Abortion..For and Against ?

[nomadjack]

The key question for me is when does a foetus become a conscious human being, because at that point the rights of the mother cease to become the only consideration in any decision to terminate. That's not to say the women loses the right to control her body, but that right then needs to be balanced with the rights of the unborn child. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to correct me on this but I think at the moment, in terms of law, terminations post 20 weeks are treated differently to terminations before that point, the inference I presume being that conscious life starts at this point. I don't think you can have a blanket law or a black and white position on this issue as situations vary enormously.

As an example, you could argue that under no circumstances should a women be forced to continue with a pregancy that results from rape, even if that means a pregancy is terminated in the last trimester. By the same token you could argue that the child that is the product of that rape has exactly the same right to life as any other unborn child and should not be terminated under any circumstances. In such a situation I don't see how you can't balance the two opposing rights.

In any case, in my opinion, the father has absolutely no rights on this issue as it is not his body to control.

[nomadjack]

[Joel]

I won't post my opinion, however, I can understand both sides of the argument.

[Proud Pies]

[sherrife]

There's a really interesting metaphor used by one philosopher i studied a few years ago which i think could help shed the light on the feelings of many women who feel that their body is theirs to control.

Imagine if you wakeup one day in a hospital bed, where you are connected up to another humanbeing. You are told that the other guy's (Peter) life rests in your hands, and he needs you to stay connected to him for 9 months in order to survive.

Clearly Peter still has the right to live, but your right to autonomy and control over your own body is (I think) stronger in this case.

Of course, you might respond that getting pregnant (apart from rape etc) always follows an act which you know contains a risk of pregnancy, whereas in the above case there is no concievable situation where youc ould knowingly put urself at risk of that occuring.

Well, lets change it a little. If you get in your car and drive to work, do you forfeit your right to not be killed by another driver knowing that it is a real possibility?

I personally think that regardless of the situation, a woman has the ultimate right over her body, as would anyone have the right to pull the plug on Peter. In fact i would go so far as to say, even at 8.5 months, the woman has the right to say "i want this out of my body". If it survives, thats fine, and the woman no longer has any sort of control over it in this case, but if not, so be it.

Who the hell are we to say that any woman MUST keep the baby. It's absurd.

[David]

I wrote a piece on this some time ago, trying to look at the issue as objectively and rationally as I could. I will admit that I came to a conclusion I wasn't expecting.

[joffa corfe]

Fantastic debate..now who among us have been touched by this subject via family or friends ?

[David]

[nomadjack]

"This means that a newborn baby is more 'human' than a fetus, and dare I say it, a 12 year old is more 'human' than a 5 year old. What am I implying? Simply that development is a gradual thing, and I believe if a graph was drawn, there would be a straight diagonal line between conception and adulthood - not some zig-zagging one that most would have you believe...So, what is my solution to the problem? I believe that, as radical as it may sound, once the baby has been conceived, it should be off limits. True, a single cell is nothing, but as it is a POTENTIAL human, it is not our right to interfere with its development. Or else, we must rethink the laws relating to murder: is it ok to kill other people? Why not exactly?"

Sorry David but there seems to me to be a fundamental contradiction in your position. Your argument above implies that 'life' or what you call 'potential life' begins at conception, and we have no right to interfere with it beyond that point.

Yet earlier you argue that "nobody (bar the most hardline anti-abortionists) would consider the single cell created upon conception to be a 'human' being..."

You go on to ask "at what point exactly does it start being 'human', and thus the act of killing it is considered murder?" but it sounds to me that you've already answered that question.

I also don't know many pro-lifers that would argue that life only begins at birth. Can you justify your statement to this effect, because it seems to me that you are just setting up and knocking down straw men?

[Proud Pies]

[Pa Marmo]

[Proud Pies]

[joffa corfe]

[sherrife]

Dave mate, your logic rambled a bit and i think its worth you taking another look at the arguments... your older and wiser i hope... You double back on yourself a few times, i'msure you can do better.

I'd like to see a direct response to my post...

Joel:
The point here is not that you shouldn't stay plugged in, or even that it wouldn't be good if you DID stay plugged in, but simply that it is not an absolute moral obligation to do so. There is no way anyone has the right to demand that you continue to keep Peteralive.

The philosopher (Judith Jarvis Thompson, for more info http://mwillett.org/atheism/abortion.htm) here makes a distinction between morally obligatory and morally preferable behaviour. Eg. no one would argue that everyone HAS to donate 100% of any income they earn over $100,000, although it might (!!) be preferable if everyone did so voluntarily.

What do you think? Can I seriously force you to look after Peter if you don't want to?

[David]