Wanna talk about abortion?

Phil

There is a world of difference between an unfertilised egg (and sperm) and a fertilised egg (i.e. the combination of the two). The former will go no further than stasis or death.

The latter will grow into a human being, provided the right environment is maintained for it. That environment has hitherto been a woman's uterus, but as time goes by and medicine becomes more sophisticated, it has become possible for that environment to be simulated earlier and earlier so one could envision babies being incubated from the single cell. It's just a question of time.

As we have learned more about the pregnancy process we have discovered certain things which support the pro-life campaign far more than the pro-choice one in my view. The placenta isn't just a bag in which to hold the foetus. It's necessary so that the foetus growing within that woman is not attacked by the woman's own immune system, thus proving it is a separate individual human being, which means that at this point it is not the woman's own body to do with as she wishes.

Now I appreciate that the circumstances of that pregnancy may not be what the mother wanted, but one cannot blame the unborn child for this, which is what people do when committing abortion.

One cannot always consider all the curcumstances and create laws which cover all those circumstances. For every individual there is another separate story and potentially a separate set of circumstances. Therefore one must adobt an absolute stance on this - either you allow it or you don't. Once you accept that you cannot take into consideration every single circumstance, you have to take an ethical viewpoint on this. Should you or should you not allow abortion? In my view, there is no circumstance where abortion is allowable.

I wonder, if abortion were considered a crime that had an obligatory prison sentence of 9 months, how many women would opt to abort, rather than choosing one of the other options such as adoption?

quote:

For every individual there is another separate story and potentially a separate set of circumstances. Therefore one must adobt an absolute stance on this - either you allow it or you don't.

Accepting differing circumstances would lead me to not adopt an absolute stance on this, personally.

"wonder, if abortion were considered a crime that had an obligatory prison sentence of 9 months, how many women would opt to abort, rather than choosing one of the other options such as adoption?"

Within days of the law being passed there would be weekend breaks to countries where termination was legal (an opportunity for Lastminute.com), abortion ships would be sailing just outside of territorial waters and the A&E wards would get an increase in patients with strange gynaecological incidents which would not be proveable as intended terminations.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:

The placenta isn't just a bag in which to hold the foetus. It's necessary so that the foetus growing within that woman is not attacked by the woman's own immune system, thus proving it is a separate individual human being,

Frank

Sorry, but that has gotta be one of the crappiest claims of "proof" I've ever seen on this Forum - and that's saying something!

You've chosen the explanation that best supports your position. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes me wonder whether you've even considered another viewpoint.

Deane

Deane,

A direct attack is unwarranted and if we stay on the subject we can at least reach each other. I've seen loads of posts in this thread with which I disagree very strongly, but I try to structure my responses in such a way as to make constructive debate. How is my point crappy? The woman's own body treats a foetus as a separate organism and fights it unless there is a physical barrier created by the woman herself! If it's so crappy, say why! If you can't do so, then retract or apologise, but don't abuse me just because you're getting emotional.

I would have hoped that my ramblings would have indicated that I have considered another viewpoint. To me, the question hinges on whether the unborn child is a human being or not. To me it is. It doesn't matter whether the child is as yet a set of undifferentiated cells or doesn't have consciousness. Does this mean that a person who did make it past the doctors and was born with significant defects ought to be murdered or 'put down'? What's the difference between that and having an abortion?

There is the legal position which is clear; and the moral position which is for each individual to decide.

Just because abortion is legal does not mean you have to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
There is the legal position which is clear; and the moral position which is for each individual to decide.

Just because abortion is legal does not mean you have to do it.

No kidding ? I thought abortion was mandatory in the UK.

No! The Law is rather well framed. Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
Phil

There is a world of difference between an unfertilised egg (and sperm) and a fertilised egg (i.e. the combination of the two). The former will go no further than stasis or death.

Frank,

I'm quite aware of this thanks. I was making a point in direct response to Willy's post, which I quoted in order to assist you all in understanding what I was referring to.

I don't think that anyone is blaming an unborn child for anything. However what they're doing by being pro-choice is placing the needs/wants of the mother before those of the unborn baby. I understand that this is due partly to the unborn baby having no needs or wants, and also to the fact that the foetus is incapable of rational thought. Whether this should render it defenceless is perhaps the crux of the issue.

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brother:

No kidding ? I thought abortion was mandatory in the UK.

An utterly useless post.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
I wonder, if abortion were considered a crime that had an obligatory prison sentence of 9 months, how many women would opt to abort, rather than choosing one of the other options such as adoption?

Abortion was a crime until relatively recently. Plenty of women still chose abortion rather than the stigma of having a child born out of wedlock, and died at the hands of backstreet abortionists.

Ultimately, the law cannot apply morality in the absolute, it has to apply a semblance of morality, tempered by the reality of what has gone before, and what human nature is likely to do in the event of a significant, and unpopular, change.

With respect, to believe anything else is fallacy, or, at best naive

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:

How is my point crappy? The woman's own body treats a foetus as a separate organism and fights it unless there is a physical barrier created by the woman herself! If it's so crappy, say why! If you can't do so, then retract or apologise

Frank

You talk about the woman's body as if there is some sort of conversation going on within it. You set out a fact and then extrapolate from this cold information to a moral position. When a woman gestates it is unarguable that, until the foetus is viable, it cannot exist outside of her body and therefore it is certainly part of her body.

quote:

but don't abuse me just because you're getting emotional.

I'd argue that your post is emotional and that your immersion in a patriarchal society blinds you to certain things - such as the enourmous numbers of women who are left to raise children alone by the males who provided the semen. The same patriarchal society that has oppressed women for thousands of years and still oppresses them. I didn't abuse you; I just told you I found your notion of proof to be crappy.

quote:

Does this mean that a person who did make it past the doctors and was born with significant defects ought to be murdered or 'put down'? What's the difference between that and having an abortion?

I've spent some years of my life both romantically and professionally involved with people with physical or intellectual disabilities (or both). I have already made my position clear with respect to terminating pregnancies on the basis of known problems (which can usually only be diagnosed by amniocentesis - itself a procedure that carries a lot of risk for the foetus.)

Deane

quote:

such as the enourmous numbers of women who are left to raise children alone by the males who provided the semen. The same patriarchal society that has oppressed women for thousands of years and still oppresses them

Maybe when the world is run by women, two wrongs WILL make a right.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

Maybe when the world is run by women, two wrongs WILL make a right.

joe90

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would you mind expanding?

(I'd hate to assume that you see yourself as the head of the household, that your wife is under your authority, etc - without asking...)

Deane

quote:

When a woman gestates it is unarguable that, until the foetus is viable, it cannot exist outside of her body and therefore it is certainly part of her body.

Nah. You could say that about any parasite. It doesn't necessarily follow.

I have a strong resistance against doing things that evoke the idea of cutting up babies.
Like cutting up a lifelike doll. And more so when someone's watching. Or doing such things in the "second life" environment(haven't been there yet).
Or in a video game. Or even thinking about these things. No, I don't think the doll feels anything, not really.
So an abortion could mess with your head for that reason alone. Some perception management could be valuable. The "medical procedure" frame helps.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

When a woman gestates it is unarguable that, until the foetus is viable, it cannot exist outside of her body and therefore it is certainly part of her body.

Nah. You could say that about any parasite. It doesn't necessarily follow.

You beat me. I have not done enough parasitology to be aware of which parasites share chromosomes/DNA with the human female host.

I'm intrigued now. Is there more than one type?

Deane

Deane,

The point you are refusing to accept is that the foetus is a separate living entity within the woman's body. This is why it must have its own environment within her to survive, otherwise her own immune system attacks it.

In fact, in the old days this used to be a real problem since not all the parts of the foetus were removed. The woman's body attacked the parts that were left but if the process wasn't fast enough, the remains were capable of causing an unstoppable infection leading to the woman's death. This was not always in 'backstreet abortions'; it used to happen in clinics too until the causes and procedures were changed.

My post was not emotional - it was dispassionate. Yours was an emotional outburst, otherwise you'd have come out with a more sensible, reasoned argument like you did later on.

I don't know how you believe I was brought up in a patriarchal society. As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't. Dad brought home the bacon and mum ruled (still rules?) the roost. According to her, any major decisions have always been made jointly and my observation is that most minor decisions were left to her. My impression is that this was true of my friends' homes too. Perhaps you believe the absurd notion that Roman Catholicism is about patriarchy. Strange how this came about since the marriage vows are all about sharing and partnership. There is no 'obey' in them - that's the preserve of protestants.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:

The point you are refusing to accept is that the foetus is a separate living entity within the woman's body. This is why it must have its own environment within her to survive, otherwise her own immune system attacks it.

Frank

You haven't made a point I'm refusing to accept. The foetus is definitely a living entity within a womans body but to claim it is separate is just absurd. So what if her immune system attacks the foetus if it does not have a placental sac surrounding it? It is simply how it works. It does not have it's "own environment"; it has an environment that is created by the woman out of her own body's resources and that is fed by the woman's interactions with her environment. It is utterly dependant on the woman's survival until the point at which it is viable.

quote:

My post was not emotional - it was dispassionate. Yours was an emotional outburst, otherwise you'd have come out with a more sensible, reasoned argument like you did later on.

I'd characterise your post as moderate - not dispassionate. I have no problem with passions with a topic like this anyway - it ought to be so and it's very understandable. We're humans talking about a very human topic. I still maintain that my remark was directed at your claim to have proved something moral by the mere recital of a fact. I'll admit to being unreasonably blunt and rude; I hope you will accept my apology for this.

quote:

I don't know how you believe I was brought up in a patriarchal society. As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't. Dad brought home the bacon and mum ruled (still rules?) the roost. According to her, any major decisions have always been made jointly and my observation is that most minor decisions were left to her. My impression is that this was true of my friends' homes too.

patriarchy: a form of social organization in which a male is the family head and title is traced through the male line...

You were brought up in a patriarchal society. Whether or not your family life was patriarchal is not something that I have commented upon.

quote:

Perhaps you believe the absurd notion that Roman Catholicism is about patriarchy.

Well, unless I missed something, the head of the Roman Catholic church is now, and has always been, a male. Are there female Roman Catholic priests now? (I'm not sure, maybe they have modernised...)

Frank

I feel it worth repeating that I have stated my position on abortion. I am against it for the most part - although I accept that it is sometimes necessary.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
You beat me. I have not done enough parasitology to be aware of which parasites share chromosomes/DNA with the human female host.
I'm intrigued now. Is there more than one type?
Deane

I fully accept that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, except that the concept that a child isn't actually a child until it is able to survive outside the mother just doesn't sound convincing to me. I accept that there must be a point when a child becomes "viable" for want of a better word, but I don't think science is able to answer that one, personally.
One thing I do know, and am grateful for, is that I am extremely lucky never to have had to seriously consider it myself. We must remember however that some people reading this might have, and that we should try to be a little bit sensitive to that if we are to continue this subject.

Deane

Thank you for your last post - most gracious. I don't want to appear antagonistic, but I would like to answer. A baby living outside of a woman's body will die unless it is taken care of. It is utterly dependant on its parents and/or society to survive. On its own it is not viable. So does killing an infant constitute abortion or murder? The law states the latter. To me there is no difference.

The reason I have a problem with passions in this debate is that they have a tendency to obscure reason. People get caught up in their emotions. Traditionally, very little has ever been accomplished when people are being emotional even though it is an essential part of our make-up.

proof: any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something

I provided a fact. I used it as an argument to establish that the unborn child is a separate entity within the woman. Once one accepts that it is a separate entity living within the woman, and that as science grows in technology that a foetus may be brought to full-term without having to live in a woman's body, then one must come to the conclusion that the unborn child is human.

Or at least I do...

Incidentally, the whole church thing? We can get into that, but it's not really part of the subject is it?

Assisted abortions or terminations of pregnancy are going to take place anyway. The only thing which can be altered is the legality. The right-wingers can possibly make TOPs illegal, with a return to the good old days of many young maternal deaths through sepsis (and suicide), but not prevent them.
The real issue which is worth getting heated about is the current withdrawl of funding for Sexual Health services with the inevitable increase in unwanted teenage pregnancies. My own rotten borough (called PCT) has just closed all the Family Planning Clinics to "save money".