"New" Abortion Initiative

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

However, neither is that quite the same thing as pregnancy. You won’t grow back that kidney and statistically your lifespan will be shorter as a result. In modern Society, I don’t think you can say that about pregnancy.

True, maybe kidney isn't a good example. Blood probably would be better, since a person will in most cases completely recover physically after giving blood. Still, does that mean you can force someone (or punish them for not) giving blood to save another person's life?

The Corinthian wrote:

Hold on, I thought that was the point of the discussion?

Well, there is the legal side and the moral side of the debate. Lots of people think abortion is moral, but it is still illegal in this country.

The Corinthian wrote:

I see what you’re getting at, however you’ve also circumvented my point on action versus inaction.

I see what you mean, but it could be argued that the "action" is something the woman does to her self, not the baby, that still results in the death of the baby (and before anyone jumps down my throat, yes I know it is common in some types of abortions to actually physically kill the foetus, not just remove it and wait for it to die of its own accord). So one is getting into the right of a person to perform actions on themselves (which falls under the right to body privacy). That is why I got into the idea of giving a kidney or blood to save another person, because that is the closest i example I can think off, even though they are examples of inaction rather than action as you said.

Zombrex

Sugarbear wrote:

Of course, if there were to be a change, the father's view would be totally dependant on his relation to her, eg, if they were married, he might have a say.

What has being married or not being married have to do with anything?

Nevyn

The rights of a child and parental rights are only bestowed after the birth of
the child. Only fathers who are married to the mother are given parental rights at the birth of the child.

Zombrex

Thaed wrote:

The rights of a child and parental rights are only bestowed after the birth of
the child. Only fathers who are married to the mother are given parental rights at the birth of the child.

Oh I know, but that is to due to the fact that it is impossible to assume who the father is until they are identified (where as it is pretty obvious who the mother is ). But, because we are a good catholic country, the husband of a woman is assumed to be the father of her child until that is proven wrong.

But this has nothing to do with the father not deserving rights unless they are married, it is simply to do with the logicistics of determining who the father of a child is if the parents aren't married.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Still, does that mean you can force someone (or punish them for not) giving blood to save another person's life?

Arguably you should.

However, pregnancy is a bit more serious than giving blood, in fairness.

Well, there is the legal side and the moral side of the debate. Lots of people think abortion is moral, but it is still illegal in this country.

Fair enough.

I see what you mean, but it could be argued that the "action" is something the woman does to her self, not the baby, that still results in the death of the baby (and before anyone jumps down my throat, yes I know it is common in some types of abortions to actually physically kill the foetus, not just remove it and wait for it to die of its own accord).

You appear to have refuted your own point in that if the foetus is indeed human it is being done to it not to the woman. And again, if not, the point is moot.

KnowItAll

KnowItAll wrote:

Abortion is murder. Simple as that. It would only be acceptable if the unborn child was going to be born handicapped and would live a hard life.

Wicknight wrote:

So its ok to kill handicapped kids?

No it's certainly not ok to kill handicapped kids and I didn't say it was. If a baby was going to be born that was badly handicapped and would live a miserable life than I'm saying there maybe a case for abortion. Wouldn't it be better to shoot a dying animal than let it suffer in agony?

What the real debate should be about is women getting pregnant and aborting the pregnancy because of purely selfish reasons.

Sugarbear

KnowItAll wrote:

No it's certainly not ok to kill handicapped kids and I didn't say it was. If a baby was going to be born that was badly handicapped and would live a miserable life than I'm saying there maybe a case for abortion. Wouldn't it be better to shoot a dying animal than let it suffer in agony?

What the real debate should be about is women getting pregnant and aborting the pregnancy because of purely selfish reasons.

With an attitide like that, any child that is going to be born into a miserable sitation should be considered for abortion, whether it's a mental/physical handicap or just the parents not wanting it to exist in the first place. Your choice of words were insensitive and immoral. A child who is aborted is done under a lot of thought and consideration by the mother; she decides whether or not it is the right path for her and a baby. Aborting a baby is not a selfish thing to do, by any means, it's probably one of the hardest things a woman would have to do in her whole life.

Victor

Wicknight wrote:

True, this is all assuming the the foetus is a human life legally.

The constitution, while silent on the other rights of the unborn guarantees the right to life.

I don't know of anyone that argues that foetuses are not human life.

Wicknight, you seem to be confusing "legal" with "legal in some other existance".

Wicknight wrote:

True, maybe kidney isn't a good example. Blood probably would be better, since a person will in most cases completely recover physically after giving blood. Still, does that mean you can force someone (or punish them for not) giving blood to save another person's life?

Legally, no.

Wicknight wrote:

What has being married or not being married have to do with anything?

Well, if a woman refuses to have children, but a man want wants one and they are married, how does he have children without committing adultery? Is it adultery if you do 'it' through IVF?

Wicknight wrote:

But, because we are a good catholic country, the husband of a woman is assumed to be the father of her child until that is proven wrong.

Is it assumed or presumed? I'm not sure if one can have it any other way. Would you have everyone do a DNA test so they can gain their inheritance?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Still, does that mean you can force someone (or punish them for not) giving blood to save another person's life?

Arguably you should morally, legally no. But it does sound like the sort of scenario that would lead to a change in the law were it publicized.

Well, there is the legal side and the moral side of the debate. Lots of people think abortion is moral, but it is still illegal in this country.

Fair enough.

I see what you mean, but it could be argued that the "action" is something the woman does to her self, not the baby, that still results in the death of the baby (and before anyone jumps down my throat, yes I know it is common in some types of abortions to actually physically kill the foetus, not just remove it and wait for it to die of its own accord).

You appear to have refuted your own point in that if the foetus is indeed human it is being done to it not to the woman. And again, if not, the point is moot.

Sugarbear wrote:

Aborting a baby is not a selfish thing to do, by any means, it's probably one of the hardest things a woman would have to do in her whole life.

Whether something is selfish is not defined by whether it is hard or not, but by the motivation behind it.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

You appear to have refuted your own point in that if the foetus is indeed human it is being done to it not to the woman. And again, if not, the point is moot.

But the foetus is doing something to the woman, ie existing inside her, so any action to the foetus would be a responsive action, not the initial action. The mother isn't saying "I want to kill this baby", they mother is saying "I don't want this baby inside my body" or "I don't want to use my body to keep this person alive anymore" The woman is refusing to participate anymore.

Zombrex

Victor wrote:

I don't know of anyone that argues that foetuses are not human life.

Er, loads and loads of people do, it is a major justifcation for abortion. In fact nearly every debate on abortion centres on whether the foetus is a "human life" and therefore should be granted the rights that come with that, or if it just a collection of cells and organs that have not become a "life" yet.

Victor wrote:

Wicknight, you seem to be confusing "legal" with "legal in some other existance".

?

I think you mean legal in other countries ... i am perfectly aware that abortion is illegal in Ireland. But Ireland isn't the centre of the universe (despite what Cork people say).

Victor wrote:

Legally, no.

Well then could it not be argued that legally the foetus, even as a human life with all the rights that come with that, has no legal right to force the woman to carry him/her inside her? And that the woman has every right to refuse to do so (ie have an abortion) even though it means the death of the foetus?

Victor wrote:

Well, if a woman refuses to have children, but a man want wants one and they are married, how does he have children without committing adultery?

What?? How does a woman who wants children but her husband doesn't want any have a child without committing adultery? I am not really following your point but it seems a bit silly TBH.

Victor wrote:

Is it adultery if you do 'it' through IVF?

I think you mean through a sperm donor, because IVF normally uses the mans sperm and the womans egg, the egg is just fertilised outside of her body and then placed back in her body.

Victor wrote:

Is it assumed or presumed? I'm not sure if one can have it any other way. Would you have everyone do a DNA test so they can gain their inheritance?

Well you don't need a DNA test if you are single either, you just need the mother and father to both say "yes we are the parents". Some single parent groups think the same thing should apply to married couples, that agreement from both the mother and the husband should be sought before they are both put on the birth-cert.

Hagar

Related question -

If a woman has the right to have an abortion what about the right of an unborn female foetus to grow and have her own abortion someday?
Is she being denied her rights too?

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

No it's certainly not ok to kill handicapped kids and I didn't say it was. If a baby was going to be born that was badly handicapped and would live a miserable life than I'm saying there maybe a case for abortion. Wouldn't it be better to shoot a dying animal than let it suffer in agony?

Well first off being handicapped doesn't mean you are either dying or suffering in agony. Second of all, what is the difference between killing a baby because it is handicapped before it is born and killing a baby because it is handicapped after it is born?

KnowItAll wrote:

What the real debate should be about is women getting pregnant and aborting the pregnancy because of purely selfish reasons.

So you can have an abortion if you have a really really good reason?

Zombrex

Hagar wrote:

Related question -

If a woman has the right to have an abortion what about the right of an unborn female foetus to grow and have her own abortion someday?
Is she being denied her rights too?

Is that an attempt at humour?

Victor

Wicknight wrote:

But, because we are a good catholic country, the husband of a woman is assumed to be the father of her child until that is proven wrong.

PS. Weren't the laws relating to Birth, Deaths and Marriages issued from a protestant parliament?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

But the foetus is doing something to the woman, ie existing inside her, so any action to the foetus would be a responsive action, not the initial action. The mother isn't saying "I want to kill this baby", they mother is saying "I don't want this baby inside my body" or "I don't want to use my body to keep this person alive anymore" The woman is refusing to participate anymore.

Taking aside the question of bodily integrity for a moment, and changing the scenario to an infant living in its parents’ home, then evicting the infant (resulting, presumably, in exposure, starvation and death) would in modern eyes be considered both immoral and illegal. Actively killing the infant to this end would be considered even more so - even if the killing is only instrumental to the eviction, this would not excuse it either morally or legally.

Of course, I accept that the question of bodily integrity certainly muddies these waters. Forcing someone to give up a kidney to save a life is an immoral act, however so refusing to give blood to the same end. However it is actually a very shaky area to pin a pro-choice argument as many would argue that one’s bodily integrity may or should be violated in certain circumstances - chemical castration of sexual offenders being a case in point.

The answer to this conundrum may be back at the premise that while we may have equal rights, not all rights are equal. My right to life supersedes your right to drink and drive, for example - and so we can see it makes sense that it would be immoral to force someone to give up a kidney to save a life, not because of bodily integrity, but because you would be essentially attacking their right to life. In a similar fashion one might argue that if a foetus is afforded equal rights, its right to life supersedes the mother’s right to bodily integrity.

Hagar

Wicknight wrote:

Is that an attempt at humour?

No. There is nothing funny about this thread.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Taking aside the question of bodily integrity for a moment, and changing the scenario to an infant living in its parents’ home, then evicting the infant (resulting, presumably, in exposure, starvation and death) would in modern eyes be considered both immoral and illegal.
...
In a similar fashion one might argue that if a foetus is afforded equal rights, its right to life supersedes the mother’s right to bodily integrity.

True, and we get into the area of parental responsibility. I don't have any responsibility to help you live, but if I was your father (there is that cold shiver again ) and you are a child we get into, as you say, murky waters.

So it could be argued that the parent/child relationship between the mother and the foetus nullifies the womans right to body privacy. She was a right to privacy, but she also has the responsibilty to look after her child, even if that means suffering herself, or if she wants to get rid of the child she can't harm them in the process. For example you can't beat your child because they wont let go when breast feeding.

As i've said before I am a bit on the fence on this argument. I honestly don't know. It is impossible to tell at what point the foetus becomes conscience (the start of life as I see it), and even if they are a "life" under the law, the question of who's rights superceeds whos in relation to the mother and foetus is tricky. Everyone has the right to body privacy, but parents have a responsibilty to protect their children, even if they don't want to.

All I hope is that people think about the issues in a bit more structured way. I can't stand these "but think of the hard life the child would have", or "doesn't the mother have a right to be happy" arguments. They are justifications for having an abortion, but they are not arguments whether abortion itself is moral/legal in the first place.

fly_agaric

"doesn't the mother have a right to be happy"

To be a bit glib, isn't that the reason behind 'alot' of abortions in countries that have it pretty freely available? I mean of course, cases where the conception was an accident caused by naiveity or carelessness and the both the pregnancy and the resulting baby are going to disrupt the course of the mother's life very, very badly. Does the mother not have any responsibilities to the accidental foetus in these cases?

(No, I can't quantify 'alot' - are these statistics available on this or is it too sensitive?)

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

To be a bit glib, isn't that the reason behind 'alot' of abortions in countries that have it pretty freely available? I mean of course, cases where the conception was an accident caused by naiveity or carelessness and the both the pregnancy and the resulting baby are going to disrupt the course of the mother's life very, very badly. Does the mother not have any responsibilities to the accidental foetus in these cases?

(No, I can't quantify 'alot' - are these statistics available on this or is it too sensitive?)

Well the point I was making is the reasons why a woman would want to have an abortion shouldn't be an issue as to whether abortion itself is morally/legally justifable.

If you take the position that the foetus is a full human life, and that the right for the feotus to exist over-rides the right of the mother to have complete control over her body, then abortion is wrong. That is dependent on how strong/weak people fell the mothers reason for wanting an abortion is.

For example, living your kid in the car for 6 hours is wrong. It doesn't matter if the mother was popping out to gamble in a casio or if she was lying in bed suffering from post-natal depression.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

For example you can't beat your child because they wont let go when breast feeding.

You can if they’re twenty-four.

I honestly don't know. It is impossible to tell at what point the foetus becomes conscience (the start of life as I see it),

On what basis is that a criteria of humanity? Are you certain of it? This is the problem with attempting to set often arbitrary criteria.

and even if they are a "life" under the law, the question of who's rights superceeds whos in relation to the mother and foetus is tricky.

The only two ways that I can see the rights of one individual supersede another’s are either if not all rights are of equal status or not all people are of equal status. I don’t think you can do it any other way.

If we go for the former, then typically life comes in at the top of the list. If we go for the latter, we can overrule the right to life in certain circumstances, even when the right to life to no one else is threatened.

All I hope is that people think about the issues in a bit more structured way. I can't stand these "but think of the hard life the child would have", or "doesn't the mother have a right to be happy" arguments. They are justifications for having an abortion, but they are not arguments whether abortion itself is moral/legal in the first place.

There are certainly moral justifications for abortion, but it depends on how you define what is moral. I think the problem with a much of the argument that is used to justify the pro-choice position is that it tries to work within a typically Christian moral framework that is incompatible with the idea. Leaving us in a position where we want to have our ethical cake and eat it, as it were.

Victor

Wicknight wrote:

For example, living your kid in the car for 6 hours is wrong.

Yes and we would get into legal trouble for it, as adult we know its wrong and "I forgot" is not an excuse.

Wicknight wrote:

r if she was lying in bed suffering from post-natal depression.

What if she was in bed with two broken legs? Would you still expect her to get up and walk? Illness can compromise the abilities of anyone. And while yes it is still wrong for the child to be left in the car for 6 hours, the reason is understandable.

Wicknight wrote:

It doesn't matter if the mother was popping out to gamble in a casi[n]o

Well is the mother a gambling addict or not? Is this addiction a blamable one?

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Well the point I was making is the reasons why a woman would want to have an abortion shouldn't be an issue as to whether abortion itself is morally/legally justifable.

I would have thought the reasons (which are part of the circumstances of a particular case) are very important. Would whether abortion is morally and/or legally justified not depend on the different circumstances that have been discussed at length throughout this thread?

Wicknight wrote:

If you take the position that the foetus is a full human life, and that the right for the feotus to exist over-rides the right of the mother to have complete control over her body, then abortion is wrong.

But whether it should be seen as wrong or not depends on the details... As you say

That is dependent on how strong/weak people fell the mothers reason for wanting an abortion is.

Wicknight wrote:

For example, living your kid in the car for 6 hours is wrong. It doesn't matter if the mother was popping out to gamble in a casio or if she was lying in bed suffering from post-natal depression.

To set up a more appropriate situation for discussing abortion... ask is it always 'wrong' to kill someone? I thought it would depend on the circumstances. I suppose you could say it is always 'wrong' (as something evil to be avoided) but is sometimes necessary.

U$ername

Hmmm....would you turn off a life support machine in order to prevent your child a life spent in a coma?....Some have some have'nt...at least let them choose

I dont think turning off a life support machine constitutes murder esp if they have a donor card...Might just stop there this is heading into stem cell territory

RampagingBadger

I'll be honest and say I've skipped the last 3 pages of debate but from the first 2 it seemd to me that all "pro-choice" people seemed to think that a single women has 2 choices - to abort or to raise the child. Adoption didn't seem to figure.

My cousin was adopted (my blood cousin I only met him in later life) and he had a very good life with parents who loved him. Adoption doesn't seem to be something thats mentioned much these days but it solves all our problems.

I'd be in favour of abortion if the mothers life is in danger, if the child/foetas is handicapped or in circumstances where the mother is under extreme duress (i.e. rape cases). However as any women could then just say she was raped it makes sense to allow it to all but to heavliy regulate it. My theory is that abortion should be legal in all circumstances up to 8 weeks ,by which time she's had plenty of time to find out she's pregnant and think about it. It more thinking is required then she should probably go ahead and give it up for adoption.

Bill Clinton said it best when he said abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

patzer117

The idea expressed by many pro-choicers in this thread that a woman has the right to bodily integrity and can therefore choose what happens in her own body comes under the exact same principle as whether the foetus is a human itself - C. S. Mill's Harm Principle.

This states that you have unlimited rights and freedoms up until the point where you're freedom interferes with the rights of others. The only reason anyone [the state] can restrict these freedoms is if these freedoms infringe on the rights of others.

This holds true for almost all of our laws and is true for abortion - it all depends on whether one views the foetus as a human with rights. If it is a human with rights then there is no question that the mother's right to bodily integrity is restricted when a foetus is introduced into the equation - because her right to bodily integrity removes the most sacred right of all - the right of life, from the child. If however one believes the foetus is not a human and does not have any rights then obviously the woman's right to bodily integrity supercedes any rights the foetus might have.

Unfortunately, while this principle holds true and is easily defended in so many situations (it gives a clear judgement in the kidney test), it isn't the same in abortion because it always comes down to whether the foetus has rights and that is a matter for humans to judge. But it does render the woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion completely on the decision of whether a foetus/zygote is a human being or whether it isn't. No emotive arguements stand against it.

That's my two cents worth for the day

Nevyn

RampagingBadger wrote:

I'll be honest and say I've skipped the last 3 pages of debate but from the first 2 it seemd to me that all "pro-choice" people seemed to think that a single women has 2 choices - to abort or to raise the child. Adoption didn't seem to figure.

Well the country that we live in is so fúcked up that a woman who gives her
child up for adoption is treated as harshly then one who has a termination
even more so as her choice is very public and family will try to intervine in the
process.Ie no grandchild/niece/nephew of mine is being reared by strangers.

We also have a sistuation where women were bundles off to places like
the laundaries out of sight and mind to finish out thier prenacies and
the to have the children adopted either here or in the usa with out
the mother's having much say in the matter.

So as much sense as adoption makes, and as many irish couples there are
out there who would want to adopt a baby there are very few babies
put up for adoption.

And yet the fostercare system is in crises with children from ages 2 to 7
who are in long term foster care, who's mothers will not relquinsh thier
parental rights to have the child adopted.
In many cases the children have emotional , socail and learning issues due
to neglect. Heartbreaking but true. As far as I know there is no provision
under Irish law to remove a parents rights, an interm garudian may be appointed but until the parental rights are disloved a child can not be adopted.

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

there is no question that the mother's right to bodily integrity is restricted when a foetus is introduced into the equation

Why exactly?

I mean, my right to life doesn't over ride your right to bodily integrity, does it? I mean we don't force people to give blood, even though car crash victims need it to live? Whats the difference between that an a foetus?

Victor

patzer117 wrote:

If it is a human with rights then there is no question that the mother's right to bodily integrity is restricted when a foetus is introduced into the equation

Hang on the foetus isn't "introduced into the equation", the mother (usually) has to do something first for the foetus to get there. This isn't situation where some malevolent dictator is oppressing the people.

patzer117

The difference is between the active killing and the passive allowing someone to die.

When someone is in a car crash and needs blood, if you don't give it you are passively killing the person, and whether this is right or wrong is not up for debate. When the woman insists on her bodily integrity and gets an abortion then she is actively taking the life of the foetus (presuming it's a human and has life). If she is actively killing the foetus then this is a harm to another being and therefore can be legislated against. The difference is in the active and passiveness. in action and inaction - Shakespere has a good example in Hamlet about ophelia commiting suicide afaik.

By 'introduced to the equation' i mean gets pregnant obviously, and i was putting it so bluntly to remove all emotion from it. I'm trying to stay political rather than involve the rape of a 13 year old girl as was mentioned earlier.