Abortion - why not?

DadaKopf · 09-03-2002 01:10PM

Is consciousness not the most reasonable point to disallow abortion? I don't mean conscious meaning 'awake' but to denote the presence of mental processes?

Until a certain stage, the foetus is a conglomeration of chemicals, cells, blastomeres etc but it's the development of the brain stem that composes the most basic elements of human consciousness?

If consciousness is the measure of "human being", then this seems like a convincing cut off point to disallow abortion.

Occy knows a lot more of this medical stuff than any of us, so maybe Occy could explain the stages of the development of the nervous system and the development of consciousness in medical terms?

JustHalf · 09-03-2002 01:27PM

No-one really knows how conciousness develops, DadaKopf.

However, conciousness has only been proved to exist a few months after birth. Read up on the mirror-dot test.

So, you need to allow after-birth abortions, if you're going to use conciousness as a cut-off point.

DadaKopf · 09-03-2002 01:37PM

Sure, in all the lectures I've attended on the Q. of consciousness, we still don't exactly know what it is and how it is.

Nevertheless, when we look at how the medical profession determines death of a patient, many but by no means all see the death of the brain stem as the death of the patient.

The brain stem, I think, is like the communications node between the brain and the body's nervous system and without it, no organs can function. This is why I was asking Occy if he knows whether the brain stem is essential to cognitive processes or whether the brain continues living and only dies because of oxygen starvation because the organs cease working.

Right, Just Half, looks like we're back to square one

.

TroutMan · 09-03-2002 11:33PM

so I said:

Inflicting pain on a non-sentient creature is worse than killing it.

and I stand by it. For example, if you have a cow, and you kill it painlessly (get some US preachers to fly over and administer NO2 or whatever), I don't see the harm, especially if there's a purpose, e.g. you're going to eat it. If you have a cow, and you flay it alive and grate the exposed flesh with a grater for a week, the cow suffers and that is a bad thing. The a priori badness of suffering is where the buck stops for me; I can't really explain why I think it's bad.

and I said

An embryo in early term is a set of chemical reactions.

Well, I think life is chemical reactions. A cat is, as far as I can see, chemical reactions. A person is chemical reactions, but they (the reactions) have given rise to a conscious entity that I can interact with.

and

I dunno when a foetus becomes a person by my definition. Could even be after birth.

which, it is thought, is not a good definition. But I stand by it. Consciousness (which is what matters to me) is not something you're born with. It emerges through interaction with the environment, brain development, etc. It's not a binary on / off thing; I'd have to allow for lesser consciousness in chimps, dolphins etc. Personhood is not a binary state for me either; it develops. But --- and I have to be tasteless here --- a mentally handicapped person is less of a person than someone with full faculties. The richness of interaction and level of awareness is less. Unpleasant but the case, as far as I can see.

When I said that the use of shock imagery by the ageing pro-lifers is a bit tasteless and besides the point, JustHalf asked 'Are you afraid of the truth? Would you rather not be with confronted it?'

But the gruesome pictures are not the relevent truth; birth looks a bit of a mess too. Some of the stories I've heard, about late-term abortions crawling around in the bin bag, are abhorrent. But abortion is killing a baby, not dumping a mutilated baby in a bin bag. While there's probably no way to make abortion look pleasant, and you wouldn't want to, the fact that it looks a bit gruesome is not the problem.

The issues of personhood, consciousness, etc, are pretty difficult, and I'm more interested in discussing them than forcing views down throats. From an atheist / rationalist point of view, the only thing I can see that separates people from other things is their high degree of introspection, self awareness, etc. The evidence that a complicated synaptic network and exposure to a rich environment, are prerequisites for the development of this stuff, is plentiful. A foetus doesn't display these traits, doesn't meet the prerequisites, and so isn't a person in my view.

That mirror dot test is interesting, though I found nothing on tests on babies. However, you don't 'need to allow abortions after birth' just because the baby isn't conscious; you don't need to have a definite cut off criterion at all (and I doubt such distinction occur in nature). I'd argue that abortion is an invasive procedure, very affecting of the mother, and on those grounds should be taken seriously and done in early term (to avoid complications for the mother).

That said, killing a pre-conscious baby is still more a crime against the parents than the baby, as far as I can see. The baby doesn't care.

JustHalf · 10-03-2002 01:25AM

Er, I didn't say that thing about the truth. I couldn't be arsed quoting it.

It's pretty obvious that if you define consciousness as the cut-off point for abortions, and conciousness only arises a few months after birth, then you have to allow "abortions" after birth.

Typedef · 10-03-2002 02:39AM

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
From a scientific point of view, it's about definitions, plain and simple. All those experts who testified used the standard that fertilization is equivalent to the creation of an organism. However, using the same argument, I could claim that both sperms and eggs (especially eggs) are a dormant form of human life, same as an embryo.

Occy

Which is not an invalid argument, but it is skewed, once the sperm and egg combine, the resultant organism is genetically a concatonation of the two progenitor organism's genes and it is at this point that the resultant zygote is identifiable at the level of dna as a seperate and distinct human being.

Funnily enough, if one finds such things funny, the fertilised embryo resembles human life sufficiently to be harvested for it's stem cells, but not sufficiently to be afforded the supposed protection and inalienable rights that are presumed 'universal' to humans no matter the reality of practice.

Typedef · 10-03-2002 03:00AM

Originally posted by JustHalf
Er, I didn't say that thing about the truth. I couldn't be arsed quoting it.

It's pretty obvious that if you define consciousness as the cut-off point for abortions, and conciousness only arises a few months after birth, then you have to allow "abortions" after birth.

Or indeed abortions of those deemed to be of 'lesser consciousness'. I wonder what set of infallable moral 'ethics' endow a person with sufficient knowledge of what defines a human being, to be so sure and capable of saying when someone or something is and is not human. It is legal to experiment on a chipanzee that can for example communicate via sign language (something I disagree with) while it is totaly illegal to experiment on the mentally retarded humans of this society, why, by the logic that espouses human life as a function of an organism's awarness it should be pertty clear that experimentation on humans of lesser intellegence than a chimpanzee is merely experimentation on non-humans 'untermenchen' if you will, so why is it not allowed?

I'll tell you why, your species dictates your access to human rights in this structure we ambigiously call society and simply put, society finds it easy to disenfranchise the unborn of their civil and human rights, because the unborn are silent and completely unaware of the debate and the danger posed to them by that debate, but a person who lives and interacts in the world is tangable and is not so easy to simply reduce to a set of arguments and counter arguments and in practice logic tells us such puritanical theorisation negates the inclusion of real world experience in whatever logical permis governs the formulation of our opinions. That is why I say, it becomes extremeley easy to reduce the stature of a section of society that is never seen, is never heard from and cannot defend itself namely in the unborn.
People seek to discredit 'Pro-Lifers' as most antagonists do with each other in just about any arena of human interaction one might mention, but the fact remains that if consciousness is the criteria used for 'human life' then there exist on this planet cats, dogs and chimpanzees that have more right to human rights then some of our own species.

Therefore human rights as they are now ascribed are rights derived by your member species, and the concept that gives me most difficulty is the ascription of access to those rights based on the percieved expediancy of yours, or in other words, I find difficulty with the concept that your 'Right to Life' if one subscribes to such a notion can be diminished by a notion called a 'Right to Choose' wether or not you should be gestating an undeveloped human life.

I do accept that you can't say to someone 'Give up your life for that person there', that is simply stupid. Similarly I accept that you can say 'You must inconvienance yourself for (n) months because this is not a case of life or death for you, but is a case of life or death for your undeveloped child'. I find that the case of life or death will always supercede choice in a very asimovian way and as I have already persented I do believe that a person's species dictates right and that therefore the physical manifestation of that person be it 'deformed' or 'undeveloped' is equivalent as both are simply different types of human and I would not persume to begin second guessing the validity of that member of my species claim to humanity.

lightman, what a uh, suprise

TroutMan · 10-03-2002 04:01PM

It's pretty obvious that if you define consciousness as the cut-off point for abortions, and conciousness only arises a few months after birth, then you have to allow "abortions" after birth.

Nope, not if you agree, as I tried to say above, that consciousness doesn't 'switch on' suddeny, but emerges slowly, and you have different degrees of consciousnes. I'm pretty sure that a newly conceived foetus is not conscious; it's too simple an organism. I'm pretty sure that a baby that can 'pass' the mirror dot test is conscious. It's hard to say much about what goes on in between, but I think you can safely say that consciousness is not present in the first month. So I'd suggest one month as a safe cut off.

JustHalf · 10-03-2002 11:54PM

Gosh, I wish my house was built to such exact specifications.

Excuse me while I piss out of my window into the toilet, and then go to bed on my roof.

And you are either self-aware or you aren't. You can't be kind-of self-aware. That doesn't make sense.

amp · 11-03-2002 01:05AM

Bored of arguing about abortion except to say how amazed I am to find the wealth of morons on the boards lately and how quickly the topic of abortion reveals them.

meglome · 11-03-2002 01:14AM

Something to consider...

At the genetic level, we are 98% the same as chimps and 79% gorillas (and 50% the same as bananas for that matter). So as human babies are more reliant on their parents than a baby gorilla and for a longer time; and so Gorillas may be considered more intelligent at birth... does this mean our moral Gestapo are off to save the apes? Just wondering?

BTW. I agree totally with amp

Sand · 11-03-2002 01:43AM

Me three. People who feel strongly about Abortion (either side) usually get bogged down into the "definition of life, when it being " thing. After a thread lasting 13 pages in politics, and a second one on the actual referendum result, and theyre quickly whacking up another 3 here its quite obvious they feel quite passionate about it. With this "when does life being" thing though they might as well argue over what shade of white snow is.

TroutMan · 11-03-2002 01:47AM

<sighs>

all right, all right, moronic moral gestapo shuffling off. But I will just say a few things...

JustHalf says

And you are either self-aware or you aren't. You can't be kind-of self-aware. That doesn't make sense.

so (s)he has to believe either that a foetus is self aware from conception, or that at some point self awareness suddenly switches on like a light. This seems a fantastic supposition to me. I'm with sand in that believing that the start of personhood can't be defined. But while arguing over what shade of white snow is is futile, it's pretty obvious when one thing is black and one white.

Secondly, while I am in favour of early term abortion, my interest is more to get some definite ideas on personhood than to promote a nazi-style eugenics programme. People and animals are not ascribed rights in nature; rights are a political construct. If you want universal rights, you need some kind of basis for them. It seems to me that self-awareness is the most obvious choice; this ascribes rights to people, presumably chimps, maybe dolphins, etc. It's not arbitrary or specist, and you can defend it by saying: well, X wants to be alive (beyond a simple self preservation instinct). An early term foetus doesn't want to be alive. It doesn't care. Of course, by this definition, the right to life doesn't extend to cows, slugs, celery, bactira, virii... lower life forms. Makes sense to me.

I think the right to freedom of suffering should be extensive. But that's another story.

Lastly, as well as the various rationalisations offered above, one reason I favour abortion is experience of what life can be like for people who might have been aborted. I know a family with a 23 year old son, severely disabled since before birth.

Doctors suggested that the boy's life-sustaining medication be discontinued at about 18 months, as it was apparent that the quality of life would be abysmal. Naturally, the parents declined.

The son is now self aware, and unremittingly miserable. He cries for his plight unless kept on steadily increasing doses of methadone. When he's on methadone, he just dribbles unhappily. The financial and emotional strain, and exhaustion, that this has led to for the parents is proving very hard for them to bear, and I think the quality of life for all concerned would be much better had they terminated the pregnancy. I'm not suggesting that there should have been mandatory abortion (the interpretation some here may read), but I think they should have had the choice.

bonkey · 11-03-2002 09:59AM

Originally posted by TroutMan
The financial and emotional strain, and exhaustion, that this has led to for the parents is proving very hard for them to bear, and I think the quality of life for all concerned would be much better had they terminated the pregnancy. I'm not suggesting that there should have been mandatory abortion (the interpretation some here may read), but I think they should have had the choice.

This is yet another emotive but irrelevant side-issue.

AS Sand rightly pointed out, people get bogged down in the unswerable - the discussion of the definition of human life. Unfortuately, its the only issue which matters in the discussion.

Take the argument TroutMan espoused above - that the parents should have the right to decide about their son's life. Lets look at this from a very simple point of view :

1) If the unborn is classified as human life, then TroutMan is arguiong in favour of euthenasia, not abortion. It is a seperate discussion, and nothing to do with abortion. His logic would also extend beyond birth, and would be equally valid today as it was before birth.

2) If the unborn is not classified as human life, then TroutMan's argument is unnecessary. We are not talking about human life, therefore there is no problem.

There is no other issue - only misdirecting smoke and mirrors by people who refuse to acknowledge (or who do not see) that the issue of defining the extent of our humanity is the only issue which can ever be relevant to the discussion while we have any form of moral structure which holds human life in the highest regard.

Any other argument is a side issue, which is why we get dragged back to this central issue time after time after time.

The self-awareness question is an interesting one on this front, but its not everything. We normally recognise the right to life of mentally handicapped who would fail any awareness test, but only up to certain limits.

The right to life is full of contradictions. We mostly outlaw euthenasia, but at the same time allow dependants to make decisions about "pulling the plug" on what are seen as lost cases on life-support. We have differing standards on abortion and stem-cell research using fertilised eggs. We give the newborn the right to life, but sometimes allow its parents to make the decision to "stop fighting" in the case of premies with complications. Hell, many judicial systems have at least some provision for capital punishment - which means that your right to life is less sacrosanct than other of your statutory rights!

In short, the sacrosanct right to life is a myth. There is no universal right to life unless it falls withing convenient borders where there are no tough decisions to be made. Once we fall into any of those areas, then dissension sets in, and people will argue till the cows come home.

jc

MrPudding · 12-03-2002 07:01PM

Originally posted by JustHalf
Guess what, Lemming!

It's possible to stop a suicidal person from killing themselves in ways other than abortion!!!

Here’s a scenario for you JustHalf

A young single woman is raped, this effects her, funnily enough, in a bad way. She doesn't tell anyone, she is too embarrassed, what if people think she was asking for it? She just tries to put it behind her and get on with her life. But it's not that easy. Keeping it bottled up inside takes it's toll, but hey, she’s surviving. Then she realizes her period is late, but she thinks no I’ll be OK, I’ll just wait a bit. Another week and still no period, not good. Better get a pregnancy test. What do you know she is going to have the B*****d child of the scumbag who raped her. Well now she can’t be happy with that. What should she do, she isn’t stupid, she sits down and has a good think. “ What are my options?” Well, you could take the child to term, for nine months every time you look at yourself in the mirror and see your growing bump you can think of the animal who impregnated you against your will. You could feel the hatred for that thing in your belly growing as it grows, you may not see it as a life or a baby just as a constant reminder of the rape. “Hmmmm don’t like that option I’d rather die than have to go through that. I don’t think I could deal with that every day for 9 months surely there is another option.” What do you mean you don’t like that option? You don’t have another option. Remember the referendum? (work with me here… if the yes camp won) The pro-lifers think that the “life” of the B*****d spawn of your rapist, which is currently just a bunch of cells and may or may not be considered life depending on who you talk to, is more important than yours. So she’s thinking, “I’ve been raped and I’m now pregnant. I don’t want this baby, I can’t have this baby I F**king hate this baby and all it’s stands for.” Remember now she has been through a very harrowing experience, maybe she isn’t thinking straight suicide is looking pretty good right now. So it’s off to the shopping center, into the off license, nice bottle of wine, into boots for the maximum amount of any kind of pill and then may a few more places to buy more. Then it’s home to run a nice warm bath, get in the bath and wash all those pills down with your favorite wine and then a nice big slash down one of your wrists and relax. Things don’t seem so bad now. She misses work the next day, no answer on the phone friend and family get worried. Someone eventually kicks the door down, the bath is long cold.

Tell me JustHalf, how would you save that girl and the baby?

TroutMan · 12-03-2002 07:11PM

Quite. Another way to look at it, in the wider sense of abortion, is that girls will try to kill their own babies with a coat hanger. The reality of this imperfect world is that people in a desperate situation resort to desperate measures; you can offer them counselling and hospital care (and maybe change their minds), or leave them to their own injurious devices. No legislation will stop abortion altogether; it'll only affect the circumstances.

JustHalf · 12-03-2002 10:56PM

Originally posted by MrEnvy
Tell me JustHalf, how would you save that girl and the baby?

If one of my friends got pregnant, I'd support her as much as she needed and I could give. I'd make sure she felt secure, and that she could lean on me. If she needed money for treatment or care, I'd help out as much as I could. It doesn't matter who the father is, I've got a duty to look after my friend.

I'm actually a great guy. I rule.

JustHalf · 12-03-2002 10:57PM

Originally posted by TroutMan
Quite. Another way to look at it, in the wider sense of abortion, is that girls will try to kill their own babies with a coat hanger. The reality of this imperfect world is that people in a desperate situation resort to desperate measures; you can offer them counselling and hospital care (and maybe change their minds), or leave them to their own injurious devices. No legislation will stop abortion altogether; it'll only affect the circumstances.

I'd be amazed if you believe that the same amount of abortions will take place (comparing coat hanger to surgical).

Lemming · 12-03-2002 11:29PM

Originally posted by JustHalf
If one of my friends got pregnant, I'd support her as much as she needed and I could give. I'd make sure she felt secure, and that she could lean on me. If she needed money for treatment or care, I'd help out as much as I could. It doesn't matter who the father is, I've got a duty to look after my friend.

JustHalf. Whilst I absolutely applaud you for being prepared to stick out for a friend, it still isn't enough (bear with me here) to simply say that. Yes its great to have the support of your friends, etc.

BUT ...

A) Your friend's just been raped/molested/insert whatever-horrifying-ordeal-you-can-think-of-here. That is doing things to her mind that not even you nor I can see or even comprehend. She may know that people are there for her, but that doesn't stop her feeling utterly alone.

You don't have to live with the consequences of some Jock-d*cka*s-c*cksucking-w*nker's need to get his fill for the rest iof your life. She will. Puppies aren't just for Xmas, and neither are babies.

C) What happens when you have to start spending time elsewhere and leave her to her own devices?

Believe me, I would be there too for any of my friends in that circumstance, but ultimately you can only hold a torch in the dark for them. They're the ones that have got to find their footing and walk the path.

MrPudding · 13-03-2002 09:25AM

Originally posted by JustHalf
If one of my friends got pregnant, I'd support her as much as she needed and I could give. I'd make sure she felt secure, and that she could lean on me. If she needed money for treatment or care, I'd help out as much as I could. It doesn't matter who the father is, I've got a duty to look after my friend.

I'm actually a great guy. I rule.

This is very noble and I'm sure there isn't a single person on these boards who thinks they would behave any differently. My point is that if you don't know there is a problem in the first place how can you help?

bonkey · 13-03-2002 09:43AM

Originally posted by TroutMan
Quite. Another way to look at it, in the wider sense of abortion, is that girls will try to kill their own babies with a coat hanger. The reality of this imperfect world is that people in a desperate situation resort to desperate measures; you can offer them counselling and hospital care (and maybe change their minds), or leave them to their own injurious devices. No legislation will stop abortion altogether; it'll only affect the circumstances.

Riiiight.

Of course, I could use the same logic and say "it is pointless banning any drugs, because people will still get them", or "it is pointless making crime illegal, because people will still find ways to break the law".

Funnily enough, I'm sure that these are ridiculous statements. I'm just trying to figure out why they're any different to troutman's identical reasoning....

jc

TroutMan · 13-03-2002 01:56PM

ouch!

well, let's try it your way: "it is pointless banning abortions, because girls will still have them".

mmm... I think that stands. A pregnant teenager can be pretty desperate; there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that they'll attempt DIY abortion. And obviously, that's much more injurious and traumatic than professional medical help in a hospital.

in fact, the proposition is not "it is pointless banning abortions, because girls will still have them"; the point of laws is to protect girls (and prehaps foetuses), not to stop abortions. So I'd say "it is detrimental to ban abortions, because the desperate cases will do far more harm to themselves in attempting DIY abortion, as they do".

The analogy with drug use fails in that smoking blow or taking pills is mildly detrimental to your health, irrespective of whether your doing it legally or illegally (issues of profiteer dealers contaminating / adulterating their stuff aside), and people are generally much less desperate to take recreational drugs than pregnant teenagers can be to have an abortion.

In the case of hard, addictive drugs, practices such as methadone clinics indicate that a legal alternative is preferable, given that, yes, the addicts will find a way if none is offered to them, and that preventing prostitution and theft is good thing.

JustHalf · 13-03-2002 07:02PM

Originally posted by MrEnvy
This is very noble and I'm sure there isn't a single person on these boards who thinks they would behave any differently. My point is that if you don't know there is a problem in the first place how can you help?

Er, what about TEH BUMP!

JustHalf · 13-03-2002 07:06PM

Originally posted by Lemming
A) Your friend's just been raped/molested/insert whatever-horrifying-ordeal-you-can-think-of-here. That is doing things to her mind that not even you nor I can see or even comprehend. She may know that people are there for her, but that doesn't stop her feeling utterly alone.

I know what it feels like when you feel utterly alone. And I know the only way to get out of that is to talk.

Originally posted by Lemming
You don't have to live with the consequences of some Jock-d*cka*s-c*cksucking-w*nker's need to get his fill for the rest iof your life. She will. Puppies aren't just for Xmas, and neither are babies.

Because she will have to live with the consequences, so will I, for I am her friend.

Originally posted by Lemming
C) What happens when you have to start spending time elsewhere and leave her to her own devices?

I wouldn't go unless she was capable of living without me. I am not a bastard.

Originally posted by Lemming
They're the ones that have got to find their footing and walk the path.

And I am one person who, as their friend, has a duty to guide them to the path and support them on it until they can walk for themselves again.

MrPudding · 13-03-2002 07:13PM

Originally posted by JustHalf
Er, what about TEH BUMP!

I've seen women who are full term and you would hardly know they were pregnant. But that is beside the point, if the woman is early in her first trimester it would be pretty hard for you to tell if she was pregnant. I don’t know if you have had much experience with pregnant women but the bump does not appear at conception. So my question stands, if you don’t know there is a problem how can you help?

MrPudding · 13-03-2002 07:18PM

Originally posted by JustHalf

Because she will have to live with the consequences, so will I, for I am her friend.

What it comes down to is that whatever anyone says and howerver noble anyone is, only one person *must* deal with the consequences and that is the woman, whether or not they do, anyone else could just walk away. What you have to understand is that sometimes that is just something they cannot live with, no matter what support they have.

JustHalf · 13-03-2002 07:29PM

Originally posted by MrEnvy
What it comes down to is that whatever anyone says and howerver noble anyone is, only one person *must* deal with the consequences and that is the woman, whether or not they do, anyone else could just walk away.

I don't think you have any idea of the strength of my sense of duty.

bonkey · 13-03-2002 09:26PM

Originally posted by TroutMan
ouch!

well, let's try it your way: "it is pointless banning abortions, because girls will still have them".

mmm... I think that stands.

Of course it does

Unfortunately, that was pretty much exactly my point (although I put it badly - I should have used your example!)

In essence, you cannot use the "its not a complete solution" argument for or against something, because ultimately, no-one can implement a 100% enforced law.

Therefore, we must set that line of reasoning aside, and agree that the question is not whether or not we can serve 100% of the people.....

jc

MrPudding · 14-03-2002 09:34AM

Originally posted by JustHalf
I don't think you have any idea of the strength of my sense of duty.

Let's try this once more for the cheap seats. I do not doubt your sense of duty. I'm sure you are the same as me in that you would do anything for your friends or family But I have 2 main points 1) Even with support, no matter how strong, some women may have a problem bearing the b*****d spawn of a twisted animal who raped her. There is only so much you can do, as far as I am aware no matter how much you want to help you can't carry the child for her. 2) This is the important one, if you don't know there is a problem how can you help? I want you to answer that, I know you are a nice guy, I know you are loyal and I know you would do anything for your friends but answer the question. If you don't know there is a problem how can you help?

bonkey · 14-03-2002 10:19AM

Originally posted by MrEnvy

1) Even with support, no matter how strong, some women may have a problem bearing the b*****d spawn of a twisted animal who raped her

Absolutely. I agree 100%. But that doesnt, in itself, make it a valid reason for abortion.

If this is a valid reasoning for abortion, you would also have to agree that it would/should be valid right up until the moment of birth? After all, the psychological trauma induced by rape may not manifest itself immediately or even early in the pregnancy.

Or....wait....what if it didnt manifest itself until *after* the birth.

What if the mother though all was well, and someday woke up, went into the baby room and suddenly it all came flooding back. This child will be a constant reminder of everything she has been trying to suppress, and she finally cant take it any more. Even were she to give the child up for adoption, she would *know* that the child was out there, and it would haunt her forever.

So, I guess she should have the right to kill the child in this scenario as well???

I short - your entire "what can you do" scenario has SFA to do with abortion, because you are steadfastly ignoring the central issues. The situational question cannot ever be removed from the timeframe question.

If you wish to make a case for suicidal rape victims being allowed to have abortions, then by all means do so, but please please address it in terms of when you feel the abortion should be allowable, and justify why you can tell any suicidal rape victim who falls outside your boundaries that they have no choice.

jc

Abortion - why not?

Comments