

Also, I can't help but notice you've skipped over some of the points I've posed to you. Care to explain how a 20 year old or 18 year old has "lived a full life"?

[Kalbear]

Also, I can't help but notice you've skipped over some of the points I've posed to you. Care to explain how a 20 year old or 18 year old has "lived a full life"?

Well clearly, as soon as you've had a baby you've lived a full life. That's the only reason to exist, right?

[CiaranAnnrach]

Well clearly, as soon as you've had a baby you've lived a full life. That's the only reason to exist, right?

Apparently. Feminists everywhere will be crushed. Women, let this be a lesson to you! Your place is in the kitchen, barefoot, and preggers! Now stop crying and go make me a sandwich. :rolleyes:

[denstorebog]

Your place is in the kitchen, barefoot, and preggers!

Actually, I've always wondered where on earth the barefoot thing came from? I wouldn't be above granting my wife a couple of old socks once in a while.