Abortion debate thread

PDN wrote: »

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.

It is not an ethical principle. It is an exception.
Which in the case of abortion shows different consequences.

I know you don't like analogies - but actually ethics is one area where they are crucial.

There are never crucial. You reason the world and your opinion by mechanisms that are not logical and are classical logical fallacies. You do this because it is a mechanism for you to get the answers you want and avoid the truth.

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).

People still commit suicide in pyschiatric units.

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.

Before we go on to C,D and E - are you now admitting A (abortion, foetus dies) is better than B (no abortion, woman and foetus dies?

PDN wrote: »

Then back your exception up with something. Use logic, man!

I already did.

If a principle is sound, in ethics as in pretty much anything else, then it will apply to various scenarios.

Nonsense. If you find an exception the principle is not sound. Socratic method.

That is actually the basis for just about all ethical discussion. You are painting yourself into a corner - and I'm not trying to trap you - I'm actually shouting out warnings to you not to make an ass of yourself.

Nobody said they didn't. And, as you know, they still commit suicide after having abortions.

Your logic would only work if all people in psychiatric units commited suicide, as did all people who were sedated, and all people who received counselling. Then you could present A and B as if they were the only two options.

Come on, Tim, I thought you understood logic? Come up with something better than red herrings. You know fine well that the existence of other options (C, D & E) is not removed by a silly comment about people commiting suicide in psychiatric units.

I have actually lost you.

So let me see if I understand what you are trying to say.

The threat of suicide is not a valid reason to provide an exception to the immortality of abortion because it is not a valid exception to anything else.

So your principle is:

X cannot be an exception for Y unless X can be shown to be exception to something else.

Correct?

Or is it your principle only to ethical situations?

Could you please clarify.

I don't agree with you. But I'll go very precisely into why I don't if you stick to exactly what you are saying and avoid analogies.

PDN wrote: »

I think you've lost the run of yourself, never mind losing me.

I am waiting for you to give a logical or coherent reason why any action that is ethically and legally wrong should become ethically and legally right just because someone threatens to kill themselves if they are not permitted to commit that action.

You have not provided any such reason.

Yes I have. You even tried to refute it.

You said that abortion is a better option than suicide, even though other options exist that necessitate neither abortion or suicide.

Those options may not be viable.

Apply that to any other situation and you will see how silly that is. You know that - which is why you complain about analogies. That is a smokescreen to hide the obvious conclusion that your logic is bogus.

Apply what to other situations?

It is logically possible to not be able to apply the suicide to anything else but for it to valid in the case of the abortion.

And you can actually apply the suicide thing in other cases but the problems is they are slightly different. You used to have addiction problems yeah? Say someone say hey that was illegal and unethical. You (or another x- addict) could be up in court and say, listen I was actually suicidal at the time. OR you could just be explained your actions to your friends and children. It may not make it ethically ok or legally ok to keep taking whatever it is being taken but someone might be more understanding of your pain at the time. However, that doesn't validate the suicide / abortion thing because the context is different.

Similary, an atheist could think Christianity and religion is a load of nonsense. But, I am sure if they met someone who was suicidal and was actually saved by faith it might actually challenge some of their opinions. Again, it doesn't actually validate the suicide / abortion thing whatsoever.

There is a danger of using all these analogies. I don't see how it progress the discovery of truth. You just pick analogies that suit your argument and say they are better than the ones that don't suit your argument.

So going back to logic. Are you saying that as logical principle the following is true:

"X cannot be an exception for Y unless X can be shown to be exception to something else."

That's a Yes or No question and you haven't given a specific answer for that.

If I were to even begin to be truthful about how I feel as a woman and a mum, I think it's awful that women are being asked to choose at all, it's a by product of choices and easy choices - and I can't fathom the agenda.

I can see a divide here among women, and I feel that I am being asked to 'reduce a life' in order to be sympathetic to other women - otherwise it's heartless, etc. etc.

The problem is, by being sympathetic to women, which I am, of course, without any hesitation, but the view that a tiny life is 'disposable' in order to help and 'support' females is absolutely necessary to 'empower' them, sounds bizarre.

How can I be asked to medically reduce a child to nothing more than 'disposable'? only a potential human being - and not a human with potential?

I cannot, and I think it is very unfair of some women to place that burden on others, especially when they only champion choice, but 'hush' those who suffer as a result, and don't want to even hear them at all.

PDN wrote: »

Actually medical doctors frequently use analogies to explain things. Didn't you know that? http://www.altoonafp.org/analogies.htm

Maybe you could learn from them?

Yes analogies are used to explain things but not to give logical reaosns for things. A doctor would never use an analogy to make a diagnosis but might use one to explain something complicated scientic concept.

If you read any of Richard Dawkins' science books they are full of analogies but they are used to explain things not used as a mechanism to see if something is true or to argue one point against another.

You should try to understand the difference between explanation by analogy and argument by analogy.

lmaopml wrote: »

How can I be asked to medically reduce a child to nothing more than 'disposable'? only a potential human being - and not a human with potential?

Are you referring to the unborn foestus as a child?

I cannot, and I think it is very unfair of some women to place that burden on others, especially when they only champion choice, but 'hush' those who suffer as a result, and don't want to even hear them at all.

So you think choice is a burden. That's incredible. you think people being allowed to think for themselves is a bad thing?

lmaopml wrote: »

No, I think that women being asked to choose to reduce life in order to see some notion of freedom is a terrible thing.

Uh, what? That gives you the choice to see an unborn child as sacred or precious or whatever the hell you want too you know... right?

lmaopml wrote: »

No - you miss the point, I think.

I am being asked to see any child who is unborn as a 'not human' with any kind of rights at all..they don't exist in that sense at all.

THAT, is what I am being asked in order to be 'compassionate' -

No you're not, as far as I am aware. Who's asking you that? Unless I'm mistaken you can view an unborn child as being whatever you want it to be.

nickcave wrote: »

No you're not, as far as I am aware. Who's asking you that?

When anybody views the unborn as something other than 'human' life with potential they are asking any pregnant woman to view their unborn child as 'less' than a human with a whole lot of potential - even a woman.

We aren't pregnant with life, but only pregnant with something that is disposable, reducible, etc. etc. We're only victims of biology and choice -

It diminishes the child and it diminishes a mother too.

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes. Where do you think any person posting on boards started other than starting as a human life?

It is subjective when human life starts.

Some people say conception, some people say birth, some people say in between. There is no agreement on the matter. Plenty of dogmatic opinions but no agreement.

But by using language such as "the unborn child" you are using propangda. Because it is only your opinion that a child can be unborn.

No, I think that women being asked to choose to reduce life in order to see some notion of freedom is a terrible thing.

So more choice = less freedom? Bizarre.

I think asking women to reduce life in order to be compassionate is 'incredible' reasoning! Do you not see the difference?

Difference between what and what?

You are not making much sense. It is only your opinion that life is being "reduced". The pro-choice people say it is up them to make their mid up whether life is being reduced or not.

The more I read this thread, the more I find myself in the pro-choice camp.

lmaopml wrote: »

When anybody views the unborn as something other than 'human' life with potential they are asking any pregnant woman to view their unborn child as 'less' than a human with a whole lot of potential - even a woman.

We aren't pregnant with life, but only pregnant with something that is disposable, reducible, etc. etc. We're only victims of biology and choice -

It diminishes the child and it diminishes a mother too.

I think there are two different schools of thought on the pro-choice side of things. And I call it pro-choice rather than pro-abortion because most of the pro-choice people I know, myself included, are particularly keen on abortions.

The two schools of thought are 1) the foetus is not a human, or 2) whether or not it is human it is a conflict of rights and the rights of the born person are supreme. Personally I fall into the second camp.

I don't view the foetus as less than human, I don't devalue it, except insofar as I believe its rights are not as strong as the mother's. You are, of course, going to argue that that is devaluing it, and you are probably correct, but I still see it as a human, I never see it as anything other than that, and that is my point.

Whilst there is clearly a need for us to understand more fully what exactly happened in Savita's case, there are some conclusions we can draw from what we have been told (making the assumption we have not been lied to) and what other medical professionals have been saying:

• The foetus was going to die whatever happened.
• Being fully dilated with a burst amniotic sac caries a risk of serious infection.
• Allowing that being fully dilated with a burst amniotic sac increases the risk of infection it seems logical to suggest that the longer one is in this situation the greater the risk.
• Savita asked for a medical termination or abortion on several occasions and this was refused on the basis that there was a foetal heartbeat.
• As a result of this refusal she was in a position which exposed her to a greater risk of infection for a period of time that was greater than it could have been.

Given these things it is not unreasonable to suggest that had she been given the treatment she ask for, when she first asked for it, we would not even be aware it happened and we would not be having this discussion.


You worry about seeing something as less than human, of being considered disposable, of being reducible or a victim of biology and choice. Well, I am sorry but in this particular case the only person who had any of those things inflicted on them was Savita.


MrP

Peregrinus wrote: »

As I understand it, it’s not quite as straightforward as that.

I never said it was straightforward. I simply said, assuming we had not been lied to, it was possible to make some not unreasonably inferences.

Peregrinus wrote: »

When a patient presents with an inevitable miscarriage and a dilated cervix, she may already be infected. If she is, or may be, infected then a termination may not be indicated, since the termination technique – D & C – involves rupturing blood vessels, which dramatically increases the spread of existing infection.

There is a risk she is already infected, but very basic probability will tell you that the risk of infection is directly proportional to the length of time she is dilated for. Therefore, less likely to be infected at the point in time closest to when she becomes, or is becoming fully dilated, and getting more likely to be infected as time passes.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Reportedly, Savita was infected with E.Coli ESBL. It’s necessary to know when she became, or may have become, infected. It’s not inconceivable that she was infected throughout; an E.Coli infection would account for why she miscarried in the first place.

Apparently these are common infections where a woman is left fully dilated for a prolonged period of time. With respect to whether she was initially infected, I would guess that unless she was infected but asymptomatic that would have been detected soon after she was admitted. I am not a medical expert but I would guess that if she was infected to the extent that it caused her miscarriage then it would be unlikely she was asymptomatic, and should, therefore, have been treated for infection right from. My partner and I have four kids, I have seen the checks carried out when there are no issues, temperature taken every 4 hours, bloods taken and tested etc. If Savita presented with an infection already in place, if such a severity to cause a miscarriage and this was not detected for over three days then malpractice, negligent and incompetent are simply not adequate to describe her treatment.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, if she wasn’t, it’s not inconceivable that she was infected from very shortly afterwards, certainly by the time she presented at UCHG.

And if this was the case then it should have been discovered and treated. But it wasn't.

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, while it’s true to say that if she had had a termination when she first asked “we would not be having this discussion”, it would be wrong to think this means that we know she would have survived. We don’t know that. She could conceivably have died earlier; she might certainly have died in any event. Much depends on when she became infected, and we don’t know that yet

I don't think this is a valid conclusion based on what we know. Making that assumption that Galway is not in some kind of timewarp and the medical practices used there pre-date the discovery of causes and tests for infection, it should have been apparent if Savita presented with an infections, particularly if as you suggest it could have been responsible for her miscarriage, or if she developed one shortly afterwards. So, if she had been infected already then that could have been taken into account when decided whether or not to embarl on a particular course of treatment.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, we don’t know to what extent treatment decisions were affected by the knowledge that she was, or might be, affected. We’ve been told about the foetal heartbeat and it’s clear that that was a factor, but we’ve yet to hear if it was the only factor.

My understanding is that she was not started on antibiotics until shortly before her death. This would suggest that infection was not a factor until that time, unless, as I said, the doctors were even more negligent that they already appear to have been.

MrP