Abortion debate thread

Obliq · 16-11-2012 09:24PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you think that 'belief' should be codified in law?

This is where the trouble begins. I have never disputed that the tiny fetus/baby or more technical term is not a life. I have never said that it is not a human being. I have said however, that I do not believe life is sacred. Therefore, to me, that the unborn human should have equal rights to that of a born human in our constitution IS belief codified in law.

Now please don't get me wrong everyone. I respect life. I have strong moral principals and I deplore cruelty. I respect the lives of the chickens I eat, the cows I eat, the cats and dogs I keep. I more than respect the lives of people, I identify with their every emotion, their every failing and triumph, every ill and every glory.

In the same way (but not at all by the same regard) as pro-lifers feel so strongly that tiny unborn fetus's being killed is murder, I feel equally as strongly that a tiny unborn fetus cannot have the same right to life as a born person. So where do we go from here? Can we identify the fact that my belief is as valid as yours?

martinnew · 16-11-2012 09:35PM

Obliq wrote: »

In the same way (but not at all by the same regard) as pro-lifers feel so strongly that tiny unborn fetus's being killed is murder, I feel equally as strongly that a tiny unborn fetus cannot have the same right to life as a born person. So where do we go from here? Can we identify the fact that my belief is as valid as yours?

Both have the same right to life. But the Mothers life in this situation is the most important. If her life is at risk from the pregnancy then it must be terminated and is terminated in Ireland. It already happens here every year. The difference is that doctors give all the care they can to both parties. But the Mothers life is the most important.

Pro-life is not saying the Baby's life is more or less important. When doctors deliver a baby that results in the baby's death to save the mothers life, they did right, its the right thing to do, Its not termed abortion, its termed proper care to save the mother. And its moral and right. Nobody set out to kill the child but to save the Mother.

Obliq · 16-11-2012 09:42PM

martinnew wrote: »

Both have the same right to life. But the Mothers life in this situation is the most important. If her life is at risk from the pregnancy then it must be terminated and is terminated in Ireland. It already happens here every year. The difference is that doctors give all the care they can to both parties. But the Mothers life is the most important.

Pro-life is not saying the Baby's life is more or less important. When doctors deliver a baby that results in the baby's death to save the mothers life, they did right, its the right thing to do, Its not termed abortion, its termed proper care to save the mother. And its moral and right. Nobody set out to kill the child but to save the Mother.

Doh! I know they both currently have the same right to life. That was made constitutional in 1983 by continuous and oppressive control from the Catholic Church and it's ilk. My point, if you'd care to read my post again, is that I do not believe that should be the case. In my view, the born person should have the greater right to life.

martinnew · 16-11-2012 09:53PM

Obliq wrote: »

Doh! I know they both currently have the same right to life. That was made constitutional in 1983 by continuous and oppressive control from the Catholic Church and it's ilk. My point, if you'd care to read my post again, is that I do not believe that should be the case. In my view, the born person should have the greater right to life.

The mother does.. Obviously.. If she does not survive then what chance does the child have.

But if there is no risk to her life then the life of both should be respected.

PDN · 16-11-2012 10:02PM

I would like to see someone present a coherent argument as to why the threat of suicide should make it legal to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

Does this principle apply to any other action under Irish law?

For example, is it permissable to break the speed limit if the driver can argue that they will commit suicide unless they are allowed to speed?

Or what if I get so aggravated by Richard Dawkins' poor grasp of philosophy and theology that I threaten to commit suicide unless I can kill him? Should the killing of atheists therefore be legalised where the alternative is that the murderer might commit suicide?

This is not to trivialise people who are feeling suicidal. Such people IMHO need medical care and attention, and possibly protection from themselves. But our compassion for the potentially suicidal should not become an excuse for wooly thinking and bad logic. What is the rationale that sees it as reasonable to let people in effect say, "I'll kill myself if I'm not allowed to break the law - so therefore the law shouldn't apply to me"? Is this argument solely used in connection with abortion? Or can anyone think of other areas where it is employed?

lmaopml · 16-11-2012 10:54PM

The sad truth is that in Ireland it is mostly young males that commit suicide - out of the blue, and leaving so many questions..

..and that is really important to note, and to act and provide support to services who ask why this is happening to young men. Why they feel no place, no hope.

doctoremma · 17-11-2012 12:49AM

PDN, the premise of suicidal feelings would suggest mental illness. And people who are deemed mentally ill are given huge leeway in legal and criminal proceedings.

But... Not sure why you brought this up in the first place? (Well, I have an inkling but want to see what the logic is....)

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 12:54AM

PDN wrote: »

I would like to see someone present a coherent argument as to why the threat of suicide should make it legal to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

Does this principle apply to any other action under Irish law?

For example, is it permissable to break the speed limit if the driver can argue that they will commit suicide unless they are allowed to speed?

Or what if I get so aggravated by Richard Dawkins' poor grasp of philosophy and theology that I threaten to commit suicide unless I can kill him? Should the killing of atheists therefore be legalised where the alternative is that the murderer might commit suicide?

This is not to trivialise people who are feeling suicidal. Such people IMHO need medical care and attention, and possibly protection from themselves. But our compassion for the potentially suicidal should not become an excuse for wooly thinking and bad logic. What is the rationale that sees it as reasonable to let people in effect say, "I'll kill myself if I'm not allowed to break the law - so therefore the law shouldn't apply to me"? Is this argument solely used in connection with abortion? Or can anyone think of other areas where it is employed?

There you go with your analogies again.

Blurring things rather than dealing with things.

If I was a shop keeper and someone wanted to rob a mars bar (which is illegal) and I said if I didn't let him he would commit suicide. I would let him have the mars bar.

you see the problem with all these analogy nonsense.

The idea principle behind not wanting the mother to commit suicide is simple consequentialism. This is a corner stone of moral philosophy.

It is worse if the mother commits suicide than if it the mother does not commit suicide and looses the foetus.

Whereas in it worse if Richard Dawkins is killed by you for some deluded reason than you commit suicide. Sorry to sound trivial but it is your analogy.

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 01:03AM

PDN wrote: »

Actually they aren't, but then truthfulness isn't that important to you today, is it?

Show me evidence of the evangelical alliance in favour of marriage equality and I'll retract what I say because I am interested in truth but you seem more interested in just trying to insult people who challenge your opinions.

If I argue that meat-eaters should have every legal right that vegetarians possess - but that they cannot accurately be described as 'vegetarians' - then only a buffon would accuse me of discrimination.

If you could make arguments without analogies...

Not at all - I have pointed out that you made an untrue generalisation about Christians (most such generalisations are untrue, be they directed at Christians, Muslims or atheists). Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you are indulging in muppetry that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Now - are you really going to insist that Christians who advocate full tolerance and equal rights for same-sex couples, but who don't believe 'marriage' to be an appropriate description for a same-sex relationship, are thereby trying to force everybody else to be like them?

Think carefully about your answer. Being a troll is one thing. Being an idiot is something else.

Yes you are either in favour of marriage equality or you believe in descrimination and homo sexual loving relationships to be of less value than hetrosexual relationships.

The only way you can argue is stupid analogies and call me a troll or an idiot.
Says more about you than anyone else.

And my point still stands. If a gay people get married, it makes no difference to any religious person. They can still have their faith. sing their songs, qupte scripture and say their prayers. However, they have the have to force their idealism on people they don't even know, peopel they may never even meet.

PDN · 17-11-2012 01:06AM

doctoremma wrote: »

PDN, the premise of suicidal feelings would suggest mental illness. And people who are deemed mentally ill are given huge leeway in legal and criminal proceedings.

People who are mentally ill are extended forgiveness on the grounds of diminished responsibility - but that is very different from giving them carte blanche to commit acts that, if committed by sane people, would be crimes.

For example, a mother suffers from post-partum depression and drowns her kids. She is treated with a measure of leniency. But that is very different from passing a law that says, "It is illegal to kill your children - under normal circumstances - but if you suffer from post-partum depression then killing them is OK."

So, I'm asking for any other area where we say that an act is illegal if committed by a non-suicidal person - but legal if you are feeling suicidal?

But... Not sure why you brought this up in the first place? (Well, I have an inkling but want to see what the logic is....)

The logic is what I'm asking for. Where is the logic in suggesting that it should be illegal to abort babies under normal circumstances, but legal if the mother claims to be suicidal?

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 01:14AM

doctoremma wrote: »

PDN, the premise of suicidal feelings would suggest mental illness. And people who are deemed mentally ill are given huge leeway in legal and criminal proceedings.

Did Judas mental illness?

I thought it was just guilt.

PDN · 17-11-2012 01:15AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There you go with your analogies again.

Blurring things rather than dealing with things.

If I was a shop keeper and someone wanted to rob a mars bar (which is illegal) and I said if I didn't let him he would commit suicide. I would let him have the mars bar.

Nonsense.

The issue is not whether the shopkeeper feels generous enough to give away a Mars Bar. The issue is whether stealing a Mars Bar should be a crime, even for someone who claims to be suicidal.

Should the law be changed make it legal for people claiming to be suicidal to shoplift Mars Bars? (Stupid analogy - but you chose it).

If you don't like analogies then answer my question. Name any other area of law where an act that would be illegal under normal circumstances should be made legal because someone claims to be suicidal?

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 01:17AM

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense.

The issue is not whether the shopkeeper feels generous enough to give away a Mars Bar. The issue is whether stealing a Mars Bar should be a crime, even for someone who claims to be suicidal.

Should the law be changed make it legal for people claiming to be suicidal to shoplift Mars Bars? (Stupid analogy - but you chose it).

If you don't like analogies then answer my question. Name any other area of law where an act that would be illegal under normal circumstances should be made legal because someone claims to be suicidal?

I would certainly say you should be allowed to smoke a joint if you threathened to commit suicide.

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 01:23AM

And I am not saying abortion should be illegal. I am just saying I don't agree with it. But unlike all those hard ass pro lifers, I just don't see what gives me the right to push my subjective opinions on them.

It should be there as an option and there should be enough education, contraception to lower the chances of it ever been needed.

The logic behind suicde being an acceptable excuse for some people is that if the mothers commits suicide the mother and the foetus will both die.

Whereas if only the foetus dies that is less loss of life.

So maybe you should find an exception in law where if you can minimise loss of life you are not allowed? Because this is the idea behind suicide as being a valid reason.

PDN · 17-11-2012 01:24AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Show me evidence of the evangelical alliance in favour of marriage equality and I'll retract what I say because I am interested in truth but you seem more interested in just trying to insult people who challenge your opinions.

You show evidence that they oppose equality (preferably in the appropriate thread). You are the one telling lies and making generalised and untrue accusations against Christians.

If you could make arguments without analogies...

It's called reductio ad absurdum and is a perfectly legitimate logical device. You just don't like it because it demonstrates the invalidity of your argument.

You are claiming that people who advocate tolerance to same-sex couples, who advocate the exact same legal rights and and privileges for them as heterosexual couples, but who don't see the word 'marriage' as being appropriate, are thereby trying to force everyone to be like them.

Congratulations, Tim, you've just forfeited any right to expect people to take you seriously. Your attitudes and smears towards Christians have no basis in reason, logic or evidence.

PDN · 17-11-2012 01:30AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would certainly say you should be allowed to smoke a joint if you threathened to commit suicide.

I'm not asking what you think the law should be.

I'm asking you, once again, for any scenario where the law says an action is legal when committed by a suicidal person but illegal when committed by a non-suicidal person.

doctoremma · 17-11-2012 01:42AM

PDN wrote: »

I'm not asking what you think the law should be.

I'm asking you, once again, for any scenario where the law says an action is legal when committed by a suicidal person but illegal when committed by a non-suicidal person.

I find your tone interesting. I don't think anyone is going to bring up a situation where the threat of suicide suddenly turns an illegal act into a legal one. You know this.

But Case X is isn't about turning an illegal act into a legal one by dint of threatening suicide. It's about recognising that mental health issues pose as much of a threat to general health as physical issues. That someone being broken inside can suffer as much as another carrying a physical scar does.

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 01:52AM

PDN wrote: »

You show evidence that they oppose equality (preferably in the appropriate thread). You are the one telling lies and making generalised and untrue accusations against Christians.

Oh come on... All opposition to Marriage equality is coming from various Christian organisations. David Quinn spends so much time at, I wonder when he sleeps. So does his Iona institute. There are ample cases of the various reformed Churches having similar opposition to marriage equality.

It's called reductio ad absurdum and is a perfectly legitimate logical device. You just don't like it because it demonstrates the invalidity of your argument.

It's not reductio ad absurdum. You are mistakes. you blur things and then do context switches such that you are not using this technique correctly.

You are claiming that people who advocate tolerance to same-sex couples, who advocate the exact same legal rights and and privileges for them as heterosexual couples, but who don't see the word 'marriage' as being appropriate, are thereby trying to force everyone to be like them.

Yes. Everyone has to have a biblical interpretation of marriage being between a man and a woman.

Congratulations, Tim, you've just forfeited any right to expect people to take you seriously. Your attitudes and smears towards Christians have no basis in reason, logic or evidence.

You don't have any logical argument yourself. You spend so much time playing words and analogies logic goes out the window.

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 01:57AM

PDN wrote: »

I'm asking you, once again, for any scenario where the law says an action is legal when committed by a suicidal person but illegal when committed by a non-suicidal person.

The law as it is today I can't think of any.

But that doesn't mean you have a point.

Abortion can have an exceptional case for perfectly logical reasons even when you consider the life of foetus to be of equal value to the mother as I outlined.

It is possible for one law to have a particular exception that only applies to that law.

It would seem very illogical that a law can only have an exception if that exception is applied to other *unrelated* laws.

PDN · 17-11-2012 02:19AM

doctoremma wrote: »

I find your tone interesting. I don't think anyone is going to bring up a situation where the threat of suicide suddenly turns an illegal act into a legal one. You know this.

I don't know it, but I strongly suspect it. And I strongly suspect that the reason why nobody will be able to think of such a situation is because it would be bad ethics, bad morality and bad law.

But Case X is isn't about turning an illegal act into a legal one by dint of threatening suicide. It's about recognising that mental health issues pose as much of a threat to general health as physical issues. That someone being broken inside can suffer as much as another carrying a physical scar does.

Not so - and, to be frank, I think you are dodging the issue. If it were really about recognising the severity of mental health issues then the solution would be to address those mental health issues, not to kill unborn children.

The mental health issues involved in post-partum depression are just as serious and painful - perhaps more so - than in the case of a pregnant woman. But we don't see killing 3-month old babies as a solution - instead we recognise the need for better and more humane treatment for the depression.

Peregrinus · 17-11-2012 06:50AM

Morbert wrote: »

The report implied Ireland would have statistics comparable to the UK. Either way, it will be interesting to see what the 2013 report will say.

No, the report suggested that Ireland and the UK would be found to have undercounted by the same amount (c. 7 deaths per 100,000). But if you add 7/100k to the already-counted Irish and UK figures, Ireland will still have a lower figure than the UK.

I agree, the report will be interesting.

Morbert · 17-11-2012 09:33AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, the report suggested that Ireland and the UK would be found to have undercounted by the same amount (c. 7 deaths per 100,000). But if you add 7/100k to the already-counted Irish and UK figures, Ireland will still have a lower figure than the UK.

I agree, the report will be interesting.

From the report:

"However, he estimated that the current frequency of maternal deaths in Ireland and the UK would be somewhere between one in 10,000 and one in 12,000 births."

"Dr O'Hare said that as Irish obstetric practice is very similar to that in the UK, it is reasonable to assume that the number of maternal deaths here would be similar to those recorded by CMACE in the UK."

"In January 2009, Ireland joined the Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE) in the UK, an independent charity that for the last 50 years has worked to improve the health of mothers by carrying out confidential inquiries into maternal deaths."

The UK already implements better counting.

Benny_Cake · 17-11-2012 09:49AM

I'm only getting a chance to point this out now - the place to discuss same-sex marriage is on the relevant megathread, not here.

martinnew · 17-11-2012 09:56AM

doctoremma wrote: »

I find your tone interesting. I don't think anyone is going to bring up a situation where the threat of suicide suddenly turns an illegal act into a legal one. You know this.

But Case X is isn't about turning an illegal act into a legal one by dint of threatening suicide. It's about recognising that mental health issues pose as much of a threat to general health as physical issues. That someone being broken inside can suffer as much as another carrying a physical scar does.

Interesting arguments. However its also to point out that women have also committed suicide after an abortion. Abortion in and of itself does not provide a solution to suicide. Some women will be suicidal before and after the abortion.

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 10:47AM

PDN wrote: »

The mental health issues involved in post-partum depression are just as serious and painful - perhaps more so - than in the case of a pregnant woman. But we don't see killing 3-month old babies as a solution - instead we recognise the need for better and more humane treatment for the depression.

How many woman kill themselves are claim they are suicidal after child birth?

I would have thought statistically, that is a time when someone is least likely to kill themselves. But I have no data.

And as I have pointed out - you change the context and blur the lines.

If a woman is suicidal after the baby is born she can kill herself but that is all that dies. If she does before the baby is born, the foetus / unborn baby will definetly die.

So different consequences in both situations.

You are only looking at principles, but the consequences are different. You analysis is one - eyed.

PDN · 17-11-2012 11:54AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How many woman kill themselves are claim they are suicidal after child birth?

I would have thought statistically, that is a time when someone is least likely to kill themselves. But I have no data.

In developed countries post-natal depression affects between 10% and 15% of women. Suicide is the leading cause of death among women during the initial 12 months following delivery of a child.

And as I have pointed out - you change the context and blur the lines.

If a woman is suicidal after the baby is born she can kill herself but that is all that dies. If she does before the baby is born, the foetus / unborn baby will definetly die.

So different consequences in both situations.

You are only looking at principles, but the consequences are different. You analysis is one - eyed.

Not at all. If you don't like my context then quote me another context - any context - where the law allows that an action which is unethical and illegal under normal circumstances, becomes legal and ethical because someone has claimed to be suicidal.

We can easily discuss situations where one person's life depends upon another if you really want to go that route - eg a pilot of a plane, or conjoined twins. In those cases there are possible ethical dilemmas where someone may be killed to save the other lives - but I am unaware of any where it would be deemed ethical or legal to kill one person because someone else has threatened suicide.

I think that you are running into a moral, ethical and logical brick wall here - and you don't like it.

I want to hear a coherent and logical reason why the threat of suicide makes it ethical and legal to commit an act that would, in the absence of a threat of suicide, be unethical and illegal. If no-one can provide a logical and coherent reason then any proposed suicide exemption in abortion laws is nothing more than moral blackmail.

It would be reprehensible if such moral blackmail was enshrined in Irish law because those who do not hold human life to be sacred basically played on the vast majority of Irish people who do hold human life to be sacred by saying, "If you don't allow this exemption then poor wee girls will die, and it will all be your fault."

We're already seen something similar in this thread where members of the pro-abortion camp have, without even knowing the facts, attempted to exploit the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar to advance their political aims and to somehow imply that pro-lifers are responsible for her death. Such a vile implication is deeply dishonest and manipulative.

(Edit: Those who argue for unrestricted abortion on demand do at least present a coherent and consistent argument - albeit one that is so chilling in its lack of respect for human life that it will almost certainly be rejected by the majority of Irish citizens. That is probably why some pro-abortion campaigners prefer to move towards abortion on demand by incremental measures, pretending that they are wholly motivated by compassion for the suicidal or those with rare medical conditions. Occasionally they let their masks slip, as Clare Daly did in the Dail earlier this year when she claimed her bill dealt solely with cases of a genuine threat to the mother's life, but then blew her cover by announcing she was introducing the bill on behalf of 'the thousands of women' who travel to the UK to obtain abortions obviously not all of whom are in danger of imminent demise).

doctoremma · 17-11-2012 12:14PM

PDN wrote: »

Not so - and, to be frank, I think you are dodging the issue. If it were really about recognising the severity of mental health issues then the solution would be to address those mental health issues, not to kill unborn children.

If I'm dodging, it's unintentional. What is the issue I'm dodging around? Why is killing unborn children not acceptable to prevent the death of the mother by suicide but IS acceptable to prevent the death of the mother by physical insult?

PDN · 17-11-2012 01:34PM

doctoremma wrote: »

If I'm dodging, it's unintentional. What is the issue I'm dodging around?

The issue you are dodging is that there has been no coherent logical reason presented why an act that would be considered ethical or legal in the absence of any suicide threat should become ethical or legal once somebody threatens to kill themselves.

Why is killing unborn children not acceptable to prevent the death of the mother by suicide but IS acceptable to prevent the death of the mother by physical insult?

The answer to that is simple and logical.

Medical situations arise where abortion is the only alternative to the mother's death. In that case, the death of the unborn baby is a lesser evil than the death of both mother and child.

These cases are ethically analogous to other scenarios where it is impossible to save two lives, but one life can be saved. For example, where there is a stark choice between allowing both conjoined twins to die, or conducting a separation that will involve the death of one twin yet save the other.

However, the threat of suicide involves a choice. I've spent a fair bit of my life counselling suicidal people, and also helping grieving families bereaved by suicide, so I am certainly not trivialising or minimising the pain involved here. But ultimately suicide involves someone making a choice - and the very existence of a choice means that other alternatives exist.

So, a suicidal pregnant woman is not ethically analogous to the conjoined twin scenario above. It is rather closer to a conjoined twin who says, "I hate being joined to my brother like this - and if you don't separate us, thereby killing him, then I will go ahead and kill the both of us."

That is a totally different ethical, moral and legal ball game.

So to put it simply:

a) If the choice is simply between one death or two deaths - with no other realistic alternative - then the one death can be justified.

b) If the choice is between one death, two deaths, or another range of realistic options where no deaths are necessary - then it is much harder, if not impossible, to justify the one death.

Suicide is a real problem of gigantic proportions in Irish society. But there are other options. It is very hard to imagine a scenario that genuinely presents the stark choice of either abortion or suicide with no other possible outcome.

Tim Robbins · 17-11-2012 05:56PM

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. If you don't like my context then quote me another context - any context - where the law allows that an action which is unethical and illegal under normal circumstances, becomes legal and ethical because someone has claimed to be suicidal.

There is none. But you quote a context which is the exact same as abortion?
Every other situation is different.

We can easily discuss situations where one person's life depends upon another if you really want to go that route - eg a pilot of a plane, or conjoined twins. In those cases there are possible ethical dilemmas where someone may be killed to save the other lives - but I am unaware of any where it would be deemed ethical or legal to kill one person because someone else has threatened suicide.

That's because as I said the situation of abortion is a unique because one living organism is inside the other.

I think that you are running into a moral, ethical and logical brick wall here - and you don't like it.

No you are. You keep referencing different scenarios as if they were comparable but they are not.

I want to hear a coherent and logical reason why the threat of suicide makes it ethical and legal to commit an act that would, in the absence of a threat of suicide, be unethical and illegal. If no-one can provide a logical and coherent reason then any proposed suicide exemption in abortion laws is nothing more than moral blackmail.

I already gave one.

I'll give it again since you don't like listening. You can make consequential and utilitarian arguments regarding abortion.

If the woman is going to commit suicide, she dies and the unborn foetus dies. If she has an abortion only the foetus dies. So by consequentialism and utilitarianism you can make logical arguments that it is moral to let her have the abortion.

PDN · 17-11-2012 06:28PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There is none. But you quote a context which is the exact same as abortion?
Every other situation is different.

No, no, Tim. If you really cannot think of any other situation where an ethical principle applies, then it is highly likely that your ethical principle is devoid of merit and has just been plucked out of thin air.

I know you don't like analogies - but actually ethics is one area where they are crucial. One of the ways in which we test ethical principles is by seeing if they can be applied in various situations - thus creating workable paradigms.

If you are unable to demonstrate that an ethical principle applies to various situations then it is much more likely that you are indulging in special pleading, have no logical basis for your ethics, and are simply arguiing positions on the basis of "Well, because it just is" or, even worse, on the basis of "That's how I'd like it be - so there!"

I already gave one.

No you didn't. You presented an argument that is neither coherent nor logical.

I'll give it again since you don't like listening. You can make consequential and utilitarian arguments regarding abortion.

If the woman is going to commit suicide, she dies and the unborn foetus dies. If she has an abortion only the foetus dies. So by consequentialism and utilitarianism you can make logical arguments that it is moral to let her have the abortion.

Not so. That would only be so if suicide and abortion were the only two possible options.

In such a case you are choosing between A or B - and it is only necessary to demonstrate that A is better than B. Then A becomes the logical course of action.

That, as I already explained to doctoremma (you would have learned from this if you liked listening) is why a medical exemption to abortion makes logical sense and is coherent. There are medical scenarios where it is a straight up choice between A and B - either you abort the baby or both mother and baby will die.

However, you and I both know that in just about every imaginable situation, abortion and suicide are never the only two options. There are options C, D and E (counselling, sedation - even in extreme cases commital to a psychiatric unit).

So now you are in the half cocked situation of arguing, where choices A,B,C,D & E exist, that since A is better than B then it must be the correct course of action, and to hell with C, D or E. That is not logical. Nor is it coherent. You have failed your logic test. Go to the back of the class.

Abortion debate thread

Comments