Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[LeSellers]

Actually the typical abortion patient is an uwed mother whose boyfriend is long gone, in favor of keeping the child, or in favor aborting it (in about equal measure).

Which fact, if it is accurate, and I have reason to doubt it, supports my underlying position that young men support abortion on demand because it relieves them of the responsibility of raising their children.

Ironic that you seem to have confidently identified the magic point where a blob of cells becomes a person.

The child is not a "blob of cells", he is a child.

But I did not identify such a point, I identified a point that is the last time where one could possibly claim he wasn't.

Now you are just spouting stupidity borne of your own wishful ignorance on the subject.

Says the whippersnapper to the man with 27 grandchildren.

Incidentally, abstinence-only education is an abysmal failure.

It works every time it's tried.

So sex-ed destroys the future families of teens somehow?

Or does it cause the destruction of those teens current families in some indirect way?

I'm confused here.

That's obvious.

It is families in general, the concept of family that suffers from grtf-welfare schools, part of which is sex-ed. Satan, when he inspired Horace Mann (and before him, Kaiser Friedrich) to coerce parents to send their children to the state for their education, did so to divorce children from the mores (and specifically from the religion) of their fathers. The state becomes the family.Thus, the divine concept of Family is swamped by the prytaneolatric version of state as the ultimate good, supplanting God and family, just as Mann expressed his hope that it would happen.

Most modern birth control methods have success rates in the high nineties - with less than a 1% chance of pregnancy with correct use.

As a matter of practical fact, most modern birth control is not used as directed. Condoms, the only way to avoid (but not conclusively) venereal diseases, fail far more frequently than 1% of the time. Because the only real reason to use birth control any more is to avoid venereal diseases, the condom, once relegated to near obscurity, has seen a resurgence in use. I say birth control, among the unmarried is usually for disease prevention precisely because abortion is always a backup. We ought not forget that most sexual encounters do not result in pregnancy, irrespective of the use of prevention.

[vastly increased availability of birth control (there was no birth control except condoms until the XX) has not reduced unwanted pregnancy is a]bsolutely and laughably false.

Yet we have 'way more "unwanted" pregnancies (per capita) today than we did only 50 years ago.

Lehi

[Eldwynn]

I don't think your statistics say what you want them to. You can't say that every abortion the last 30 years was reported, nor can you assume that not aborting a child means the pregnancy was wanted. A further confound in your analysis is that abortion has been on the rise because its availability and popularity has increased. You say that this results in MORE unwanted pregnancies. However, it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that the increase is because abortion is now socially acceptable, and women are no longer "stuck" with unwanted pregnancies. In other words, all that copy and pasting didn't settle it one way or another.

[SilverKnight]

Yet we have 'way more "unwanted" pregnancies (per capita) today than we did only 50 years ago.

IIRC, the current trends surrounding abortion, sex education, and teen pregnancy are rather encourageing and may surprise you.

I believe the following is more or less true, especially for average, middle class America:

- teen pregnancies are down

- abortions are down

- teens are waiting until later to have sex

- teens are having fewer sexual partners

- cases of teen STDs are down

Who knows what countless factors influence these statistics, but many medical and psychological professionals will tell you a large part of it is better access to relevant information (including sex-ed), medical care, birth control.

All the things you decry are actually helping to reduce unwanted pregnancies, sexual intercourse and abortions.

The data suggests that the teenager who knows about sex, pregnancy and birth control is less likely to have sex, get pregnant or have an abortion.

[semlogo]

I believe it's only women who have abortions. We must recognize, however, that it it typically the father (or assumed father) who cajoles, or even forces, her to kill their child.

Why then? Three months is not the magic point at which a child starts being a person. That happens at the point when the blastocyst becomes an embryo, and perhaps earlier.

Sex-ed has been an important feature of government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka welfare) schools for the past 40 years and, if anything, abortions and unwanted pregnancies have risen (per capita) compared to earlier times when sex ed was a function of families. Sex-ed as a preventative is a miserable, abominable failure. (Of course, sex-ed, as a means to destroy families, one of the primary goals of grtf-welfare schools, is a stellar success. It depends on what you're measuring.)

Birth control fails. Well there is one method that has a 100% success rate: abstinence. All the others, from physical barriers to hormonal supplementation fail sometime, often as much as 50% of the time.

Yet vastly increased availability of birth control (there was no birth control except condoms until the XX) has not reduced unwanted pregnancy, and probably has increased the failure to get pregnant among women who'd like to bear children but who used it in the past.

Lehi

Sex ed and birth control information and supplies have been suppressed by fundamentalist Christians. Teaching abstinence in school simply doesn't work and results in more abortions. In Europe where they're not hampered by such misguided efforts from fundamentalist Christians, their abortion rate is a tiny, tiny fraction of ours.

Again, if your aim is to make a dramatic gesture, go ahead and teach abstinence only. If you aim to actually reduce abortions, you have to do what actually works prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I'd rather actually reduce the numbers of abortions than stick with policies that have proven unsuccessful, like abstinence-only education.

[CV75]

Eldwynn:

In the Church abortion is permissible in the cases of rape, incest, life or health of the mother, non-viability of fetus.

I would like to interject, that even though it is permissible in these cases, these situations (as horrible as they are) do not in themselves automatically justify the decision to abort. For this reason I would not restrict abortion to these situations--it might invite too liberal an application. Rather I would penalize or criminalize abortion for convenience, non-fatal birth defects, sex and other inherited characteristics, social stigma, etc. and somehow provide incentive to make the birth choice for at least rape, incest, or health of the mother. Having said that, I do think protecting the life of the mother and addressing the non-viability of the fetus through abortion are much clearer choices to make.

[semlogo]

IIRC, the current trends surrounding abortion, sex education, and teen pregnancy are rather encourageing and may surprise you.

I believe the following is more or less true, especially for average, middle class America:

- teen pregnancies are down

- abortions are down

- teens are waiting until later to have sex

- teens are having fewer sexual partners

- cases of teen STDs are down

Who knows what countless factors influence these statistics, but many medical and psychological professionals will tell you a large part of it is better access to relevant information (including sex-ed), medical care, birth control.

All the things you decry are actually helping to reduce unwanted pregnancies, sexual intercourse and abortions.

The data suggests that the teenager who knows about sex, pregnancy and birth control is less likely to have sex, get pregnant or have an abortion.

Absolutely. It may sting, but those on the conservative side of this issue would due well to embrace what the liberals have been saying all along - that is, if they actually care about reducing abortions.

[SilverKnight]

I would like to interject, that even though it is permissible in these cases, these situations (as horrible as they are) do not in themselves automatically justify the decision to abort.

Says who? Is this your opinion, or does the church hold stricter abortion rules than TSS already mentioned?

For this reason I would not restrict abortion to these situations--it might invite too liberal an application.

Allowing a woman to abort a rape-induced fetus is too liberal?

Rather I would penalize or criminalize abortion for convenience, non-fatal birth defects, sex and other inherited characteristics, social stigma, etc.

So how exactly would you punish the 16-year old indigent high-school drop out mother who chooses to undergo an illegal abortion?

and somehow provide incentive to make the birth choice for at least rape, incest, or health of the mother.

Sounds like you've already made the choice for them.

[Eldwynn]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add one more problem with your argument against Sex education.

When we say that something is 99% effective in pregnancies, those numbers are typically found in the following ways. We find a number of women that use the method, and then count the number of pregnancies in this group. If it is 1/100, that would mean the contraceptive is 99% effective.

However, this number assumes that the birth control is being used as directed. How do you use something as directed? Education. If two birth control methods are used- say an IUD and a condom, then your chances are 15/100 (for the condom) and 1/1000 (for the IUD). Those two fractions multiplied together means 15/100,000(.00015) or would report becoming pregnant. However, this is assuming we are just going off the reported number. I got my data from planned parenthoods site. IF you want a peer reviewed source, let me know and I will dig it up for you.

Now let's analyze abstinence. I am going to nice, and assume that EVERYONE that practices abstinence does so without making mistakes. That is, those that practice abstinence do so 100% effectively (we are NOT doing this for contraceptives). Even still, it is possible that you could get raped while practicing abstinence. Even if we assume that all the sexual assaults last year were reported (which is not a fair assumption for the contraceptives side), that number is still 248,300 in 2007 (the most recent year I could find). The population in 2007 of the US was somewhere around 308,000,000. Doing math again, we find that the chance to be raped is .00081 averaged across all of the USA (if we were to do it in my city of Seattle it would be much higher probably. As you are more likely to be raped in a city). This number is larger than the above.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/iud-4245.htm

# of people in the USA approximated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

So if your real goal is to eliminate all unwanted pregnancies in the world, then education along with contraceptives, works better than any sort of abstinence program. Keep in mind that at every approximation, I gave abstinence only education the advantage!

[SilverKnight]

Absolutely. It may sting, but those on the conservative side of this issue would due well to embrace what the liberals have been saying all along - that is, if they actually care about reducing abortions.

And, alternatively, the best way to undo all the recent progress, and cause teen pregnancy, abortion, and promiscuity rocket skyward, is to ignore birth control and teach the disastrously ignorant "abstinence only" sex-ed.

[Eldwynn]

I would like to interject, that even though it is permissible in these cases, these situations (as horrible as they are) do not in themselves automatically justify the decision to abort. For this reason I would not restrict abortion to these situations--it might invite too liberal an application. Rather I would penalize or criminalize abortion for convenience, non-fatal birth defects, sex and other inherited characteristics, social stigma, etc. and somehow provide incentive to make the birth choice for at least rape, incest, or health of the mother. Having said that, I do think protecting the life of the mother and addressing the non-viability of the fetus through abortion are much clearer choices to make.

And for me, if you are assuming that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then it should NOT be permissible in rape, inherited defects etc. After all, is it permissible to kill a developed person with a genetic defect? Is it permissible to kill a person that is an inconvenience because he/she is the product of a horrible situation?

Even in the case of the life of the mother. If one family member has to die, and both are "persons" under the law, then why should the baby not get to live? After all, it is statistically more likely that the baby will live longer.

If we assume personhood from the moment of conception, we can not allow abortion in ANY cases, except for maybe the life of the mother (self defence). Any other conclusion is not logically consistent.

[Silver Girl]

... there are, in spite of the news, very few rapes in any place in the world: far less than 1% of all sexual intercourse is non-consensual. Since even a rapist would not know if his victim is fertile at the time of his attack, we can reasonably conclude that no greater a ratio of pregnancies are involuntary than is the intercourse that produced them. This means that in 99+% of all pregnancies, the woman gave her implicit consent to motherhood...

CFR

Excuse me...?? "There are very few rapes in any place in the world"...?? Can you back this statement up with any sort of statistic more concrete than your own opinion...??

As a rape survivor, and a former volunteer for a rape survivor's support group, I find your assertions ridiculous and down right insulting!!

It is this type of attitude that leads some (I am not saying you specifically, since I do not know you!!) to blame the victim for their assault... It is much like saying, "far less than 1% of all sexual intercourse is non-consensual, so why should we believe your claim that you were assaulted...??"

I realize you are a passionate person, and have strong and deep-seated beliefs, but perhaps you could tone down the rhetoric a notch or two... There are some of us out here who have walked that path, survived it, and even thrived... But, it is very insulting to have such ridiculous opinions spouted as if they were fact, when in deed they are not fact...

Sorry if I have derailed the thread...

Silver Girl

[Jeff K.]

Does teaching people how to insert heroin needles reduce heroin use?

Or are there other factors involved?

[bluebell]

And for me, if you are assuming that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then it should NOT be permissible in rape, inherited defects etc. After all, is it permissible to kill a developed person with a genetic defect? Is it permissible to kill a person that is an inconvenience because he/she is the product of a horrible situation?

Even in the case of the life of the mother. If one family member has to die, and both are "persons" under the law, then why should the baby not get to live? After all, it is statistically more likely that the baby will live longer.

If we assume personhood from the moment of conception, we can not allow abortion in ANY cases, except for maybe the life of the mother (self defence). Any other conclusion is not logically consistent.

I agree with you.

I don't think there is anyway to reconcile a belief that abortion is sometimes permissible in the case of rape or incest or harm to the mother with a belief that an embryo is a person at conception.

I think that the rate of spontaneous abortion alone, which is normally called a miscarriage if the mother has realized she was pregnant, implies, from a Christian viewpoint, that the soul does not enter the body anywhere near that stage of development. If such is the case, millions of children are dying every year without the parents being aware that they ever even existed and to me, that doesn't mesh with God's purpose in providing us with bodies in the first place.

[mfbukowski]

I would like to interject, that even though it is permissible in these cases, these situations (as horrible as they are) do not in themselves automatically justify the decision to abort. For this reason I would not restrict abortion to these situations--it might invite too liberal an application. Rather I would penalize or criminalize abortion for convenience, non-fatal birth defects, sex and other inherited characteristics, social stigma, etc. and somehow provide incentive to make the birth choice for at least rape, incest, or health of the mother. Having said that, I do think protecting the life of the mother and addressing the non-viability of the fetus through abortion are much clearer choices to make.

Here's a hypothetical:

A single mom has 3 children. She is raped and is very very traumatized. She finds she is pregnant. If she delivers the baby, the trauma could be so severe that she may have to be hosptialized, her children will have to be put in foster care, and will not be raised in the church. She would not be able to go to work, and will, if she gets out of the mental hospital, have to be put on welfare, with her children assuming she can get them back out of the social services system, probably for the rest of her life. Of course you don't have a crystal ball to know that- but it is a possibility in your mind. You have been informed that competent medical personnel are concerned about here possible mental state.

You are her bishop and she comes to you seeking a first trimester abortion. Since you are her spiritual advisor, she will take your advice and do whatever you tell her to do.

What do you tell her? Remember the church has said that abortions are permissible in such a situation.

[CV75]

Says who? Is this your opinion, or does the church hold stricter abortion rules than TSS already mentioned? Allowing a woman to abort a rape-induced fetus is too liberal? So how exactly would you punish the 16-year old indigent high-school drop out mother who chooses to undergo an illegal abortion? Sounds like you've already made the choice for them.

It is strictly my opinion that no abortion should be an automatic decision. I understand the Church guidance is that even in these horrific cases, the decision should not be made without much prayer. I suppose this is just in case the abortion is a hasty decision in response to the serious personal trauma.

From a public policy perspective, allowing a woman to abort a rape-induced fetus is too liberal if the decision either way is made in haste without proper counsel and support before, during and after the decision. I think as a society we need to help victims in this regard. Also, once the automatic allowance for rape is opened up it can be used dishonestly. If the supports are there, the decision is better for all concerned, including the community that should care for rape victims and the unborn.

The 16-year old indigent high-school drop-out mother who chooses to undergo an illegal abortion would need to be dealt with according to the law. There must be some kind of recourse for that now, which include prosecution of the provider and examination of the rehabilitation needs of the 16-year old. Regardless of their reasons and good/bad decision-making to have the abortion, women who have had abortions typically have a tremendous amount of adjustment (to put it mildly) to make.

I think incentives to make the birth choice must be part of the equation offset the apparent tendency to presume the abortion choice is to be hasty and automatic. I think this is in the best interest of all concerned as well.

[CV75]

And for me, if you are assuming that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then it should NOT be permissible in rape, inherited defects etc. After all, is it permissible to kill a developed person with a genetic defect? Is it permissible to kill a person that is an inconvenience because he/she is the product of a horrible situation?

Even in the case of the life of the mother. If one family member has to die, and both are "persons" under the law, then why should the baby not get to live? After all, it is statistically more likely that the baby will live longer.

If we assume personhood from the moment of conception, we can not allow abortion in ANY cases, except for maybe the life of the mother (self defence). Any other conclusion is not logically consistent.

I am saying for the purposes of public policy on abortion, the fetus should be considered human from conception and work the conditions, penalties, etc. as gradients from there, from a compromise and cost perspective (see post #14 for details, comment on convenience, etc.).

RE: life of the mother, choosing which person is to live is often made in triage or even queuing situations, based on the likelihood of survival, etc., and the same approach can be taken with abortion.

I agree that assuming personhood from conception errs on the side of caution and forces the issue of having to think really, really carefully about these decisions, which I think is the right attitude to take, regardless of when life/personhood actually begins (since we really don't know that one).

[CV75]

Here's a hypothetical:

A single mom has 3 children. She is raped and is very very traumatized. She finds she is pregnant. If she delivers the baby, the trauma could be so severe that she may have to be hosptialized, her children will have to be put in foster care, and will not be raised in the church. She would not be able to go to work, and will, if she gets out of the mental hospital, have to be put on welfare, with her children assuming she can get them back out of the social services system, probably for the rest of her life. Of course you don't have a crystal ball to know that- but it is a possibility in your mind. You have been informed that competent medical personnel are concerned about here possible mental state.

You are her bishop and she comes to you seeking a first trimester abortion. Since you are her spiritual advisor, she will take your advice and do whatever you tell her to do.

What do you tell her? Remember the church has said that abortions are permissible in such a situation.

I would tell her that abortions are permissible in such a situation, and that I would fast and pray with her and others who are interested her welfare that she would be guided by the Lord in making her decision. Putting the decision on me is not an option, but I have a backup plan in that event. I would also give her every kind of temporal or spiritual support she requires under my stewardship regardless of her decision. Granted, my public policy stance is a bit more complicated.

Edited, but it says 5 hours ago instead of 5 minutes ago (?)

[Eldwynn]

I am saying for the purposes of public policy on abortion, the fetus should be considered human from conception and work the conditions, penalties, etc. as gradients from there, from a compromise and cost perspective (see post #14 for details, comment on convenience, etc.).

RE: life of the mother, choosing which person is to live is often made in triage or even queuing situations, based on the likelihood of survival, etc., and the same approach can be taken with abortion.

I agree that assuming personhood from conception errs on the side of caution and forces the issue of having to think really, really carefully about these decisions, which I think is the right attitude to take, regardless of when life/personhood actually begins (since we really don't know that one).

But, couldn't I simply argue that we should err on the side of caution that fetus's are NOT persons, because of the pain it causes the mother to be forced to have a pregnancy as well? There is no reason I can't err on the other side of the line. Only problem is, we would never come to an agreement. I don't see a reasonable argument why we should think a fetus is a full fledged person. Potential just doesn't matter. Sperms have the potential to become human, yet they are not granted full protection under the law based on such (although the catholic church may have something to say about that ).

I am not comfortable with putting a fetus's right to life: when the fetus can't even make decisions, emotions, or feel pain- above the mothers who we KNOW feels pain, has autonomy/goals that are being interfered with etc. I would rather "err on the side of caution" and say a fetus is not a person.

I realize that I am drawing the line (technically) of personhood AFTER even the birth. However, consider the following classic example:

Say that you fell asleep one night, and woke up in the hospital. You later find out that the Musical Society of Violinists have kidnapped you. Their start violinist got a terrible disease, and the only way he can survive is if you stay near him-plugged in- for 9 months. He is leeching off of your blood. If you pull the plug and go free, he will certainly die without you, and no one else can be plugged into him. Do you have a moral obligation to stay plugged in?

Now this is assuming full personhood, but you probably don't think you do. Would you be comfortable forcing someone ELSE to do it, even if you yourself were willing (because you loved his music or something).

The example I think clearly illustrates that we don't have moral obligations to people when we did not intend to. It would be nice, and if it is not inconvenient we certainly should- but who could say that one is obligated to?

[LeSellers]

there are, in spite of the news, very few rapes in any place in the world: far less than 1% of all sexual intercourse is non-consensual.

CFR

Excuse me...?? "There are very few rapes in any place in the world"...?? Can you back this statement up with any sort of statistic more concrete than your own opinion...??

Yes, I can.

It helps when the quote is left in its context. Please note that I did not say "there are very few rapes anyplace in the world" but "there are, in spite of the news, very few rapes in any place in the world: far less than 1% of all sexual intercourse is non-consensual".

The clarification, "less than 1% of sexual intercourse is non-consensual", means I was speaking relatively. If we take USmerica, there were 90,427 reported rapes in 2008. Let's assume this represents only 20% of the actual number, because many go unreported. So, we'd have some 500,000 incidents. In 2008, there were some 300,000,000 people in this country. Let's assume that 100,000,000 were adult women, and that each one had only twenty sexual encounters during the whole year. That means there were 2,000,000,000 instances of sexual intercourse of which 500,000 were rape. That equates to 5/20,000 = 0.00025 = 0.025% which is "far less than 1%", which was my claim. If my numbers are off, please make your own assumptions and do the math. It may be that mine is in error by an order of magnitude. In that case, it would be 0.25%, or even two orders of magnitude (for 2.5%), although that is only a very remote possibility. Neither one would justify legalizing abortion as it stands in USmerica today.

It ought to have been clear, and if not, I state it explicitly, no rape is justified, but I was not addressing any individual instance, but the fact that rape would result in one-fortieth of one percent of all pregnancies, which would simply not justify legalizing abortion for all at any point in any pregnancy. It certainly does not justify forcing taxpayers to fund the abortion.

As a rape survivor, and a former volunteer for a rape survivor's support group,...

I am sorry about your trauma. I hope your rapist paid a heavy price for his assault on you. I hope he was forced to compensate you for the harm he did.

Aside

: Were I the judge, the perpetrator would be forced to pay you at least $100,000 (through indentured servitude if necessary) and spend an indeterminate time in a small cell. His release would come when he cooked and ate the contents of the refrigerator where his genitalia had been frozen on conviction.

... I find your assertions ridiculous and down right insulting!!

I am not responsible for your being insulted. That is your choice.

As for "ridiculous", the math is the math. It is hardly ridiculous to claim that 0.025% is anything other than "less than 1%". It is ridiculous to maintain the opposite.

It is this type of attitude that leads some (I am not saying you specifically, since I do not know you!!) to blame the victim for their assault... It is much like saying, "far less than 1% of all sexual intercourse is non-consensual, so why should we believe your claim that you were assaulted...??"

I neither implied this nor is there any rational basis on which you should have inferred it.

What other people do with statistics is their own affair. It is unjustified to shoot the messenger, or even, by implication, lump him in with these others.

I realize you are a passionate person, and have strong and deep-seated beliefs, but perhaps you could tone down the rhetoric a notch or two...

When the truth is assaulted, there is no merit in toning the rhetoric down at all, much less two notches.

Does 0.025% rise to the level of justifying abortion? (Even assuming that carrying the children, however repugnant, would work irreparable harm to their mothers, which I have a great deal of trouble imagining—women have born and raised such children throughout the millennia, and even loved them. Absent this maternal instinct/love, I know of many couples who'd gladly adopt these children, and given the long, long waiting lists for adoption, we can only imagine just how many others would do so. The number is not trivial.)

That is the topic we are discussing.

it is very insulting to have such ridiculous opinions spouted as if they were fact, when in deed they are not fact...

Since my opinion is a fact, it is neither ridiculous nor "spouted".

If I chose to be insulted, it would be insulting to hear that my opinion is ridiculous, given that I knew it to be based on hard, solid fact when I first wrote it. I choose, however, to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Lehi

[Mudcat]

But, couldn't I simply argue that we should err on the side of caution that fetus's are NOT persons, because of the pain it causes the mother to be forced to have a pregnancy as well? There is no reason I can't err on the other side of the line. Only problem is, we would never come to an agreement. I don't see a reasonable argument why we should think a fetus is a full fledged person. Potential just doesn't matter. Sperms have the potential to become human, yet they are not granted full protection under the law based on such (although the catholic church may have something to say about that ).

I am not comfortable with putting a fetus's right to life: when the fetus can't even make decisions, emotions, or feel pain- above the mothers who we KNOW feels pain, has autonomy/goals that are being interfered with etc. I would rather "err on the side of caution" and say a fetus is not a person.

Hi Eldwynn,

I don't mean to speak for CV, but it seems he and I stand fairly close on this particular topic.

Bold mine. You have offered three reasons the fetus should be treated as a human. Ability to feel pain, express emotions or ability to make decision. The fetus should be counted as human.

Under the same criteria. A "person" that has is in a coma, with sever spinal injury would equitably meet similar criteria.

By your estimation such a "person" would simply be thing, or perhaps they would cease to be a person.

I wonder what your thoughts are on that?

I realize that I am drawing the line (technically) of personhood AFTER even the birth. However, consider the following classic example:

Say that you fell asleep one night, and woke up in the hospital. You later find out that the Musical Society of Violinists have kidnapped you. Their start violinist got a terrible disease, and the only way he can survive is if you stay near him-plugged in- for 9 months. He is leeching off of your blood. If you pull the plug and go free, he will certainly die without you, and no one else can be plugged into him. Do you have a moral obligation to stay plugged in?

Now this is assuming full personhood, but you probably don't think you do. Would you be comfortable forcing someone ELSE to do it, even if you yourself were willing (because you loved his music or something).

The example I think clearly illustrates that we don't have moral obligations to people when we did not intend to. It would be nice, and if it is not inconvenient we certainly should- but who could say that one is obligated to?

The example isn't relevant. It is an undue and incorrect hypothetical analogy.

The mother doesn't have the power to pull the plug herself. At least not in the US by herself. She must illicit help from medical professionals to pull the plug.

[LeSellers]

Potential just doesn't matter. Sperms have the potential to become human, yet they are not granted full protection under the law based on such (although the catholic church may have something to say about that).

Spermatozoa do not have the potential to be human—under a fairly limited set of circumstances, they have the potential to fertilize an ovum. (Neither does an ovum have the potential to become human, it can be fertilized.) Only on fertilization does the resulting blastocyst attain the potential of becoming human.

I would rather "err on the side of caution" and say a fetus is not a person.

That's exactly the opposite of "the side of caution".

If the fœtus is a person, but we are, at this time, unable to recognize it, and you kill him, it is murder, is it not, even if you falsely believe the child to be a non-person?

On the other hand, let's assume for the moment that he is not a person. In the vast majority of cases, the worst the mother would have to "suffer" is a trivial nine month period and a few hours of labor. Her child would then be able to live, as nature intended. It is obvious that not all pregnancies are uncomplicated, but corner cases to not good law make. (The dictum is: "hard cases make bad law.")

Between the two, I'd say that murder is a much heavier result than her suffering. And, as pointed out earlier, she, with rare exception, actively participated in the conception that resulted in the pregnancy.

Lehi

[Mudcat]

I am not responsible for your being insulted. That is your choice.

As for "ridiculous", the math is the math. It is hardly ridiculous to claim that 0.025% is anything other than "less than 1%". It is ridiculous to maintain the opposite.

Bold mine Lehi. Sure math is math, but people are people. Your figures are based on "reported" cases and there is more to the story.

The fact that many do get raped and also don't report it, is a fact. Your numbers don't nor can quantify such. It's the human factor that such figures discount it IMO.

I know of a number of women who have such unreported cases in their skeleton closet. Surely you would agree that if such cases were actually reported that the math would have a different look?

Personally, I applaud Silver Girl and her ability to be forthcoming about such a sensitive issue. I certainly don't blame her as being intentionally offended. I imagine, given her experience in culmination with reading your post.. Her offense was quite natural.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Eldwynn]

Hi Eldwynn,

I don't mean to speak for CV, but it seems he and I stand fairly close on this particular topic.

Bold mine. You have offered three reasons the fetus should be treated as a human. Ability to feel pain, express emotions or ability to make decision. The fetus should be counted as human.

Under the same criteria. A "person" that has is in a coma, with sever spinal injury would equitably meet similar criteria.

By your estimation such a "person" would simply be thing, or perhaps they would cease to be a person.

I wonder what your thoughts are on that?

I realize that I am drawing the line (technically) of personhood AFTER even the birth. However, consider the following classic example:

The example isn't relevant. It is an undue and incorrect hypothetical analogy.

The mother doesn't have the power to pull the plug herself. At least not in the US by herself. She must illicit help from medical professionals to pull the plug.

You brought up some excellent points, all of which I have answers for. First, I stated that a fetus does NOT feel pain, have autonomy, or have human emotions. Nor does it have language. These are all parts of what I think qualifies someone as personhood (we could argue the particulars, but I think you get the point). It could be that something is human in the genetic sense, but does not need to be considered a person in the social/cultural sense- and thus treated equally as other persons- for better or worse. In the same way, we do not tree miscarriages as the death of a person (for the most part... some people might).

There are of course hypothetical people, who already have been born, who may lose the criteria of being a person. I gave a better example- infants. Infants (after being born) are not persons. Just because they are not persons does not mean that we can kill them. Similarly, just because a fetus is not a person, does not make it morally justifiable to kill it. Abortion is NOT an act of murder. It is an act of removing the fetus and letting it die. I strongly believe that letting die is different than taking initiative to kill something.

Back to the analogy (which I don't find faulty), it is okay to unplug yourself from the violinist. That is NOT murder. However, you can't kill him if by some miracle he lives. Similarly- I am against abortions that occur after the baby is viable. By that time, the mother has passively given the baby permission to use her body- and has made a commitment that she will take care of the baby- or at least make sure it has somewhere to live (such as adoption).

I THINK you only objected to my analogy because it is a third party who must perform the procedure. I don't understand this objection. Society functions because some people have expertise and offer their services to others. If a doctor is willing to do a procedure that is only safe when done in a medical facility, then he should be allowed to do so. Do you really think the mother should be the one doing the procedure?

That doesn't mean the mother is of course blameless. Have you ever heard a woman say "Well, I am against abortion, but that is okay, because the Doctor is the one performing it, not me?" Maybe I am just naive- but I have a feeling no one would buy such an excuse. Clearly in the case of abortion, the mother is the one that requests the procedure, and the Doctor is merely a required third party for the safety of the mother. The analogy is not incorrect- assuming the fetus is a person- just like the violinist. How is pulling the plug on the baby in any way different than pulling the plug on the violinist?

Yes, I realize that a fetus can not play the violin either, but does that prevent you from seeing the analogy for what it is? It shows that just because a person is connected to you physically, and you choose to pull that plug, it doesn't matter so much how it's done, but it is morally okay to let something die.

Similarly, if you were dying, and a simple touch of my hand could heal you, it is not REQUIRED that I fly all the way to were you live to heal you- I have no obligation. However, if I am in the same room, and it just takes a touch, then surely I should.

Similarly, if a mother waits until 8 months- she should have the baby. However, if she never wanted the pregnancy in the first place- then EVEN IF THE FETUS IS A PERSON (remember, I am making those assumptions for these arguments so that we dont have to argure about it) abortion is still permissible in certain cases, because he wanted to err on the side of caution, and assume the fetus was a person.

[Eldwynn]

Bold mine Lehi. Sure math is math, but people are people. Your figures are based on "reported" cases and there is more to the story.

The fact that many do get raped and also don't report it, is a fact. Your numbers don't nor can quantify such. It's the human factor that such figures discount it IMO.

I know of a number of women who have such unreported cases in their skeleton closet. Surely you would agree that if such cases were actually reported that the math would have a different look?

Personally, I applaud Silver Girl and her ability to be forthcoming about such a sensitive issue. I certainly don't blame her as being intentionally offended. I imagine, given her experience in culmination with reading your post.. Her offense was quite natural.

Regards,

Mudcat

I think everyone forgot what he was responding to(I cant even see the post). He claimed that since birth control was not 100%, then abstinence only education should be taught, because that IS the only method that is 100%. I responded that actually, responsible use of contraceptives actually works better than abstinence- since your odds of getting raped are better than using two (one of them not even all that effective) methods of contraception. Not only in the real world (were college parties make girls break their abstinence vows), but even in the hypothetical world where abstinence really means they will not do it.

Even still, he has to contend with the simple fact that learning about contraceptives (as someone pointed out) does not conflict with peoples desire to abstain from sex. I grew up in Utah, and dated quite a few LDS women. All of them went through public school sex ed. Whether they knew how contraceptives worked or not had little bearing with whether or not they would abstain for sex. Maybe 1950 (or whenever he grew up) it was different, but I am telling you, that's how it is now.

However, telling people to abstain when they have no desire to, is just setting them up for failure. And in this case, failure either equals a baby that is unwanted, or an abortion. Neither of which he wants (I presume).

[Mudcat]

You brought up some excellent points, all of which I have answers for. First, I stated that a fetus does NOT feel pain, have autonomy, or have human emotions. Nor does it have language. These are all parts of what I think qualifies someone as personhood (we could argue the particulars, but I think you get the point). It could be that something is human in the genetic sense, but does not need to be considered a person in the social/cultural sense- and thus treated equally as other persons- for better or worse. In the same way, we do not tree miscarriages as the death of a person (for the most part... some people might).

Italics mine. This was not your statement. Your expansion of definition to "autonomy" rather than "makes decisions" is more than ambiguous terminology. Also your second point defers from "emotions" to "human emotions".

I am not trying to nail your feet to the floor. I am asking.

Do you stand by your initial statements? Or do you think you were unclear in those statements?

I disagree with your position in either case. I plan to attack either position for it's fallacy, but I don't want to waste time addressing misstatements. Is this post your actual thoughts on the matter or was your previous one I responded to your actual thoughts on it?

Bold mine. Your statement has an assumptive "we". I'll be clear. You don't treat a miscarriage as a human death. I do. There is no "we" to it in the sense that you and I feel the same on the matter. When you say "we" all that means is that "we"= those that agree with your position.

There are of course hypothetical people, who already have been born, who may lose the criteria of being a person.

Well this a substantial statement, I think you are hanging yourself out to dry with the admission that it is plausible for adults to be considered living non-persons. But, I will ask you to clarify. What exactly is the criteria of being a person?

Back to the analogy (which I don't find faulty)

C'mon dude, it's a bit awry.

Pregnancy vs. Massively "Killer" Violinist plugged into me on 9 months of life support by a kidnapping episode by some Musical Society...

That isn't even close.