Theodore Kurita
Leader of the Draconis Combine
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Messages
- 905
Are you for it, against it, or neither of the above...
Please explain your reasoning.
Please explain your reasoning.
Abortion...
- Thread starter Theodore Kurita
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abortion
The choice is not abortion/no-abortion, it's legal/illegal abortion. Whatever I or anyone else think or feel about it, it will get done somehow nonetheless. Has done from time immemorial. In which case, it must be done legally under good clinical hospital conditions. Easy as that.
Cain
Straussian
What is this "I am personally against abortion, yet pro-choice" stuff?
Meaning that you personally would oppose abortion in your own circumstances? Does that mean you find abortions cruel, but they need to be legal? Is abortion a "necessary evil"?
What does it mean if I am "personally for abortion"? That I would have no moral qualms whatsoever if my girlfriend had an abortion?
So it's not alive when it's inside the womb? That's news. This is so silly. It's alive because it can live outside the womb? That's a rather arbitrary understanding of "life".
Also, a six month old fetus inside a woman in Sierra Leone cannot be classified as alive, while a similarly developed fetus inside a Beverly Hills woman is alive. The Sierra Leone baby cannot live outside the womb; that impoverished country lacks the medical resources. The baby born in Beverly Hills, if it's fortunate enought ot have rich parents, could live outside the womb.
Meaning that you personally would oppose abortion in your own circumstances? Does that mean you find abortions cruel, but they need to be legal? Is abortion a "necessary evil"?
What does it mean if I am "personally for abortion"? That I would have no moral qualms whatsoever if my girlfriend had an abortion?
So it's not alive when it's inside the womb? That's news. This is so silly. It's alive because it can live outside the womb? That's a rather arbitrary understanding of "life".
Also, a six month old fetus inside a woman in Sierra Leone cannot be classified as alive, while a similarly developed fetus inside a Beverly Hills woman is alive. The Sierra Leone baby cannot live outside the womb; that impoverished country lacks the medical resources. The baby born in Beverly Hills, if it's fortunate enought ot have rich parents, could live outside the womb.
ZeeGerman
Graduate Poster
Hard to answer, as it always comes down to the situation at hand. When my wife was pregnant with our 2nd daughter, she caught fifth disease in the 12th week of the pregnancy, which can cause heavy damage to the baby (usually it results in a miscarriage or everything goes fine). So what you do is advanced ultrasonic testing (special equipment, once a week) for the remainder of the pregnancy to monitor the fetus' condition. Well, during the 2nd of those ultrasonics tests the doctor suddenly detects a spot in the fetus' heart and calls it "golfball syndrome" which is a marker for trisomy 21 (Down syndrom). So what the doctor put forward as a solution was: Well, you are very close to the 12th week threshold (up to where an abortion is quite easily to have in Germany) so we'll do an amniocentesis tomorrow and in case of Down syndrome, we'll schedule for an abortion next week. Needless to say, my wife come home rather upset...
We pulled some statistics off the internet which quite consistently statet that the risk of Down syndrome in our case (my wife aged 32, no cases of Down syndorme in the family, and just the single marker (golfball) detected etc.) is somwhere near 1 in 400. OTOH the risk of actually damaging a fetus during a amniocentesis was/is somewhere near 1 in 200 (the actual numbers may be different, I'm writing this from memory, but the factor between the two risks was about 2).
We discussed our options and came to the result that in the advanced state of the pregnancy, we wouldn't opt for an abortion anyway, although we are pro choice. So we said "screw the doctors and the amniocentesis, ignorance is bliss" and weathered through the rest of the pregnancy with a certain uneasiness. Which decreased more and more since the continuing US tests didn't turn up additional markers for Down syndrome. In the end, Leonie turned out to be a perfectly healthy kid.
To sum it up, definitely pro choice, but the issue of abortion yes/no depends.
Zee
We pulled some statistics off the internet which quite consistently statet that the risk of Down syndrome in our case (my wife aged 32, no cases of Down syndorme in the family, and just the single marker (golfball) detected etc.) is somwhere near 1 in 400. OTOH the risk of actually damaging a fetus during a amniocentesis was/is somewhere near 1 in 200 (the actual numbers may be different, I'm writing this from memory, but the factor between the two risks was about 2).
We discussed our options and came to the result that in the advanced state of the pregnancy, we wouldn't opt for an abortion anyway, although we are pro choice. So we said "screw the doctors and the amniocentesis, ignorance is bliss" and weathered through the rest of the pregnancy with a certain uneasiness. Which decreased more and more since the continuing US tests didn't turn up additional markers for Down syndrome. In the end, Leonie turned out to be a perfectly healthy kid.
To sum it up, definitely pro choice, but the issue of abortion yes/no depends.
Zee
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
IMHO, abortion is about the interests of two living entities that cannot be combined. We can discuss endlessly if or when it is murder, but killing it is. What I think is hypocrisy is saying that life is holy in this particular situation, while we are quite prepared to sacrifice human lives in a lot of other situations.
And, as Zep already noted, it is really not a question of abortion/no abortion but of illegal, unsafe abortion/legal, safe abortion (as safe as they get, of course).
Hans
And, as Zep already noted, it is really not a question of abortion/no abortion but of illegal, unsafe abortion/legal, safe abortion (as safe as they get, of course).
Hans
Short answer: Yes, it should be legal, for whatever reason is deemed necessary.El Greco said:
HOWEVER, the situation you describe appears to be referring to those women who would use abortion as their preferred method of contraception, or for whom it is one of the hazards of their profession. And herein lies a different set of issues.
In these sorts of cases, any "issues" such as these are NOT about the legality or otherwise of abortion, but the psychological and behavioural reasons why it is going to be used. That is, the REAL reason abortion is used is because it is seen by the woman concerned as "the answer", for whatever reasons she believes. Legality doesn't enter into her thinking.
So what you should REALLY be addressing here is why the woman is seeking a termination of pregancy at all. And why she has not been using other means of contraception. And what other factors might be necessary to take into account in this situation: family pressures, relationships, secrecy, shame, lack of education, scared of having children, too old, too young, plain stupidity, drugs, etc, etc - the list goes on. Addressing these core issues would more than likely go a long way towards reducing the actual demand for abortions in the first place.
Perhaps if trained and caring counselors were present at abortion clinics (and I don't mean holy-rollers), it could lead to some women deciding not to proceed with an abortion after all, and they can be reassured and steered towards better solutions for now and the future.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
I'm of a minority view about this one.
Peronally, I see no problem with abortion in places where social attitudes and services make it rare, such as the Netherlands.
However, the situation with respect to unwanted children in the United States is completely messed up, to the extent that abortion has become de facto a primary means of contraception. It is almost universal for vociferous advocates of legal abortion to be completely uninterested or even actively hostile to fixing certain problems with the system. It is also almost universal for advocates of legal abortion to declare that the death of the fetus is not the primary purpose, that it is simply a woman's right over her own body, to deny support to the fetus.
I think the following situation will never happen, but I think in the context of a relatively messed up system, it would be fairer:
1) Abortion should be legal and readily available. So should morning-after pills and other means of preventing implantation of an embryo. So, of course, should a wide variety of contraceptive measures.
2) Whenever possible, however, pregnancies should be aborted by means that avoid killing the fetus, who will then be treated by the same means available to extreme premature infants. If these methods, when practiced under good faith and due diligence fail, there is no fault.
3) If, however, the fetus remains alive and becomes a baby, the woman has the same legal obligations that men do with respect to unwanted births, that is according to Federal guidelines, 25% of their pre-tax income for a minimum of 18 years for child support, unless she can adopt the baby.
4) The woman also has the same legal limitations as men do with respect to their children. That is, she can apply to adopt the baby but will have no precedence or favor over other applicants to adopt the baby. There will be no automatic parental rights due to the biological connection beyond any granted to a father.
Peronally, I see no problem with abortion in places where social attitudes and services make it rare, such as the Netherlands.
However, the situation with respect to unwanted children in the United States is completely messed up, to the extent that abortion has become de facto a primary means of contraception. It is almost universal for vociferous advocates of legal abortion to be completely uninterested or even actively hostile to fixing certain problems with the system. It is also almost universal for advocates of legal abortion to declare that the death of the fetus is not the primary purpose, that it is simply a woman's right over her own body, to deny support to the fetus.
I think the following situation will never happen, but I think in the context of a relatively messed up system, it would be fairer:
1) Abortion should be legal and readily available. So should morning-after pills and other means of preventing implantation of an embryo. So, of course, should a wide variety of contraceptive measures.
2) Whenever possible, however, pregnancies should be aborted by means that avoid killing the fetus, who will then be treated by the same means available to extreme premature infants. If these methods, when practiced under good faith and due diligence fail, there is no fault.
3) If, however, the fetus remains alive and becomes a baby, the woman has the same legal obligations that men do with respect to unwanted births, that is according to Federal guidelines, 25% of their pre-tax income for a minimum of 18 years for child support, unless she can adopt the baby.
4) The woman also has the same legal limitations as men do with respect to their children. That is, she can apply to adopt the baby but will have no precedence or favor over other applicants to adopt the baby. There will be no automatic parental rights due to the biological connection beyond any granted to a father.