"New" Abortion Initiative

chump

Fair point.

I'm just not that sentimental a person

obviously

Victor

Xterminator wrote:

That means currently the most vunerable in our society, for example the incest victims, ..... cannot avail of this option, yet they are the very poeple who cannot easily avail of contraception for both economic and practical factors!

I don't think abortion availibility prevents or solves rape inside or outside the family.

Nevada

Sand wrote:

Youre assuming that abortion is a progressive and liberal step. I might have agreed and while back, but Im not so sure these days. And its nothing to do with a sudden conversion to fundamentalist Catholicism. Once you start considering "rights" it goes beyond only considering them from one persons perspective and ignoring all others.

Well said Sand abortion is a monstrous selfishness.

OfflerCrocGod

Victor wrote:

I don't think abortion availibility prevents or solves rape inside or outside the family.

No one said abortion is going to solve rapes. It's simply the fact that women who have been abused/raped and end up becoming pregnant may not want to give birth to the child of their rapist, call them crazy, abortion can then be used; especially if the girl is too young or emotionally mature to take care of a child. Then again who cares about the mothers life? She is worthless when compared to a fetus, she should just learn to suck it up and live with it. You never know she may get child support from her rapist.

Victor

X molests Y his daughter. Shes gets pregnant. X arranges for Y to have an abortion. X continues to molest Y, with liitle no outside knowledge.

Afterwards X may or may not take contraceptive or counter-STI measures.

Y is no better off.

simu

Victor wrote:

X molests Y his daughter. Shes gets pregnant.

Y gives birth to Z in secret.


X now gets to molest Y and Z instead of Y alone.

Victor

simu wrote:

Y gives birth to Z in secret.

X now gets to molest Y and Z instead of Y alone.

I think you are now arguing along the lines of the "kill the disabled" argument that was lost above. It a lot easier to conceal an abortion than Z.

nesf

Nevada wrote:

Well said Sand abortion is a monstrous selfishness.

I'd disagree. I don't think you can brand all abortions as such. I'd agree with you for some, I can't bring myself to view late abortions as anything else unless there are medical reasons involved.

I do not however think that everyone can be called selfish for such.

Take, for instance, a 13 year old who is pregnant. By rape, lack of understanding of pregnancy or whatever. At that age she does risk doing herself damage by carrying to term. She also is no where near psychologically prepared to have a child and a pregnancy will disrupt and effect her psychological growth and could possibly cause long term mental health issues or problems. Also, she doesn't even have a junior cert. So she has to either go back to school and complete it, or she is going to forever have a lot of trouble financing herself. Yes, her parents should help her, but let's face it, that isn't the case for everybody and ignoring this is just deluding one's self.

By your rational she is monstorously selfish for having an abortion.

I don't think that view is tenable.

The Corinthian

First of all, I’m not actually arguing against abortion here. Secondly I would comment any further on either emotive or religiously / ideologically (two sides of the same coin after all) motivated arguments outside of considering them both moronic. Less said about emotive or sentimental reasoning the better. Principally I’d like to comment upon the false rational of only one of the pro-choice schools of thought.

It is universally agreed that at a moment prior to conception we’re not talking about a human being, while a moment post birth we are. Erroneously, as a result, much of the debate has centred on whether the foetus is at any stage of prenatal development actually human. Criteria such as viability and self-awareness are shoehorned into forming definitions of humanity, often ignoring the numerous exceptions that the inconsistencies that surround these metrics.

The reality is that we do know that even if there were a magical point at which the foetus became human we don’t actually know what that point is, we can’t really define it and we certainly can’t measure it. Leaving us with a situation whereby we take an arbitrary wild stab or, at best, educated guess - not unlike like deciding to demolish a building based upon the premise that there’s probably no one inside.

And of course that is only if you ascribe to the theory that humanity is achieved long after conception.

I said erroneously, because the importance of whether a foetus is human or not is popularly tied into the modern moral constraint that all humans have, or should have, equal rights - with a right to life being paramount. As a result, if the foetus is human then you simply can’t have abortion, as it would become murder. Even in the case of incest or rape, as it would in effect be punishing another person for the crimes of another. It ceases to become a women’s rights issue and becomes a human rights one.

And if not human, then this is all a non-issue.

An alternative moral philosophy is that it is immaterial whether it is human or not, but that the rights of some supersede the rights of others - even the right to life. Whether you agree with this or not, you will have to concede that it is a far easier principle to apply as it is far easier to argue that a more developed person (the mother) supersedes in important a pre-natal unknown quantity than try to apply arbitrary definitions of humanity.

So TBH, I’ve not a lot of time for the “it’s not human” school. It simply fails to hold up to rational scrutiny. However, accepting that one human life supersedes another is consistent, however unpalatable to many. Whether people like it or not, it is important to consider the reasoning and morality behind abortion cold-bloodedly, because ethically we have to accept that we cannot have our cake and eat it.

RainyDay

nesf wrote:

Take, for instance, a 13 year old who is pregnant. By rape, lack of understanding of pregnancy or whatever. At that age she does risk doing herself damage by carrying to term. She also is no where near psychologically prepared to have a child and a pregnancy will disrupt and effect her psychological growth and could possibly cause long term mental health issues or problems. Also, she doesn't even have a junior cert. So she has to either go back to school and complete it, or she is going to forever have a lot of trouble financing herself. Yes, her parents should help her, but let's face it, that isn't the case for everybody and ignoring this is just deluding one's self.

You're ignoring the option of carrying the child to full-term and then giving it up for adoption. While I understand that this is not easy and can be traumatic for the mother, the same can be said for abortion. The child then gets the chance of a full, healthy life with a set of parents who have been formally vetted for their ability to bring up a child, unlike any natural parent.

Sleepy

RainyDay, you're ignoring nesf's point that physiologically the 13 year old in question is too young to carry a pregnancy to term. Doing so would put her own life at risk.

nesf

RainyDay wrote:

You're ignoring the option of carrying the child to full-term and then giving it up for adoption. While I understand that this is not easy and can be traumatic for the mother, the same can be said for abortion. The child then gets the chance of a full, healthy life with a set of parents who have been formally vetted for their ability to bring up a child, unlike any natural parent.

Sleepy has pointed out the crux of my argument already.

I, personally, think adoption is a fantastic idea and should be considered before abortion if possible.

But in the above hypothetical situation it's as damaging for the mother if she carrys to term and gives it up for adoption or keeps it.

Plus, do you honestly think a 13 year old could grasp the enormity of putting a child up for adoption? It's a very hard decision and does come back to haunt people. I've known people well on both sides and it can be very tough for both the child and the parent(s). Your average 13 year old may not grasp this.

The Corinthian

What about pregnancies that have nothing to do with 13-year-old incest rape victims or are we going to base all our arguments on the most extreme and emotive examples we can find? After all, you are ultimately debating something that has absolutely nothing to do with such cases the vast, vast majority of the time.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

What about pregnancies that have nothing to do with 13-year-old incest rape victims or are we going to base all our arguments on the most extreme and emotive examples we can find? After all, you are ultimately debating something that has absolutely nothing to do with such cases the vast, vast majority of the time.

No, I wasn't choosing emotive examples, my example of the 13 year old was irrespective of how she got pregnant. It was chosen to illustrate a situation where carrying to term is a potential health hazard, both metally and physically.

My point was that it's not something that is homogeneous and simple. You can't take a position on it just being selfish and try to paint every person who has an abortion as doing something "monsterously selfish" without consideration for the range of potential cases being taken into account.

The same would apply to arguing that any woman should be able to have an abortion at any time. Very late third trimester abortions spring to mind as an example that would change the question entirely imho.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

An alternative moral philosophy is that it is immaterial whether it is human or not, but that the rights of some supersede the rights of others - even the right to life. Whether you agree with this or not, you will have to concede that it is a far easier principle to apply as it is far easier to argue that a more developed person (the mother) supersedes in important a pre-natal unknown quantity than try to apply arbitrary definitions of humanity.

I agree, it is a much more solid argument. We at least have a solid agreeable premise here. We do not have equal rights, this is well established both in law and moral thinking.

To what extent do the rights of the mother superceed that of the foetus?

In the example of a situation where carrying to term will almost certainly kill the mother then the answer is clear. The rights of the mother are more important in this case. Whether the mother chooses to exercise this right is a matter of personal choice though imho. She does have the right to not exercise them, although I couldn't personally agree with that decision.

However, we also have to consider the situations where there is only a chance of harm to the mother and it is not definite that such harm will occur. I'm going to assume here that both physical and mental harm are equally relevant here. Is there a point where potential harm becomes likely that the mother's rights superceed the foetus'? Or does any level of harm justify the mother's rights taking precedence?


Then, the broader argument is where do what do we choose as grounds for the mother's rights taking precedence. Or do we take the position that the mother's rights always take precedence? Is that justifiable? Does viability or birth decide the foetus is deserving of equal footing? Yes this is still relevant to the argument, since a foetus may be fully developed yet not birthed.

What constitues fully developed? A child of 6 isn't fully developed mentally or physically. Neither is a child of 11 by that argument. Are their rights less than the rights of the mother? Your argument would seem to indicate this. I imagine that you are talking more specifically than this, but is that just drawing an arbitrary line again?

Just like the moral or the religious arguments?

isolde

While I would never ever want a 13-year old to have to go through either a pregnancy or an abortion, I think these cases are a rarity anyway. I have no figures or statistics to back anything up, but I would venture to say that, fortunately, few 13-year olds get pregnant in general. Most people who have abortions are not rape or incest victims, but just your normal average girls/women.

nesf

isolde wrote:

While I would never ever want a 13-year old to have to go through either a pregnancy or an abortion, I think these cases are a rarity anyway. I have no figures or statistics to back anything up, but I would venture to say that, fortunately, few 13-year olds get pregnant in general. Most people who have abortions are not rape or incest victims, but just your normal average girls/women.

I would agree. But it is important that such cases are considered in any discussion on abortion. They do exist and their cases need to be taking into account when taking any position on the subject.

Don't confuse rarity with non-existence.

RainyDay

Sleepy wrote:

RainyDay, you're ignoring nesf's point that physiologically the 13 year old in question is too young to carry a pregnancy to term. Doing so would put her own life at risk.

Reread his post. There is no mention of physiology. Lots of psychology - no physiology. I'd love to see some evidence on the physiological point.

nesf wrote:

Plus, do you honestly think a 13 year old could grasp the enormity of putting a child up for adoption? It's a very hard decision and does come back to haunt people. I've known people well on both sides and it can be very tough for both the child and the parent(s). Your average 13 year old may not grasp this.

Obviously, this would be an extremely tough situation for any 13 year old. But I could ask you exactly the same question about abortion. Do you honestly think a 13 year old could grasp the enormity of terminating the life of her unborn child? It's a very hard decision and could well come back to haunt her.

The Corinthian

nesf wrote:

No, I wasn't choosing emotive examples, my example of the 13 year old was irrespective of how she got pregnant. It was chosen to illustrate a situation where carrying to term is a potential health hazard, both metally and physically.

The example of a 13-year-old is an emotive one - X-Case anyone?

My point was that it's not something that is homogeneous and simple. You can't take a position on it just being selfish and try to paint every person who has an abortion as doing something "monsterously selfish" without consideration for the range of potential cases being taken into account.

No but if you concentrate on the extreme examples then you paint a false picture of the issues - proving your rule by virtue of the exceptions.

I agree, it is a much more solid argument. We at least have a solid agreeable premise here. We do not have equal rights, this is well established both in law and moral thinking.

Depends on what you mean by established. If you mean documented, identified and debated, then yes. If you mean accepted or even sanctioned, then no (outside of the most extreme Hobson’s choice scenario).

What constitues fully developed? A child of 6 isn't fully developed mentally or physically. Neither is a child of 11 by that argument. Are their rights less than the rights of the mother? Your argument would seem to indicate this. I imagine that you are talking more specifically than this, but is that just drawing an arbitrary line again?

Yes, but the arbitrary line is not trying to prove anything. Instead of saying it must be viable under x criteria to be considered human, you’re merely saying it must fulfil x criteria - whether it is human or not is irrelevant.

Nevyn

Yes ideal these pregnancies could be allowed to continue by the woman
and the child adopted but in Irish society we do infact revile young women
who do this even more so then those who quietly seek a termination.

Parents and family and friends get involved and when the woman is in a
vulnerable state after giving birth but all sorts of pressure on her to keep the
child.

So having the child and giving it up for adoption is not an option for many.

Human or not human, viable or not until they can beam or transplant the
zygote or fetus out of the women into an artificial womb and complete
the gestation there will continue to be abortions.

I doubt many of the 6,000 women a year are rape/incest victims, traumatized
13 years old or those who seek a termination for possible birth defects.

They are Women choosing when contraception fails them to not
gestate a ball of cells until it can be a living breathing organism separate
to themselves.

nesf

RainyDay wrote:

Reread his post. There is no mention of physiology. Lots of psychology - no physiology. I'd love to see some evidence on the physiological point.

Obviously, this would be an extremely tough situation for any 13 year old. But I could ask you exactly the same question about abortion. Do you honestly think a 13 year old could grasp the enormity of terminating the life of her unborn child? It's a very hard decision and could well come back to haunt her.

Agreed on both counts. I messed up the first post, I was sure I'd mentioned the physiological risks but meh there you go.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

The example of a 13-year-old is an emotive one - X-Case anyone?

If you choose to interpret that way, sure. My point was based around an example where the mother's health is severely compromised by her carrying to term.

The Corinthian wrote:

No but if you concentrate on the extreme examples then you paint a false picture of the issues - proving your rule by virtue of the exceptions.

I would agree, if I was trying to argue a pro-choice argument from that position, but what I was doing was trying to show that calling all of them monsterously selfish was incorrect. I was using exceptions to counter a broad sweeping statement.

The Corinthian wrote:

Depends on what you mean by established. If you mean documented, identified and debated, then yes. If you mean accepted or even sanctioned, then no (outside of the most extreme Hobson’s choice scenario).

It is sanctioned in an oblique way. A woman has a legal right to travel and gain information on an abortion in this country.

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes, but the arbitrary line is not trying to prove anything. Instead of saying it must be viable under x criteria to be considered human, you’re merely saying it must fulfil x criteria - whether it is human or not is irrelevant.

Agreed, my point was that the argument still hangs on the drawing of an arbitrary line, one that seperates developed from undeveloped humans. Yes whether it is human or not is irrelevant. But the argument over at what point does something become developed enough to be considered to hold equal rights is as thorny a question imho.

Not as loaded as arguing over whether a foetus is human, but still not a simple question.

RainyDay

Thaed wrote:

They are Women choosing when contraception fails them to not gestate a ball of cells until it can be a living breathing organism separate
to themselves.

Ball of cells eh? The UK time limit for abortions is 24 weeks. By 20 weeks, fetal movement can be felt, baby may be sucking his thumb, will be getting used to mothers voice and will respond to loud voices/music. And that's your definition of a 'ball of cells'?

nesf

Only 0.5% of abortions in Britian happen after the 20 week mark. 89% happen within the first 12 weeks.


I do agree with you, but the vast majority of people who have abortions have them early not late. It's not like it's common for women to decide to have one at week 25 or anything.

fly_agaric

Perhaps abortion should be available in Ireland. However, would people here see the UK as having gone too far in the direction of the woman's rights above all else? After all, in the UK, if you find a sympathetic doctor you can apparently get your baby aborted after 24 Weeks because it has some minor defect like a cleft-palate!

Old BBC news page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2367917.stm

I'm not trying to craft a slippery slope argument, but I think we should be very careful about the way in which abortion would be brought in here - the circumstances in which it is available should be very well defined.

RainyDay

nesf wrote:

Only 0.5% of abortions in Britian happen after the 20 week mark. 89% happen within the first 12 weeks.

Are your statistics a bit out of date? According to sheet T7 of the UK 2004 statistics, 2% of all abortions (or approx 3,500 abortions) were after 20 weeks.

However, I guess it's really a matter of principles rather than percentages.

nesf

RainyDay wrote:

Are your statistics a bit out of date? According to sheet T7 of the UK 2004 statistics, 2% of all abortions (or approx 3,500 abortions) were after 20 weeks.

I took them from the wiki entry on abortion in the UK. I was too lazy to search them out myself

RainyDay wrote:

However, I guess it's really a matter of principles rather than percentages.

Definitely.

catholicireland

After all, in the UK, if you find a sympathetic doctor you can apparently get your baby aborted after 24 Weeks because it has some minor defect like a cleft-palate!

Shocking stuff :eek:
Just another reason why the evils of abortion should stay in england.

rainbow kirby

So that women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy situation are forced to leave their country to have all their options open to them?
*rolls eyes*

The Corinthian

rainbow kirby wrote:

So that women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy situation are forced to leave their country to have all their options open to them?

By the same logic we should legalize paedophilia on the basis that otherwise we will force paedophiles to leave the country to go to Thailand and other similar destinations...

In short, you actually have to demonstrate that something is moral before you can get on your moral high horse about it. Otherwise, you’re talking crap.