Abortion

[fairdinkum]

That's your problem, you're all about pointing out flaws in people's arguments / opinions.

That is philosophy, brother.

How is it undermined? We've developed as humans to recognise that at a certain point babies are able to survive outside the womb. Seems appropriate and not illogical to me.

*Deep breath* I have already pointed out the numerous problems with this argument, several times. Until you can counter those objections, they remain valid.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

That is philosophy, brother.

A fairly useless discipline.

*Deep breath* I have already pointed out the numerous problems with this argument, several times. Until you can counter those objections, they remain valid.

I pointed out why they don't make sense.

 

[fairdinkum]

Quite simply, the baby grows the odler it gets and is more capable of surviving outside the womb - at a certain point, abortion should stop becoming an option because not only are you killing a human, you're killing one that no longer needs the mother. At the very least a c-section should be offered in place of the abortion if the woman is so desperate to end the pregnancy.

At what point? Who decides?

Say the limit is 4 months. Whatabout severe disabilities detected late? To be consistent, you must also then ban abortions performed in cases where congenital heart defects, Down Syndrome etc are detected late. Your missus gets to 17 weeks, is told by the Doc that they missed a severe heart problem in the previous tests and the baby is probably going to die before 3 years, and will live a very painful life in hospital before it dies. You stilll happy for her to be forced to carry the baby to full term (or go the backyard abortion route)?

 

[Niximus]

Trying to equate yearly tax returns to abortion is about as ridiculous a proposition as I have seen in this debate. I mean... seriously...

Anyway, since it seems to be too complicated for many to grasp, allow me to (quickly and briefly) put my argument into a more standard form.

-------

1) We allow abortions because, even though they are not a 'good' thing (for mother, fetus or society), to disallow them would lead to greater problems for mother and society.

2) By having a cut-off date for abortions, we undermine the very reasons we allow abortions in the first place.

SO, if we are going to allow abortions, we should not have a cut-off point.

------

If you want to argue that the above is inherently flawed in some way, I am all ears.

I wouldn't say that setting a maximum term for abortions flaws the logic.

As a society we bestow certain rights and responsibilities as you age. The cut-off for abortion is the point at where we as a society have agreed to recognise a foetus as gaining the first of it's rights. Prior to that point (yes it is arbitrary) the foetus is simply a group of cells that are a part of the woman's body.

 

[fairdinkum]

A fairly useless discipline.

As if you had any credibility left, there it goes.

Honestly, that is the stupidest thing I have read on this site. Ever.

I pointed out why they don't make sense.

No you didn't.

 

[fairdinkum]

Why? Do I need to? It's not gonna change anything. I'm not an expert in this field.

Nuff said.

No, people can have sex. But if they get pregnant, they have 20 or so weeks to decide to abort it. Different kettle of fish.

So it is okay to have sex, conceive a human life, and then kill the human life so long as you make your decision within a certain time frame. Make your decision even one day later and it is hard cheese - after all, you made your choice.

First off, Aanswering your own questions with Okay is kinda lame and it hasn't had the irritating effect I assume you intended. If a woman who at 25 weeks threatens to kill herself, she obviously has a wealth of mental problems. Again, what do you say to the man on the waiting list threatening to kill himself? Irrelevent argument.

You still refuse to answer a very simple question. Wonder why.

 

[fairdinkum]

I wouldn't say that setting a maximum term for abortions flaws the logic.

Why not?

As a society we bestow certain rights and responsibilities as you age. The cut-off for abortion is the point at where we as a society have agreed to recognise a foetus as gaining the first of it's rights. Prior to that point (yes it is arbitrary) the foetus is simply a group of cells that are a part of the woman's body.

Wrong. The law still allows abortion beyond 24 weeks, but only in certain circumstances. That is, *essentially* the fetus still has no rights over the rights of the mother. Until it is born (fully) the mother is still the law's main concern.

 

[Niximus]

So it is okay to have sex, conceive a human life, and then kill the human life so long as you make your decision within a certain time frame. Make your decision even one day later and it is hard cheese - after all, you made your choice.

Because the day earlier it is a non issue as the foetus is not a person.

In exactly as a child can kill 20 people they day before their 10th birthday and the law says they are incapable of forming the intent to commit the crime yet if they did it one day later they are.

 

[Niximus]

Wrong. The law still allows abortion beyond 24 weeks, but only in certain circumstances. That is, the fetus still has no rights. Until it is born (fully) the mother is still the law's main concern.

Bold Correct, Red Incorrect. It gets the first of it's rights at 24 weeks but not all of them. Abortions are allowed beyond 24 weeks in certain circumstances that is true but those circumstances must exist where prior to 24 weeks they need not. The foetus has gained some rights at that point.

 

[fairdinkum]

Because the day earlier it is a non issue as the foetus is not a person.

'Person' as defined by the law, and what we are talking about is what that law should say.

In exactly as a child can kill 20 people they day before their 10th birthday and the law says they are incapable of forming the intent to commit the crime yet if they did it one day later they are.

Big difference. In the case of 'intent' and crime, there simply has to be a line drawn somewhere. You simply cannot charge a 4yo with murder, so a line has to be drawn somewhere.

There is no such imperative in abortion. By giving the mother full rights until full delivery, no line has to be drawn.

 

[fairdinkum]

Bold Correct, Red Incorrect. It gets the first of it's rights at 24 weeks but not all of them. Abortions are allowed beyond 24 weeks in certain circumstances that is true but those circumstances must exist where prior to 24 weeks they need not. The foetus has gained some rights at that point.

I was afraid you'd try to be technical. I should have said 'essentially' (as in, so far as this discussion is concerned). I will edit my post accordingly.

Anyway, the fetus has not gained the absolute right to not be aborted. As the law now stands (in Victoria), you can still abort the child post 24 weeks, so long as you meet certain requirements. That is, essentially, until the baby is born the mother is still in control.

 

[Niximus]

Big difference. In the case of 'intent' and crime, there simply has to be a line drawn somewhere. You simply cannot charge a 4yo with murder, so a line has to be drawn somewhere.

There is no such imperative in abortion. By giving the mother full rights until full delivery, no line has to be drawn.

We draw a line because the majority of society recognise (or believe if you like) that a foetus at 7-8 months has reached a point of development sufficient to give it status as a person. Those same people also recognise that at 1-2 months the foetus is nothing more than cells and has no rights of it's own.

Thus, there is a point in between where the foetus gains those rights. If you asked 10 people you'd probably get 10 different answers and as such we reach a consensus, through our legislature as to which point to grant those rights. It this time the first of those rights are granted at 24 weeks.

 

[Niximus]

I was afraid you'd try to be technical. I should have said 'essentially' (as in, so far as this discussion is concerned). I will edit my post accordingly.

Anyway, the fetus has not gained the absolute right to not be aborted. As the law now stands (in Victoria), you can still abort the child post 24 weeks, so long as you meet certain requirements. That is, essentially, until the baby is born the mother is still in control.

Exactly, at 24 weeks it has received the right to not be aborted in most circumstances. Think of it as Right not to be aborted with an asterix next to it.

As the pregnancy continues that list of exceptions shrinks up until the point of birth where about all that is left is severe danger to the mother's life.

 

[fairdinkum]

We draw a line because the majority of society recognise (or believe if you like) that a foetus at 7-8 months has reached a point of development sufficient to give it status as a person. Those same people also recognise that at 1-2 months the foetus is nothing more than cells and has no rights of it's own.

Firstly, the majority of opinion is no point on which to base a philosophical position on abortion.

Secondly, many of those same people would say it is okay to have a late abortion in the case of severe abnormality - clearly hypocritical.

Thirdly, I have already shown how drawing a line between 'no rights' and 'full rights' in entirely impractical and illogical.

Thus, there is a point in between where the foetus gains those rights. If you asked 10 people you'd probably get 10 different answers and as such we reach a consensus, through our legislature as to which point to grant those rights. It this time the first of those rights are granted at 24 weeks.

Our legislature has also said that you can have abortions beyond 24 weeks. So long as a woman is prepared to threaten her own life in order to obtain an abortion, it may proceed legally.

 

[NYE TTTT]

If the Mother's life is in danger, that is the only reason i might agree about an abortion. Otherwise, if a woman gets herself pregant because she was careless, well that's too bad for her and she should have the kid.

If she don't want it after it is born, then have it adopted out.

 

[fairdinkum]

Exactly, at 24 weeks it has received the right to not be aborted in most circumstances. Think of it as Right not to be aborted with an asterix next to it.

As the pregnancy continues that list of exceptions shrinks up until the point of birth where about all that is left is severe danger to the mother's life.

In other words, the rights of the baby always remain subordinate to the rights of the mother. Like it or lump it, that is the law.

 

[Niximus]

Firstly, the majority of opinion is no point on which to base a philosophical position on abortion.

Each of these people come about their views in their own way. The majority opinion is the base for legislation.

Secondly, many of those same people would say it is okay to have a late abortion in the case of severe abnormality - clearly hypocritical.

How so, if the majority of society finds late term abortions for a severe abnormality (something which would also need an arbitrary line to determine severe) ethical then it is.

Thirdly, I have already shown how drawing a line between 'no rights' and 'full rights' in entirely impractical and illogical.

There is no line between no rights and full rights there is a gradual progression from no rights with many steps along the way.

Our legislature has also said that you can have abortions beyond 24 weeks. So long as a woman is prepared to threaten her own life in order to obtain an abortion, it may proceed legally.

In certain scenarios yes she can get an abortion beyond 24 weeks (haven't we gone over this?) but the scenarios permitting it are less and get fewer.

 

[Niximus]

In other words, the rights of the baby always remain subordinate to the rights of the mother. Like it or lump it, that is the law.

Yes and no, a woman has the right to choose without restriction, however at 24 weeks the rights granted to the foetus trump that right of the woman. She still has other rights that can involve abortion (i.e. she has more of a right to life than the foetus).

Yes most of the mother's rights will trump those of the foetus but not all.

 

[fairdinkum]

Each of these people come about their views in their own way. The majority opinion is the base for legislation.

No it isn't. You might note that Parliament had a conscience vote on this issue. Had 4 more Senators from either Liberal or Labor (or a combination of both) decided they were against abortion being legalised, it would still be illegal for any woman to have an abortion in this state. We have a representational democracy for a reason.

How so, if the majority of society finds late term abortions for a severe abnormality (something which would also need an arbitrary line to determine severe) ethical then it is.

So if you were in one of those Northern African countries you would think it 'ethical' to pin women down and cut out their clitorises? Please.

There is no line between no rights and full rights there is a gradual progression from no rights with many steps along the way.

But all along that 'progression', the woman's rights are superior. If she wants the baby gone, it is gone.

 

[Niximus]

No it isn't. You might note that Parliament had a conscience vote on this issue. Had 4 more Senators from either Liberal or Labor (or a combination of both) decided they were against abortion being legalised, it would still be illegal for any woman to have an abortion in this state. We have a representational democracy for a reason.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. A conscience vote simply allows politicians to vote free of party lines. That is going to be far more representative of the community.

Yes I will admit that our system doesn't always allow for the true views of the majority to rule but short of having a vote on every small decision this is the best we have.

It is still IMO the best way to run a legislature.

So if you were in one of those Northern African countries you would think it 'ethical' to pin women down and cut out their clitorises? Please.

If I was raised there then I probably would think it ehtical. Unless you're trying to assert that there is such a think as universal ethics (something theists do) then you would have to agree that ethics/morals are subjective. Yes female circumcision is abhorrent in our society and we rightly find it immoral.

It is immoral according to our standards, you do with that what you will.

But all along that 'progression', the woman's rights are superior. If she wants the baby gone, it is gone.

Incorrect, as we have both said numerous times, after 24 weeks, that right is limited. (i.e. she must have good cause for it, she can't just say "I want an abortion")

 

[fairdinkum]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. A conscience vote simply allows politicians to vote free of party lines. That is going to be far more representative of the community.

Yes I will admit that our system doesn't always allow for the true views of the majority to rule but short of having a vote on every small decision this is the best we have.

It is still IMO the best way to run a legislature.

There we go.

If I was raised there then I probably would think it ehtical. Unless you're trying to assert that there is such a think as universal ethics (something theists do) then you would have to agree that ethics/morals are subjective. Yes female circumcision is abhorrent in our society and we rightly find it immoral.

It is immoral according to our standards, you do with that what you will.

But just because somebody may think that something is ethical, does not mean that it is so. Thus, just because many in our society may share your views, it does not mean that your views are valid.

Incorrect, as we have both said numerous times, after 24 weeks, that right is limited. (i.e. she must have good cause for it, she can't just say "I want an abortion")

For all intents and purposes, the mother gets the final priority. She may have to threaten to kill herself to get an abortion, but she gets the priority. Therefore our law implicitly accepts that it is okay to kill an unborn baby, even if it may have some 'rights'.

 

[Niximus]

But just because somebody may think that something is ethical, does not mean that it is so. Thus, just because many in our society may share your views, it does not mean that your views are valid.

It is the only sense in which ethics exist. There is no such thing as valid ethics, there's my ethics, there's your ethics, there's ethics we agree on, none more valid than the other.

For all intents and purposes, the mother gets the final priority. She may have to threaten to kill herself to get an abortion, but she gets the priority. Therefore our law implicitly accepts that it is okay to kill an unborn baby, even if it may have some 'rights'.

That's a bit simplistic, it's not a case of a woman going to a doctor and requesting an abortion then upon being told that she is more than 24 weeks into the pregnancy she just says "I'll kill myself if you don't" and the doc goes "oh ok sure no problem then" She would undergo psychiatric analysis to determine if she actually has mental problems or is just saying it.

The main circumstance allowing post 24 week abortions is when the life of the mother is in danger. Yes her life is more valued up until birth but that does not equal a right to an abortion for the full 9 months.

If the child was due any day soon and the woman threatened suicide they would not terminate it.

 

[mantis]

If the Mother's life is in danger, that is the only reason i might agree about an abortion. Otherwise, if a woman gets herself pregant because she was careless, well that's too bad for her and she should have the kid.

If she don't want it after it is born, then have it adopted out.

Just as well that women don't need your consent.

 

[redman4]

Does anybody else feel uncomfortable that this issue, which predominantly affects women, is being debated & decided by a majority of men?

 

[mantis]

Does anybody else feel uncomfortable that this issue, which predominantly affects women, is being debated & decided by a majority of men?

Always happens, like they blame the woman for not using protection & (calling them slags for sleeping around, yet a man is a stud if he sleeps around), but neglect to mention that neither did the man. Then the men will say it's up to the woman, because she's the one that gets pregnant, not the man.