Wanna talk about abortion?

And Bruce,

That suction tube about the width of your thumb? It tears the foetus apart in the process...

A foetus has the potential to develop into a baby. It is not a baby. A termination is not murder. To suggest this is the case is ridiculous.

All opinions stated are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organised religion, except where this is stated explicitly.

Malky

This is where we differ. I believe it is a human being and should be entitled to the same rights as any human being.

And of course, this is why we will never agree.

Although my belief may have been borne in religion, I haven't been a practicing catholic for some years. I have seen both sides of the argument and I remain convinced that the postulation that a foetus is not human is inherently wrong.

Frank, yes it does. I've been present at these procedures. When I think about the physical reality of abortion I'd be lying if I said I did not find it distressing. However the description given by Rasher is totally incorrect. I want people to have correct information if they are going to form an opinion. That incidentally is my main job at work, giving people information about their choices, and supporting them whichever way they go-without applying my personal morality.

Bruce

Thanks for putting me right on that Bruce. I did try to say it was what I have been told but have no way of knowing if it is true.

All opinions stated are my own and are usually utter bollocks, except where this is stated otherwise explicitly.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
I believe it is a human being and should be entitled to the same rights as any human being.

Potentiality is qualitively different from actuality.
However, you are right about concensus, my sister is Catholic and we have never found agreement over this issue in over thirty years.

Just out of interest Malky, when is that potential realised? At birth? When it's inside that thickness of skin, or when it's outside that thickness of skin? When its head is just inside poking out, or when its head is out to the neck? When its cord is cut, or when it first goes to school? Can you qualify this for me please.

Bruce,

May I say I respect you for your conviction and admire your strength to do that which you think is necessary even though it distresses you. I could not be that strong. I appreciate that my position on this subject is very much against the overwhelming tide of opinion and I am fairly certain that this is unlikely to change in future.

I have learned much in this thread. Unfortunately I haven't changed my mind, unfortunate because I could rest easier living in a society that accepts abortion. The numbers are frightening. In 1995, there were 25 million legal abortions and an estimated 20 million more illegal ones worldwide. I have read that whether abortion is legal or not, the incidence of abortion doesn't really change. There may be socio-economic factors, religious intervention, societal and cultural pressures at work here, and I accept that a woman's chances are much better off in a legalised abortion than otherwise.

But for me in the end it comes down to the status of the foetus. To me, it will always be a human being. Fine, so it's it's not fully formed and may not have all its faculties yet. there are many people alive today who don't have what one would call fully developed faculties. Killing them is murder. So in my mind (or perhaps my heart, who knows?), killing an unborn baby is the same. In fact, it's even worse somehow, due to the defenceless nature of the victim in this procedure.

But as I started by saying, I am full of admiration for the likes of yourself and RockingDoc who can do what is necessary, although I can't condone the consequences of the actions that are taken subsequently. It doesn't mean I think less of the Pro-Choice people, but I accept I don't understand them.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

I knew a woman who had a little girl with Downs - probably one of the hardest problems to deal with of all.

Hmmm. In my experience, people with Downs Syndrome respond very well to input in early development. I say this because I have cared for people with Downs who were institutionalised almost at birth - and with younger people who were not instituionalised - and there is a very marked difference.

I'd say that people with Cornelia de Lang's and Prader-Willi syndromes respectively, have presented me with the most significant difficulties. Far beyond the level of challenge I've experienced with Downs people, that's for sure.

I miss Rosie.

Well said Frank. Without differing opinions we wouldn't have discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
[QUOTE]

A generous gesture which I admire, but perhaps there wouldn't be so many Phillipinos in deperate straits (population 90 million) if they hadn't had the anti contraception/abortion stance of Roman Catholicism imposed on them.

There has been a huge controversy in the Philippines about contraception - the Catholic church has taught that the use of condoms CREATES and SPREADS HIV/AIDS amongst other hogwash. Although the church has lost the battle to preach this kind of claptrap elsewhere it continues to do it in the Philippines. This is just one of the many disasterous policies of the late John Paul the second a psychopath with no observable compassion or empathy for anyone.

Like a red rag to a bull, eh?!

*

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
Do you know how an abortion is carried out? From what I understand, and maybe the RokDoc can put me right on this, an injection kills the baby and then it’s limbs are broken in order to pull it out. Sometimes the injection doesn’t entirely work and the baby comes out alive.
.

Good grief, no wonder you're against them if someone has poisoned your mind with this misinformation. As with most propaganda there is a grain of truth. The horrible dismemberment you describe is to be found in old obstetric textbooks, (along with descriptions of caving the baby's skull), but is an end of the line technique which was used to save the mother's life when a term baby had died (as a result of God's will) and obstructed the birth canal. Nothing to do with terminations.

I'm sorry to say there is also a grain of truth in the story of very late terminations where the aborted foetus is delivered in the normal way and may show signs of life. I was (and still am over 20 years later) seriously upset by having to attend at the end stage of such a delivery. But pushing the argument towards the very rare late termination compared to the very common early one is to mask the truth.
The age of the fetus is the whole point. If we are starting from the point of conception, then the IUCD (coil), morning-after pill, and often the progestagen only (mini) pill are agents of abortion (murder). Are they to be banned?. So how many cells does it take to be a little baby? Two? One? Perhaps it would be better not to spill any of that seed at all?

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
Just out of interest Malky, when is that potential realised? Can you qualify this for me please.

No Rasher, I cannot qualify this, I am not an obstetrician. Of course the longer a pregnancy goes on, the more a foetus develops. My point is, the religious right and fundamentalists state that abortion is wrong, under all circumstances. Frank states that a foetus is a human being and should be accorded human rights. It is here the argument becomes tautalogous, if abortion is never to be justified, regardless of circumstance, then how does this allow for the rights of the woman?

The philosopher A. J. Ayer observed that to make a statement such as "abortion is morally reprehensible" is to make no factual pronouncement, it merely asserts a personal viewpoint and does not further the debate. The abortion debate involves entrenched positions. The arguments and counter-arguments do not establish any objective truth or moral worth, they simply reiterate the moral perspective of the proponent.

The potentiality argument is illustrated by the fact that I, theoretically, may become prime minister of the UK. Mere potentiality, however, does not confer upon myself the right to be accorded the office of PM. You will follow this line of argument in relation to a foetus.

If anything with the potential to result in human life is sacred, then even masturbation becomes a sin (alluded to by Rockingdoc) and, hopefully, we have left that notion behind in the last century.

It is an enormously complex debate, made even more difficult with the strong emotional content attatched. To anyone seeking to establish an objective conclusion, good luck, it's more than I ever achieved.

Thanks Doc for the clarification.
I don't really disagree with you Malky on any of that, except that I'm standing on the other side of the fence with Frank.

Like I say, it's not one for sitting on the fence.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
2) There are plenty of good alternatives to abortion, like abstinence

Sorry Joe, but I was struck by the irony with regard to your Christianity standpoint.

Bloody Religion.......

RockingDoc,

The very basis of any developed (note not necessarily civilized) society is its code of morality. This is (usually, and in most civilized nations) embodied in a constitution to which the legal framework is subservient - i.e. any law that is passed by parliament must adhere to the principles of the constitution. The constitution is an embodiment of rights and responsibilities (not just rights, please note). Apologies if I'm sermonising...

This is why the legal status of the foetus is crucial to the argument. If the foetus is declared as not being a human being, the constitution doesn't apply, and if it is, then abortion is murder, or at the least manslaughter depending on who is taken to court - the woman for having the abortion or the person performing the abortion.

The potentiality argument is tempered by degree. You have the potentiality to be one day older tomorrow. The degree of this is very high.

You have the potentiality of being PM one day. Unless you know better, the degree is very low.

A growing foetus's potentiality to be a human being is very high. The foetus's potentiality to become PM is similar to yours, if in the UK.

The potentiality of a sperm or unfertilized egg to become a human being is low (very low in the case of the sperm).

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, the foetus is always a human being.

I find it interesting that we are having (have had?) such a good discussion on this. I usually don't discuss it because I know my views are subject to ridicule and counter to more progressive thinking. It feels good to have been able to put my view forward and re-evaluate it in the face of your considered and very good arguments, and I thank you all for your patience and perseverence.

Lots has been said on this thread - as an intro, I'd say I'm more or less with Frank Abela and Joe90. I'll try to add something new rather than repeat what they've said.

I'm amazed that there has been so little said here about the effects of abortion on the mother (or mother to be if you don't accept the foetus is a little person). Phil123 made some comments on the bottom of page 5 IIRC - sorry if I've missed any others but I've been looking through 10 pages of thread specifically for them (AlexanderVH sort of hints at it on page 6) as it seemed to me to be a big gap. But that's it - everyone seems to have ignored Phil123's comments, I'm not sure why. Is it because they're too uncomfortable to talk about, or you think they're not representative? (by definition they are a small sample of responses so it's hard to know how representative they are)

A lot of the discussion seems to be about the "rights" of the mother (to be?) v. the "rights" of the unborn child.

"Responsibilities" and the "consequences" of actions seem to have been (largely) ignored.

It appears to me that one of the consequences of promoting abortion as an OK choice that it underplays the psychological effect on the people involved - especially the mother (to be?). Phil123's post refers to that. Not having been in the situation myself, I don't know what it feels like (to some extent, being a bloke, I never can know what it might be like!) - although my wife and I had enough pain from a couple of miscarriages (and discussions as to what we might do if our unborn child was disabled in some way) for me to believe that it would for us result in enormous grief and pain (wanting children but apparently being unable to conceive is certainly enormously painful - my two girls took many years to arrive and required medical intervention to get them to appear in the first place! I accept that our strong desire to have children may have made it harder to deal with miscarriage).

There may well be some mothers (to be?) who are wholly unaffected by the process of abortion but the pro-choice lobby appears to disregard that abortion can be a very negative and painful experience.

quote:

There may well be some mothers (to be?) who are wholly unaffected by the process of abortion but the pro-choice lobby appears to disregard that abortion can be a very negative and painful experience.

The emotional 'cost' is part of the discussion I have with people considering abortion. It is however hard to debate these future emotional issues, especially with younger people who tend to look at the situation here and now. It should also be said that in 15 years I can only recall one person who has consulted me with significant emotional problems following TOP. This is not to says it is forgotten or disregarded by the women. I know this is not an objective, but it is my experience.

Frank's last post is also interesting. I guess I'm an arch pragmatist. I personally find it only philosophically interesting when we chose to consider life has begun; conception/first cell division etc etc. The selection of a specific date within which abortion is allowed is a social compromise not a legal definition surely?

I do not think that a pregnancy is valued less at 2 weeks rather than 6,8 or 32 and I do not think my patients show this either.

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:

The very basis of any developed (note not necessarily civilized) society is its code of morality. This is (usually, and in most civilized nations) embodied in a constitution to which the legal framework is subservient - i.e. any law that is passed by parliament must adhere to the principles of the constitution. The constitution is an embodiment of rights and responsibilities (not just rights, please note). Apologies if I'm sermonising...

This is why the legal status of the foetus is crucial to the argument.

This is an interesting argument. The problem with it is one of consistency - and consistency is the one reliable indicator of a worthwhile moral system.

Constitutions and laws can give wildly different approaches to similar situations and the differences, in the end, often come down to the politicking going on at the time that the parliament chooses to apply the principles of the constitution to the particular problem that the law-making is attempting to address.

The practice of Medicine, like the practice of Law, is largely self-regulating. Being professions, both have fundamental roles that sit at the heart of society. They are not guided by constitutions and they make their own minds up about how to apply the rights and responsibilities conferred upon them by their unique place in society.

All of these things detract from Frank's argument, it seems to me.

quote:

The practice of Medicine, like the practice of Law, is largely self-regulating. Being professions, both have fundamental roles that sit at the heart of society. They are not guided by constitutions and they make their own minds up about how to apply the rights and responsibilities conferred upon them by their unique place in society.

Not sure this is true. The profession must work within the staute that exists locally. Self-regulation (which is only partly true anyway) is not the same as autonomy. Complex issues at the 'edges' of medical ethics in abortion (and more commonly regarding end of life decisions) are tested by the Law not decided by the profession.

Bruce

And to add to Bruce's post, the problem of ethical dilemma is why the medical profession sometimes ends up in court. There have been many situations where the medical profession and the family have differed in their interpretation of the correct procedure to move forward. You may recall the case a couple of years ago where twins were being split and how the operation would definitely kill one girl. The case ended up in court because there was no clear cut ethical solution.

The doctors felt (as I understand it and please correct me if I'm wrong), that the 2nd child (which would lose its life) was simply a parasite which would eventually kill the first. In the end, the operation went ahead and I believe both succumbed, though I could be wrong. I believe the judge's decision was based on the fact that the 'parasite' remained a human being but that her action by restricting nutrient to her sister was prejudicial to the 1st child and so therefore the action had to be stopped. At least that's my recollection. But the point of this is this - the medical profesion had to go to the law to make the decision because of the ethical conflict which was actually about constitutional rights, as most ethical issues are - which is also why (as I understand it), doctors are allowed opt out of abortion (feel free to correct me Bruce).

Also, when abortion was illegal, the doctor performing the abortion was seen as committing a crime (though not murder) which carried a prison sentence as I recall. So the medical profession is most certainly regulated by the law.

Bruce, you said, "I do not think that a pregnancy is valued less at 2 weeks rather than 6,8 or 32 and I do not think my patients show this either."

In that case, why is it illegal to have abortions later in the case of a healthy child? Does this not mean that the state has chosen to value the foetus more when it's older? Or is it more a medical question of harm to the mother? (Asking because I genuinely don't know...)