Playing Gawd's Advocate On Abortion

[Unknowing1]

Woman have abortions for a lot of reasons. Some of the reasons I have heard are as follows: A teenager unable to care for themselves much less a child and the stigma surrounding being a pregnant teen. Etopic pregancy (based on some of the statements on this board it would seem any termination of a pregancy would be considered an abortion). Issues surrounding the devopment of the fetus. Date rape. Birth control failed.

 

In everything I always get hung up with the whole picture and can't just separate one thing from another so I tend to always work things out from beginning to end. The end for me on the abortion issue isn't at the point the woman has the baby but instead focuses on what happens after the woman has the baby and all the way up until the child becomes an adult.

 

Having friends who foster and knowing what the children they foster have been through I always come to the conclusion in almost all cases that the woman really didn't want the child. So by making abortion illegal will it swell an already overtaxed social services program? Who will be there to care for these children? And who will notice the abuse these children are suffering? Will those who are screaming and shouting to ban abortion come forward and take care of these children? I doubt it otherwise we wouldn't currently have a shortage of foster families, nor would we have children going from one foster family to the next. The adoption rate is low and the abuse rate high for these children.

 

Because of what I have seen and heard can happen to unwanted children I do favor abortion, I do favor it in the earlier stages of prenancy, I do not favor it in the later stages unless medical issues arise for either the woman or the fetus and then I do believe it should be the womans decision.

[Vigile]

With 6B people in the world and growing, why do we care if there is ethnic cleansing in some third world country that will never contribute to the financial welfare of our lives or in any other way affect us?

 

The difference here is that those people are already self aware. A fetus is not self aware and probably won't be for at least a year after birth as far as we can tell. Not that I'm advocating the destruction of infants.

 

If we are protecting non sentient beings, then why not take it a step further and protect zygotes? Why does a late stage fetus have more value than an early stage one? Just because it looks more like an infant and appeals to our sense of empathy as a result?

 

As far as ethnic cleansing is concerned, if we are honest, most of us, including our government, merely give it word play.

 

Here's my question, should I be more concerned about ethnic cleansing in a third world country that I can never have any control over than historical ethnic cleansing that took place by the Romans, by the Greeks, by the British, by the early Americans etc... If so, why? In other words, I know most would consider me cold for not feeling empathy for current ethnic cleansing, yet almost none of us feel empathy for ethnic cleansing long past.

 

Here's an even harder question, what if we were able to control all ethnic cleansing and starvation in the world. As a result, wouldn't third world countries become even more overpopulated creating an even larger burdon on the land they live on, and as such be setting up a future humanitarian disaster much worse than the one we avoided? It's an ugly reality, but it is a reality.

[Vigile]

I am not religious, yet I think some protection should be afforded to the fetus.

 

Yes, but why? I understand the religious reasons, even if they are spurious.

 

If a man attacks a pregnant woman and her pregnancy is lost, then what should be the penalty?

 

I'm not sure how this is a related issue.

[Vigile]

I'm a bit late to the poll I guess, but anyway...

 

...whatever line we draw to decide "this side of the line is murder, the other isn't" is arbitrarily. What makes an unborn human a human?

 

That's my question. A non sentient fetus necessarily doesn't value life . The only value it has is the value attributed it by it's family. If it's mother chooses to end the life of the fetus that does not yet value life, then what is that to the rest of us? The only others that get a say in this matter, I think, are the other family members involved. What makes it society's business?

[Grandpa Harley]

I am not religious, yet I think some protection should be afforded to the fetus.

 

Yes, but why? I understand the religious reasons, even if they are spurious.

 

If a man attacks a pregnant woman and her pregnancy is lost, then what should be the penalty?

 

I'm not sure how this is a related issue.

 

Should the loss of the child be accounted as something 'special' or not? The 'rights' of the foetus, you have established, is no-ones affair except the family... so, if a person attacks a pregnant woman, and the woman loses the child, it is a simple case of GBH or something more... Also cases where a foetus has been removed. Should the penalty be the same or greater than simply stabbing someone in a theft? The relation is, that the laws governing, or otherwise, abortions, could be used to mitigate crimes against the person... Since the fact a woman is pregnant is not society's problem, thus an attack resulting in the loss of a foetus, despite the extra physical and mental trauma caused, could not be tried on that stance, since the existence of the foetus is a non-issue, applying your logic.

[Grandpa Harley]

Woman have abortions for a lot of reasons. Some of the reasons I have heard are as follows: A teenager unable to care for themselves much less a child and the stigma surrounding being a pregnant teen. Etopic pregancy (based on some of the statements on this board it would seem any termination of a pregancy would be considered an abortion). Issues surrounding the devopment of the fetus. Date rape. Birth control failed.

 

In everything I always get hung up with the whole picture and can't just separate one thing from another so I tend to always work things out from beginning to end. The end for me on the abortion issue isn't at the point the woman has the baby but instead focuses on what happens after the woman has the baby and all the way up until the child becomes an adult.

 

Having friends who foster and knowing what the children they foster have been through I always come to the conclusion in almost all cases that the woman really didn't want the child. So by making abortion illegal will it swell an already overtaxed social services program? Who will be there to care for these children? And who will notice the abuse these children are suffering? Will those who are screaming and shouting to ban abortion come forward and take care of these children? I doubt it otherwise we wouldn't currently have a shortage of foster families, nor would we have children going from one foster family to the next. The adoption rate is low and the abuse rate high for these children.

 

Because of what I have seen and heard can happen to unwanted children I do favor abortion, I do favor it in the earlier stages of prenancy, I do not favor it in the later stages unless medical issues arise for either the woman or the fetus and then I do believe it should be the womans decision.

 

worth quoting again since it's a good post... BTW you missed incest.

[Vigile]

Should the loss of the child be accounted as something 'special' or not?

 

It's special to the pregnant woman. I'm not sure though how this contradicts anything I stated. I stated that the value of the fetus is only of value to the family. So, yes, I think it's obvious that we must treat the attack as a murder since the attacker would be taking away a life that the mother valued. In other words, the attacker took away the mother's choice.

 

It's like the difference between murder and suicide. Murder takes away the choice of the victim. A suicide makes their own choice.

[Grandpa Harley]

Removal of 'choice' is murder? And you just said what is important to the individual is NOT society's affair... thus go over that logic again. I don't see how this works.

[Vigile]

Removal of 'choice' is murder?

 

Nope, didn't say that. I said it's like the DIFFERENCE between murder and suicide, which has to do with choice does it not?

 

And you just said what is important to the individual is NOT society's affair

 

I said the choice is not society's affair. Removal of an individual's choice by a third party can be society's affair. I don't see why it shouldn't be.

 

I've been consistant in protecting a woman's choice in my argument.

 

Speaking of that, I'll play devil's advocate along with CJ here. Why is it only the woman's choice we protect and not the father's? Tricky stuff here.

[Grandpa Harley]

That's back to the who's body is it? Isn't it? (TBH, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here too... my real stance is unless I'm carrying a bowling ball pressing on my bladder, I know nothing about pregnancy )

 

Not so much 'Pro-Choice' as 'Anti-life'

[Vigile]

That's back to the who's body is it? Isn't it?

 

Not sure I follow.

 

I'll run through my argument again and see if it is consistant:

 

1. A fetus is non sentient, therefore does not need to be offered rights.

 

2. A mother either values the fetus or she doesn't. It is her choice.

 

3. A mother's choice can be protected by society. If a third party takes away her choice, then society can step in.

 

Seems consistant to me.

 

And yes, I to am just taking a mental exercise here. I've never really cared much about the abortion issue. Truth be told, I'm not thrilled about the idea. I doubt I would ever advocate it for any female I happened to get pregnant. Like LR mentioned, it just doesn't seem like a very honerable decision to make.

[ShackledNoMore]

What exactly is "convenience?" I have a hard time believing that there's as many abortions for "convenience" as you seem to imply, ShackledNoMore.

 

This is especially true that anyone seeking a late-term abortion would almost certainly have their case decided by a hospital ethics board. And the stats GrandpaHarley cited a few pages back stated that 95% of second-trimester abortions are done for the health of the mother, which is an overwhelming amount. (remember that life isn't perfect and there's always going to be someone to "break the rules.")

 

But what is this "convenience?"

 

-Seth

 

No, no, no, no, NOOOOOO! I had no intent to imply that! Sorry if I caused any confusion.

 

Please recheck exactly what I said:

 

"...when healthy babies are routinely induced for reasons as trivial as convenience?"

 

Here, I was referring to mothers' full term babies who schedule an appointment with the obstetrician/hospital for a date and time for their baby to be born, have the doctor induce labor, rather than waiting for labor to start on its own, and go home the next day or two with a healthy, living, newborn baby which they plan on raising to adulthood. I was NOT referring to abortions of convenience!

 

I was trying to dramatize that the fetus becomes viable during the third trimester and if you perform abortions late enough, you'll be performing them in viable fetuses/babies.

 

The reason I tried to dramatize this was because Azimov took the position that it was OK to abort anytime during the pregnancy in post #24.

 

"Convenience" would involve planning the day and time of birth so that the baby won't be born at 3 A.M., or so that the mother can plan her last day of work, so that the doctor won't have to make an extra trip to the hospital over the weekend, etc.

 

I've been called upon to support my claim that this is common, which I'll do in my next post, but if Asimov also thought I was talking about convenience abortions rather than convenience scheduling, it could be moot.

[ShackledNoMore]

I don't think a one day old baby being killed would be amoral.

In that case, I would ask you what the difference is between killing a one day old baby and performing an abortion just before the due date is, when healthy babies are routinely induced for reasons as trivial as convenience?

 

Are they routinely induced just before the due date? By all means, back that up.

 

...

 

Again, you'll have to rephrase your question as I don't know what you're getting at.

Uh, OK. First, you are talking about scheduling a birth to be induced based on convenience, and not on an abortion of convenience (much less, a late term one), right? See my reply to Seth.

 

The following sites discuss the topic. Search for the word "convenience" on those pages. They indicate that the scheduling of births is indeed practiced to accommodate schedules.

 

http://www.myhealthsense.com/F010925_labor.html

http://www.transitiontoparenthood.com/ttp/...y/induction.htm

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Inducing_Labor

http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregna...childbirth.html

 

What I was actually getting at was the following:

 

You took the position that it is OK to do an abortion anytime during pregnancy, but not OK to kill a newborn infant. You've explained why: that the fetus is dependent on the mother for nutrition and respiration.

 

I'm suggesting that if you remove a baby late enough in pregnancy, you're removing a baby that may, or will be able to breathe, eat, and survive on it's own. Do this early in the 3rd trimester and there will be a lot of expense and risk. Later there will be some. Wait long enough and there will be little or none.

 

This being the case, I'm asking: certain special circumstances excepted, if you're going to terminate the pregnancy, wouldn't the time to do it be before the fetus becomes viable and not late when it could survive?

[XtianChris]

Vigile,

I'm not sure that we have the same definition of the word sentient. This is what I've looked up:

1. Having sense perception; conscious.
   
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
   

You mentioned that even babies are not sentient until about one year old. Are you stating that they do not sense things in their surroundings and do not have feelings?

 

Speaking of that, I'll play devil's advocate along with CJ here. Why is it only the woman's choice we protect and not the father's? Tricky stuff here.

 

I see this in two different aspects. First of all, I wouldn't say that the father should not be allowed to express his preference in the matter. However, I do think that the mother's choice bears much more weight in the matter since her body is the sole means of support for the child and as Asimov and others have pointed out, the existence of the child can be a tremendous physical and psychological burden for her and can even lead to her death. Although some fathers may contribute more to the mother's physical health during the pregnancy and also do become emotional about the child, I would not say that they are carrying a similar burden, and they are certainly not in danger of dying as a result of the pregnancy.

 

Secondly I would say that the father's sperm could be considered a gift to the mother and cases have been fought and won by recipients of other gifts such as engagement and wedding rings. Once the gift is given, with a few exceptions, the gift becomes property of the receiver. If someone were to spit on me and I keep their saliva in a test tube and conduct experiments on it, does the person who spit on me have any right to demand that I give it back to them or that they can tell me what I can and cannot do with it?

 

Ultimately, I would say that the mother's choice should override the father's choice but that he should at least be heard.

 

P.S. I don't know if it's been clear to all that the title of this topic "Playing Gawd's Advocate" is a facetious statement, equal to "playing devil's advocate". Since atheists don't believe that gawd or the devil exist, it's moot. I certainly didn't mean to imply that abortion is or should be a religious matter. I simply mean that I'm taking an opposing position to the general consensus. I believe abortion is mainly a social matter.

[Jun]

A fetus is non sentient, therefore does not need to be offered rights.

 

Since when? Brain stem activity has been detected in a foetus as early as 54 days after conception. Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

[Taphophilia]

A fetus is non sentient, therefore does not need to be offered rights.

 

Since when? Brain stem activity has been detected in a foetus as early as 54 days after conception. Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

 

What? I saw this on Wikipedia, and although Wikipedia is a good source of information, it's not always accurate. It's not even a fetus at 54 days, it's still an embryo. It's also androgynous until 14 weeks, which I'd like to point out that it is before this point that the majority of abortions occur.

 

From: http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/nipples.html Why men have nipples:

Male nipples aren't exactly a genetic glitch: they are evidence of our developmental clock. In the early stages of life from conception until about 14 weeks, all human fetuses look the same, regardless of gender. At the tender age of 14 weeks post-fertilization , genetically-male fetuses begin to produce male hormones including testosterone. These hormones turn the androgynous fetus into a bouncing baby boy.

 

Here's where the developmental clock comes in. By 14 weeks, when the hormones turn on, the nipples have already formed. So, while our male fetus goes on to become a baby boy, he keeps his nipples, reminding all of us that people, male and female, started off the same way.

[Grandpa Harley]

That's back to the who's body is it? Isn't it?

 

Not sure I follow.

 

I'll run through my argument again and see if it is consistant:

 

1. A fetus is non sentient, therefore does not need to be offered rights.

 

2. A mother either values the fetus or she doesn't. It is her choice.

 

3. A mother's choice can be protected by society. If a third party takes away her choice, then society can step in.

 

Seems consistant to me.

 

And yes, I to am just taking a mental exercise here. I've never really cared much about the abortion issue. Truth be told, I'm not thrilled about the idea. I doubt I would ever advocate it for any female I happened to get pregnant. Like LR mentioned, it just doesn't seem like a very honerable decision to make.

'Rights of the father'... that's covered by 'who's carrying the damned thing'

 

as to 'honour'... that's as much of a fashion as 'good'... there is not an extrinsic 'honour' simply things that work within a society, and things that do not. One's sense of the 'right' thing to do is as much societal as it is individual (I'd place 60-40 societal to individual as an observational average, and not speaking to your personal morality) To invoke analogy, there was a time slavery wasn't just 'good' it was ordained by God. Or perhaps closer to the topic, there was a tribe of Pacific cannibals who had a caste of people in the tribe who bred only to maintain herds or for meat. Whether it was 'good' or 'bad' by our standards, it underpinned their society, and all told they were quite successful. IIRC the French wiped them out in horror...

[Jun]

A fetus is non sentient, therefore does not need to be offered rights.

 

Since when? Brain stem activity has been detected in a foetus as early as 54 days after conception. Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

 

What? I saw this on Wikipedia, and although Wikipedia is a good source of information, it's not always accurate. It's not even a fetus at 54 days, it's still an embryo. It's also androgynous until 14 weeks, which I'd like to point out that it is before this point that the majority of abortions occur.

 

From: http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/nipples.html Why men have nipples:

Male nipples aren't exactly a genetic glitch: they are evidence of our developmental clock. In the early stages of life from conception until about 14 weeks, all human fetuses look the same, regardless of gender. At the tender age of 14 weeks post-fertilization , genetically-male fetuses begin to produce male hormones including testosterone. These hormones turn the androgynous fetus into a bouncing baby boy.

 

Here's where the developmental clock comes in. By 14 weeks, when the hormones turn on, the nipples have already formed. So, while our male fetus goes on to become a baby boy, he keeps his nipples, reminding all of us that people, male and female, started off the same way.

 

[Grandpa Harley]

I don't think a one day old baby being killed would be amoral.

 

Just for clarification... if it's not amoral is it therefore immoral or moral (whatever those words mean)?

[Vigile]

I'm not sure that we have the same definition of the word sentient. This is what I've looked up:

Having sense perception; conscious.

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

You mentioned that even babies are not sentient until about one year old. Are you stating that they do not sense things in their surroundings and do not have feelings?

 

Yes, we must have different definitions. I was under the impression that sentience meant self awareness.

[Vigile]

as to 'honour'... that's as much of a fashion as 'good'... there is not an extrinsic 'honour' simply things that work within a society, and things that do not.

 

 

Ha ha, don't get me wrong, I was simply offering my gut emotions on the matter, not a closely held opinion, and certainly not an argument that abortion is wrong. As I said, I've never really cared much about the issue, in the asside I made I was simply sharing with you my not so deeply held emotional feelings on the issue. Any emotions I hold on the issue could very well be hold overs from my xian upbringing. I try not to follow my emotions too much if I can help it. My intellectual take on the matter is I think pretty closely aligned with your own views from what I can gather.

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm not sure that we have the same definition of the word sentient. This is what I've looked up:

Having sense perception; conscious.

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

You mentioned that even babies are not sentient until about one year old. Are you stating that they do not sense things in their surroundings and do not have feelings?

 

Yes, we must have different definitions. I was under the impression that sentience meant self awareness.

 

 

Babies not self aware before one?

[Vigile]

Babies not self aware before one?

 

Well, if self aware means able to contemplate their own existance, then I would say no, they are not. Do infants under the age of one value life? I don't know, but I think probably not. I don't even remember anything before I was roughly 2. I think I read that the average age for one's first memory is roughly 3. I'm sure it can be shown that they have some self preservation instincts, but I don't think that's the same as what I'm talking about.

[Grandpa Harley]

They appear to have most of the hall marks of being self aware... We seem to be arguing applied intelligence as a benchmark of self aware. If a child can grab something it therefore has an idea of its location in space, and the idea of trajectories, coupled with a desire to hold the object since it's shiny or makes a noise. It's not a contemplation, it's a simple function... but there is both will and desire there. Seems to me 'self aware' or 'sentience' is needlessly sexed up... I've never met a baby over a week old that can't be adjudged as self aware...

[Asimov]

I think you don't want to look at the reasons.

 

I think you're grasping at straws.