Abortion

[fishe]

I’m been thinking about this lately – basically around what I think of it personally and the moral/ethical sides of the topic in terms of legislation. I don’t have any particular reason to be thinking of it, I just thought of a friend I know who’s had one and that got me thinking. Because my ideas are probably incomplete, I thought I would throw them out here and see what the intelligentsia on here think

In short my view is: Abortion is justifiable killing.

At length my view is:

First I should probably define what I think killing is. I see everything that isn’t inanimate (e.g. rocks) as having life. Therefore, ‘killing’ for me is taking/removing/stoping the life of a plant, animal, human, whatever.

I use the word justifiable above because I’m referring to the fact that I believe abortion can only be seen as killing (as defined above); killing, or stopping, a life from occurring. I believe that stopping the ‘organism’ at any point from fertilisation onwards is killing, as it will continue to develop into a human without this intervention (of course, barring other external factors).

So I don’t buy in to any of the arguments around when life or consciousness actually begins as I see these as a means of rationalising the fact that we are stopping a life from occurring. I’m more in favour of simply calling it what it is, killing.

However, I’m willing to label it justifiable killing. We kill all the time – for warmth, for shelter, for food. While I agree that human life has the highest value, I don’t believe it’s beyond justification for killing. The problem here, and this is something I’m still grappling with, is what constitutes a valid justification. It probably just has to be the choice of the individual.

The final part of my thinking is that abortion however it’s posited should never be taken lightly. It should never become an easy option, a popular remedy. Of course these ideas need to be balanced with making it accessible to all the right people with the necessary and very important support structures in place (e.g. medical and counselling services).


Thoughts please, thanks.

 

[zhao]

i think anytime before it leaves the womb it is not a human yet. and it is OK to force quit.

also, what we need desperately is a children of men scenario - neuter everyone now!!!

 

[IdleRich]

"i think anytime before it leaves the womb it is not a human yet. and it is OK to force quit."

I think that that's far too simplistic an approach.
I'm inclined to agree more with Fishe - for most liberals it's an automatic knee-jerk no-brainer that abortion is ok but I think that it's not quite as simple as that. Certainly at some point a foetus becomes alive - maybe not a person but alive - and an abortion is killing that foetus and that ought to be recognised and considered. I'm certainly not saying that abortion is wrong but I agree that it ought not to be done lightly.

 

[swears]

Isn't there some evidence that a foetus can feel pain a certain amount of time after conception?

 

[fishe]

Isn't there some evidence that a foetus can feel pain a certain amount of time after conception?

I'm no expert in this area, but yes, it's possible to prove foetus' can feel pain from some point on during their time in the womb - not sure when - and of course there's the problem of defining pain. Is pain just nerve response, or nerve response and conscious recognition etc.?

When consciousness develops is still very much up in the air, given that we know so little about it and its mechanisms.

And what if we could say without a shadow of doubt that, for instance, at 25 weeks a foetus is conscious and can feel pain. Does that now make it a human? What was it at 24.5 weeks? Do we allow abortions right up to the precise 25 week cut off?

It seems like an overly clinical and calculating approach...

 

[zhao]

there is also evidence that plants can feel pain.

there was also a conclusive study about plant empathy. fuck fetuses. no i mean don't fuck them, kill them.

 

[dHarry]

there is also evidence that plants can feel pain.

there was also a conclusive study about plant empathy.

Where's this evidence? (and don't tell me you mean Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird's The Secret Life Of Plants? or Stevie Wonder's concept album based on it Journey Through The Secret Life Of Plants!?! )

 

[swears]

You get babies being born earlier and earlier all the time, so the line between a premature baby and foetus is getting more and more blurred. Abortion isn't really a mainstream political issue in the UK, thankfully. The debate in the US seems to be polarised between a left wing that believe a woman always has the right at any stage of pregnancy, and a right wing that think it is actual child murder. I would say it's not so black and white.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

there was also a conclusive study about plant empathy. fuck fetuses. no i mean don't fuck them, kill them.

Have you noticed that plants aren't humans aren't plants yet, Zhao? I'm obviously a fan of self-interested speciesism on this matter.

The foetus = the child = the man. The continuity is obvious. When you kill one you kill the others.

Arguments about consciousness in the womb are obviously undecidable, so it's best to err on the side of caution.

Compare the moral imperative behind anti-global warming - to prevent harm to a putative, unconceived generation - to that around abortion - to prevent harm to a real, unborn generation. There is a mismatch.

 

[john eden]

Compare the moral imperative behind anti-global warming - to prevent harm to a putative, unconceived generation - to that around abortion - to prevent harm to a real, unborn generation. There is a mismatch.

I think you are confusing the individual and the collective.

I can imagine that people being able to make informed opinions about whether or not to have an abortion (and indeed whether or not to use contraception) would mean that we would end up with a future generation which is composed of people who were wanted and cared for.

Indeed, the book Freakonomics puts forward a compelling case for the availability of abortion leading to a reduction in violent crime 20 years later.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I think you are confusing the individual and the collective.

I can imagine that people being able to make informed opinions about whether or not to have an abortion (and indeed whether or not to use contraception) would mean that we would end up with a future generation which is composed of people who were wanted and cared for.

Indeed, the book Freakonomics puts forward a compelling case for the availability of abortion leading to a reduction in violent crime 20 years later.

What is the collective composed of, pray tell?

The above is just an argument for eugenics/social engineering, which schemes obviously always turn out really nicely.

Why not just reduce violent crime right now, by doing away with any adults with a record of it?

 

[john eden]

What is the collective composed of, pray tell?

The above is just an argument for eugenics/social engineering, which schemes obviously always turn out really nicely.

Why not just reduce violent crime right now, by doing away with any adults with a record of it?

It's not necessarily an argument for eugenics. To my mind it's an argument for creating a society where people are looked after and inequalities of wealth are reduced. But you'd have to read the actual chapter for the full info, research etc.

Just because a collective is composed of individuals doesn't mean that the two are the same thing.

 

[IdleRich]

"Indeed, the book Freakonomics puts forward a compelling case for the availability of abortion leading to a reduction in violent crime 20 years later."

Yes, he says that abortion has reduced crime but I'm pretty sure that he also specifically says that he is not advocating abortion as a crime prevention measure or indeed at all. If I remember correctly he makes a big thing about how people from both the left and the right have seized on various points he has made for their own end but he is merely seeking to explain correctly and amorally what has happened in the past.
Of course such a conclusion is loaded but he is saying it is neither a case for or against abortion.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

It's not necessarily an argument for eugenics. To my mind it's an argument for creating a society where people are looked after and inequalities of wealth are reduced. But you'd have to read the actual chapter for the full info, research etc.

Just because a collective is composed of individuals doesn't mean that the two are the same thing.

I know that an individual = 1 person and a collective = >1 person AND collective - sum of all its people = 0. Yes?

I'm happy to lose a little collective well-being to gain a few more beings to the collective.

Maybe if I could experience the wonders of collective well-being by tapping into the collective (un)consciousness, then I wouldn't be so pro-individual.

In any case, the 'health of society' argument is moot, given that it still does not give one the right to terminate human life, especially as the reasons for doing so are hypothetical.

 

[john eden]

In any case, the 'health of society' argument is moot, given that it still does not give one the right to terminate human life, especially as the reasons for doing so are hypothetical.

I am glad you are in favour of a healthy society, mixed biscuits.

But yes, it does seem entirely irrelevant to the matter in hand.

Thank you for raising it.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I am glad you are in favour of a healthy society, mixed biscuits.

You're throwing a nice little do for your buddies and everything's going swimmingly. You're told that there's a couple of potentially 'difficult' people at the door who might just be a little 'problematic' - they might eat too many canapes, drink a little too much wine, dogear your copies of the Socialist Worker. Why spoil the party by inviting them in? Huh?

(That's an analogy btw.)

 

[john eden]

You're throwing a nice little do for your buddies and everything's going swimmingly. You're told that there's a couple of potentially 'difficult' people at the door who might just be a little 'problematic' - they might eat too many canapes, drink a little too much wine, dogear your copies of the Socialist Worker. Why spoil the party by inviting them in? Huh?

(That's an analogy btw.)

What, martin and STN?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

lol

Even in the impossible event that you had cast-iron proof that the spawn of Satan was to emerge from your least-favourite auntie's nether regions, you would still not be justified in killing it in utero.

Sure, once it gets out and throttles the midwife, you can stamp it to death with impunity.

 

[swears]

The foetus = the child = the man. The continuity is obvious. When you kill one you kill the others.

This argument is flawed because if you followed it to a logical conclusion you'd be getting into "every sperm is sacred" territory, and everybody would be having as many children as possible, because otherwise you are not allowing people to exist. Which is absurd.

Arguments about consciousness in the womb are obviously undecidable, so it's best to err on the side of caution.

This is the area the debate should be focusing on, I think.

 

[john eden]

lol

Even in the impossible event that you had cast-iron proof that the spawn of Satan was to emerge from your least-favourite auntie's nether regions, you would still not be justified in killing it in utero.

Sure, once it gets out and throttles the midwife, you can stamp it to death with impunity.

Perhaps we've gone down the wrong track here.

I doubt very much that anyone puts themselves through an abortion because they believe their child will be evil.

However, in my experience, many women have had abortions because they believe they won't be able to love and/or care for the child. That doesn't seem like a good option for either the mother or the child.

To me that is a very sad situation, and one I would like to see reduced in frequency by improvements to contraception and sex education.

I think the balance as it stands with UK abortion law is probably correct, and should be defended.