Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guitardian wrote:The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts. It's the moral OPINION of some people that the moral OPINION of their group should be enforced by a supposedly impartial government supposedly under no influence from the creed of any specific moralistic belief oriented groups. (I can't say religion as the only culprit but I get the idea it somehow is involved, no idea why that could be)

Just to be clear then: you also oppose the FDA and medical regulatory boards, right?

It seems hard to argue that the FDA is somehow enforcing a primarily moral viewpoint.

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term without risking her life, the abortion may be the only way to save her life. Banning all abortions would remove this option from the doctor, and if they accidently caused the fetus' death in trying to treat the woman they'd probably be held liable by law if abortion was banned to boot.

In the situation where the doctor has to choose between a half-developed fetus and the mother and is forced to abort the fetus, noone wins. If the action he performed is made is illegal, everyone loses by an even larger margin-- if he doesn't do it, both fetus and mother will die, but if he does, he's held legally responsible for the fetus' death.

This is part of the problem. Most people who want to ban abortion don't care for the reason that the abortion happens to begin with. Abortion is never a casual thing... it's a deeply emotional, and often traumatizing thing for the women who go through it. Nobody WANTS to go through the ordeal... but we live in an imperfect world, full of imperfect people. Mistakes are made, and sometimes we have to make decisions we don't like, and we never want to make.

Firstly, if a pregnant woman has, for the sake of argument, cancer and requires chemotherapy, the treatment will most likely kill the child/foetus/end the pregnancy/whatever. No doctor should say ‘sorry mrs McGee no chemo for you because you’re pregnant.’ It’s called the principle of double effect. The intent of the chemo is to save a life, an unintentional by-product of that is the death of the embryo/foetus/child/cell-lump/whatever. That is not an abortion.

In Ireland abortion is illegal. Gynaecological and obstetric measures to save the life of a mother which result in the death of the foetus are legal. They are not abortion. Not all killing of a foetus = abortion. I know Ireland is rodgered to the hilt economically and that the health service compared to the EU is 2nd only to Romania, but it’s maternity care is some of the best in the world.

Secondly the definition of ‘without risk to her life’ is ambiguous – all pregnancy carries risk. There is a risk that by being pregnant a woman cannot outrun bears compared to a similar un-pregnant woman. Being pregnant in this case carries risk to her life. If you are speaking about something like an etopic pregnancy (where implantation occurs in the fallopian tube) then in that case the removal of the blastocyst is a medical intervention to save the mother’s life. Not abortion.

No, that's wrong. In the example of abortion making it legal reduces the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to abort a child without professional assistance

That’s like saying ; making heroin legal reduces the chance of the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to inject without professional assistance. (not to mention that it wouldn’t be cut with ketamine, brick dust or the good ol' anthrax!)

Guitardian to Dakka: Nothing can prevent a self-induced miscarriage either

Phototoxin as an aside to the audience: FFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAALCON PuNcH!

Jokes aside a self induced miscarriage is an abortion. In addition 'spontaneous abortion' is what's commonly called a natural miscarrage. I think about 50% of pregnancies naturally end this way (although stat's wise I'm not sure how accurate that is) So the teminology in itself can be obfuscating. So pro-life people are against 'abortion'? - tough as spontaneous abortion happens anyway!

In the end I think its mostly to do with i)when does human life begin and/or what rights does the foetus have if any.

If abortions can be decided on the result of convenience, then human life has no more value than that convenience Such a view is deplorable, and a civil society should not tolerate such wanton killing.

Well thats another part of the issue – unless we have a severe wave of suicidal mothers in the uk (as technically you need to be referred on health grounds ) most of the time the justification is put down to ‘social reasons’. Nothing health related so in effect despite the law being against elective abortion on demand that's what is practices in the UK.

A fertilized egg, without external interference? Like the 9 months of being nurtured by the host body kind of interference? Like the years of attention it needs to mature beyond a point of screaming/soiling itself for defense mechanisms kind of interference?
If this is true (foetus are parasites/don’t live outside the uterus argument ad nauseum) then how come (aside from partal birth abortion) that infanticide is not legal? I mean kids don’t survive without their parents… adults don't survive outside their natural environment (space etc) without severe interventions.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
When you try to slap a label on the other side that frames the debate in your terms and which they consider inappropriate, the label is simply inappropriate if you want to hold an actual discussion about an issue and not the label. This is doubly true if you admit that both labels you could choose from sound reasonable to you, since you could just choose the one that doesn't get the other side to object, since you don't have the argument that their preferred label is actually wrong. If you want to feel superior by saying 'haha, they're anti-choice', go for it. If you want to hold an actual discussion or change anyone's mind, though, you should use a label that isn't going to obscure the rest of what you're saying.

I think that depends on how seriously the parties to the conversation regard labels, but in general if the purpose of discussion is diplomacy, then you're correct. However, I'm not sure that's possible with respect to abortion, as the labels almost always reflect the emphasis of the debate for the parties in question, indeed I've noticed that the first real step towards a serious abortion debate is getting the other party to acknowledge that they are in fact advocating what the other side is accusing them of (at least insofar as the accusations are reasonable).

Put specifically, pro-choice people do want to allow women to terminate their fetuses and pro-life people do want to deprive women of ability to choose to have their fetuses aborted. As such, any conversation I might have with a pro-life person, or even another pro-choice one, is likely to come down to me stating that they support something which, when phrased a certain way, is offensive; and most people will pick up on that if its said in direct conversation, where they might not in written material.

Polonius wrote:It seems hard to argue that the FDA is somehow enforcing a primarily moral viewpoint.

"The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts."

If the government has no business telling a woman whether she can have an abortion or not, they have no business telling me what drugs I can consume, or that my doctor can suggest.

Phototoxin wrote:

No, that's wrong. In the example of abortion making it legal reduces the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to abort a child without professional assistance

That’s like saying ; making heroin legal reduces the chance of the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to inject without professional assistance.(not to mention that it wouldn’t be cut with ketamine, brick dust or the good ol' anthrax!)

Again, that's wrong. You're trying to make a 1 to 1 analogical comparison between two things that are only similar in the sense that they can both be made illegal. The harm resulting from women undergoing abortion, and the harm resulting from people injecting themselves with heroin (to the extent that the later is regarded as necessarily harmful) arise according to entirely distinct circumstantial sets. Unless you're going to argue that abortion is always harmful to women in the same way that the injection of heroin is thought to be always harmful to addicts, in which case I really see no reason to discuss anything with you because you're using preposterous examples for emotional effect rather than sensible comparison.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:It seems hard to argue that the FDA is somehow enforcing a primarily moral viewpoint.

"The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts."

If the government has no business telling a woman whether she can have an abortion or not, they have no business telling me what drugs I can consume, or that my doctor can suggest.

Congratulations, you can quote out of context. Your parents must be very proud.

Polonius wrote:Congratulations, you can quote out of context. Your parents must be very proud.

Please explain the difference between government regulation of abortion and government regulation of anti-cancer drugs.

dogma wrote:
I think that depends on how seriously the parties to the conversation regard labels, but in general if the purpose of discussion is diplomacy, then you're correct. However, I'm not sure that's possible with respect to abortion, as the labels almost always reflect the emphasis of the debate for the parties in question, indeed I've noticed that the first real step towards a serious abortion debate is getting the other party to acknowledge that they are in fact advocating what the other side is accusing them of (at least insofar as the accusations are reasonable).

Put specifically, pro-choice people do want to allow women to terminate their fetuses and pro-life people do want to deprive women of ability to choose to have their fetuses aborted. As such, any conversation I might have with a pro-life person, or even another pro-choice one, is likely to come down to me stating that they support something which, when phrased a certain way, is offensive; and most people will pick up on that if its said in direct conversation, where they might not in written material.

that's an eloquent point. Fundamentally, pro-choicers are ok with the death of (most likely) viable fetuses. And pro-lifers are ok with treating pregnant women as brood mares for the state.

It's a genuinely interesting moral debate(until you tire of it and decide to buy condoms), as you have to decide what's worse: allowing the death of an almost-human, or forcing an actual human to serve as life support for a fetus. Creepy stuff all around.

Now, if this were an honest debate, we'd focus on what we both see as bad (the death of fetuses) and work to stop that. But this isn't an honest debate.

dogma wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

No, that's wrong. In the example of abortion making it legal reduces the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to abort a child without professional assistance

That’s like saying ; making heroin legal reduces the chance of the chance of medical complications that follow from attempting to inject without professional assistance.(not to mention that it wouldn’t be cut with ketamine, brick dust or the good ol' anthrax!)

Again, that's wrong. You're trying to make a 1 to 1 analogical comparison between two things that are only similar in the sense that they can both be made illegal. The harm resulting from women undergoing abortion, and the harm resulting from people injecting themselves with heroin (to the extent that the later is regarded as necessarily harmful) arise according to entirely distinct circumstantial sets. Unless you're going to argue that abortion is always harmful to women in the same way that the injection of heroin is thought to be always harmful to addicts, in which case I really see no reason to discuss anything with you because you're using preposterous examples for emotional effect rather than sensible comparison.

Actually it has been noted that aside from the lifestyle aspects often associated with heroin addiction that in and of itself it is not as harmful as alcohol. Indeed the former UK government's head consultant held this particular view.

Legalising might make it safer, but in and of itself is not a reason to make it legal.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Congratulations, you can quote out of context. Your parents must be very proud.

Please explain the difference between government regulation of abortion and government regulation of anti-cancer drugs.

Abortion has well known, managable, and primarily psychological side affects. The cost benefit ratio, solely to the woman, is pretty high. Most cancer drugs have unknown and complex side effects, with much lower cost-benefit ratios.

Also, abortions can literally be performed in a back alley by a med school drop out, while pharamacueticals take much more resources.

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Congratulations, you can quote out of context. Your parents must be very proud.

Please explain the difference between government regulation of abortion and government regulation of anti-cancer drugs.

Abortion has well known, managable, and primarily psychological side affects. The cost benefit ratio, solely to the woman, is pretty high. Most cancer drugs have unknown and complex side effects, with much lower cost-benefit ratios.

Also, abortions can literally be performed in a back alley by a med school drop out, while pharamacueticals take much more resources.

Well, I see that you can distinguish between cancer treatment and an abortion, but I don't see how this affects the government's authority to regulate one or the other. Again, the issue is the authority of the government to regulate a certain "treatment." Cancer on the one hand and abortion on the other. It has been proposed that abortion-based regulations are invalid because it's none of "the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts."

Is this rationale not applicable to cancer drugs? Why or why not?

Phototoxin wrote:
Actually it has been noted that aside from the lifestyle aspects often associated with heroin addiction that in and of itself it is not as harmful as alcohol. Indeed the former UK government's head consultant held this particular view.

If you're talking about David Nutt's study, then you misread it. The physical dimension of the matrix analysis showed heroin at the top of the list, it was alcohol that derived the majority of its total effect from social harm and dependency. Note figure 3.

Phototoxin wrote:
Legalising might make it safer, but in and of itself is not a reason to make it legal.

If the primary reason for making it illegal is harm to the individual, or the society, then it may well be.

biccat wrote:Well, I see that you can distinguish between cancer treatment and an abortion, but I don't see how this affects the government's authority to regulate one or the other. Again, the issue is the authority of the government to regulate a certain "treatment." Cancer on the one hand and abortion on the other. It has been proposed that abortion-based regulations are invalid because it's none of "the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts."

Is this rationale not applicable to cancer drugs? Why or why not?

Well, that wasn't the proposal. The proposal read, to me, that it's nto the business to regulate a person's ability to use their body for purely moral purposes. Drugs, both legal and illegal, have non-moral implications. So, to a degree, does abortion, but it ain't banned because it's bad for the person getting one. It's banned primarily because people don't like the idea of women having sex.

But no, I have interest in try to defend the strawman you picked out of that post.

Trying to analogize abortion is tough, simply because it's such a unique case.

Polonius wrote:It's banned primarily because people don't like the idea of women having sex.

But no, I have interest in try to defend the strawman you picked out of that post.

It can't be a fluke that these two sentences were typed by the same hand.

Guitardian wrote: The only thing it does is establish a precedent that it's the government's business what goes on with the health care concerns going on inside someone's guts. It's the moral OPINION of some people that the moral OPINION of their group should be enforced by a supposedly impartial government supposedly under no influence from the creed of any specific moralistic belief oriented groups. (I can't say religion as the only culprit but I get the idea it somehow is involved, no idea why that could be)

So you're fine with abortions at 8 months, not just in the first trimester?

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's banned primarily because people don't like the idea of women having sex.

But no, I have interest in try to defend the strawman you picked out of that post.

It can't be a fluke that these two sentences were typed by the same hand.

I didn't employ a strawman. I made a pretty bold assertion, which is almost the opposite of a straw man.

Heh, well, show all those people that seek to ban abortion that also seek to increase access to health care for children, and is supporting efforts to reduce the demand for abortions with contraception and eduction beyond absitinence, and in general acts like a person that seeks to protect and nurture life, I'm more than willing to change my mind.

Look, I think abortion is bad. I think it's immoral and a bad call. But when the same people try to ban abortion because it kills babies, but then oppose any law or regulation that will help make or keep children healthy.... what conclusions should I draw? When many of the same people seem to oppose any sex education beyond absitience? I'm sorry, I'm dumb, but I ain't stupid.

Everybody thinks abortion is bad, but the people that campaign most tirelessly against it are probably not coincidentally also the biggest proponents of "traditional family values."

Polonius wrote:

that's an eloquent point. Fundamentally, pro-choicers are ok with the death of (most likely) viable fetuses. And pro-lifers are ok with treating pregnant women as brood mares for the state.

Really? responding to dogma's excellent post with that?

"(Most likely) viable fetuses" vs "brood mares for the state"

Hardly an evenhanded approach.

Polonius wrote:
Now, if this were an honest debate, we'd focus on what we both see as bad (the death of fetuses) and work to stop that. But this isn't an honest debate.

In this honest debate we would address both sides from their strongest position.

Polonius wrote:Everybody thinks abortion is bad, but the people that campaign most tirelessly against it are probably not coincidentally also the biggest proponents of "traditional family values."

And people who campaign for it are the types who support taking tax dollars to pay for the health of children. And they oppose the death penalty for murderers, but support abortion of innocent lives. It's almost as if there is some ulterior motive.

If you look hard enough or assign motives to people based on perceived consequences of political positions, it's not hard to find hypocracy in any political position.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Everybody thinks abortion is bad, but the people that campaign most tirelessly against it are probably not coincidentally also the biggest proponents of "traditional family values."

And people who campaign for it are the types who support taking tax dollars to pay for the health of children. And they oppose the death penalty for murderers, but support abortion of innocent lives. It's almost as if there is some ulterior motive.

If you look hard enough or assign motives to people based on perceived consequences of political positions, it's not hard to find hypocracy in any political position.

Very true. Everybody has an agenda. Hey, at least as a pro-choice guy I'm honest. I'm in favor of women having lots of sex (especially if some of it comes my way).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:

Polonius wrote:

that's an eloquent point. Fundamentally, pro-choicers are ok with the death of (most likely) viable fetuses. And pro-lifers are ok with treating pregnant women as brood mares for the state.

Really? responding to dogma's excellent post with that?

"(Most likely) viable fetuses" vs "brood mares for the state"

Hardly an evenhanded approach.

I was trying to make a point: both sides are advocating pretty distasteful consequences. I'm not sure who you think I'm making look worse, but it's a pretty messy situation, which I elaborated on later.

Polonius wrote:
Now, if this were an honest debate, we'd focus on what we both see as bad (the death of fetuses) and work to stop that. But this isn't an honest debate.

In this honest debate we would address both sides from their strongest position.

In an honest debate, we'd get to the actual issue. Which is only partially about the life of the fetus. The debate is about the right of people to have sex, families, etc. as they see fit. There are big chunks of this country that feel that pre-martial (or even non-reproductive) sex is inherently wrong. You have issues of demographics, and population. You have the religious ideal of populating the earth. There's a lot of stuff going on, and the actual fetus is only a small chunk of it.

Polonius has hit the nail on the head here. Pro-choice movements aren't demanding more abortions, as an abortion is generally an unpleasant thing regardless. Pro-choicers are okay with the death of the fetus, but they aren't after an explosion in the number of abortions that occur, they're after the option that will keep women safe and healthy.

But with legal access to safer abortion the number of abortions has gone waaaaaaay up.

I do agree that the 'pro-life' wierdos who are also pro-death penalty, anti-women empowerment, etc should be shot.

Maybe the number of reported abortions. Go figure.

Phototoxin wrote:But with legal access to safer abortion the number of abortions has gone waaaaaaay up.

I do agree that the 'pro-life' wierdos who are also pro-death penalty, anti-women empowerment, etc should be shot.

Guitardian wrote:Maybe the number of reported abortions. Go figure.

Pretty much.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Guitardian wrote:Maybe the number of reported abortions. Go figure.

Pretty much.

As long as we're making unsubstantiated claims, I would suggest that the number of "back alley abortions" have gone way up since Roe was decided.

Why on earth would that have happened if there was no need for them? That just doesn't make any sense. It does make sense that less abortions are reported because they were illegal.

biccat wrote:I meant that the intentional taking of a human life to save another is a "tough call." Taking someone's life so that you don't have to be responsible is not a "tough call."

You may disagree, which is your prerogative.

Of course, what you've done there is assume the primary element of the debate when you just declared the foetus a human life.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the only real point of debate between the two sides, whether or not the foetus is a human life with all the rights the rest of us enjoy, or it isn't. Everything else is bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hawkward wrote:I always hear this argument, and it always fails to convince me. Firstly, those faiths that do consider masturbation to be a sin despise it for that very reason. Secondly, for those (like me) who do not see masturbation as genocide, the reason why a sperm is not considered a human life is because it can only become a fully grown adult if it is left alone. A fertilized egg, without exterior interference, will almost always become a baby given time.

I have some sperm and an egg. I flush them down the sink. That isn't murder by your definition and fair enough.

But if I took that sperm and egg, combined them, waited a day then flushed it down the sink, that would be.

The fact that a zygote, embryo and fetus all undergo metabolic functions, cellular reproduction, maintain homeostasis, possess the capacity to grow and the ability to respond to stimuli makes the claim that they are not "alive" fall flat for me. Additionally, I do not believe that one can state that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not technically human, as it shares all our genetic material. Therefore, I think one can state that such "bundles of cells" count as "human life."

The issue isn't if it is alive, obviously it is. But so is a cow, or some grass. We don't grant the cow or the grass the fundamental right to life, because what matters isn't that they're alive, but the level they're operating on, and their level simply isn't comparable to humans. That zygote/embryo/foetus doesn't have the knowledge, personality and social connections that many people consider the real basis of what makes human life sacred, and so many people believe it should not be granted the same rights as a person out in the world.

I'm not saying you're wrong in believing that human life starts with conception, but I think you're doing a disservice to the complexity of life by insisting it so simple. It's actually an incredibly complex subject, and very subjective, and there are many reasonable points of view about when we should consider human life to have really begun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Please explain the difference between government regulation of abortion and government regulation of anti-cancer drugs.

Anti-cancer drugs are a matter of significant technical complexity, where the average layman is not only unlikely, but in most cases incapable of making an informed decision over which drug is best for him. Where such information assymetry exists then informed decision making (a primary goal for any market) requires a third party to act on behalf of the poorly informed consumer.

On the other hand, the mother is just a knowledgable as anyone else as to whether her unborn deserving of the fundamental right to human life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:It's a genuinely interesting moral debate(until you tire of it and decide to buy condoms), as you have to decide what's worse: allowing the death of an almost-human, or forcing an actual human to serve as life support for a fetus. Creepy stuff all around.

Thing is, ultimately, it depends on whether you consider the unborn a human life. If you do, then the inconvenience of the mother cannot possibly outweigh the need to protect human life. If you don't, then there is nothing to be gained from forcing a woman to carry her child to term.

Now, if this were an honest debate, we'd focus on what we both see as bad (the death of fetuses) and work to stop that. But this isn't an honest debate.

Not necessarily. I don't see the death of foetuses as bad, because I don't believe they're human.

I understand that other people do, and I respect that, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:As long as we're making unsubstantiated claims, I would suggest that the number of "back alley abortions" have gone way up since Roe was decided.

It's pretty hard to know how many abortions were performed before 1973, and while the number was almost certainly less, we can't know if it had any relation to phototoxin's claim that it has gone waaaaaaaaaaay up.

But we do know for certain that the number of backalley abortions has decreased immensely. We can measure this by seeing how many women died as a result of bungled backalley abortions before and after Roe v Wade. In 1972 there were 39 deaths from illegal abortions. In the 38 years since then, there's been one death. Multiply that out, even ignoring the population increase, and you see we now have 1/1,482 the number of backalley abortions.

So, basically, the rate of abortion pre-1973 to now is unknown, and probably somewhere between phototoxin and guitardian's claims. Whereas your claim about an increasing rate of backalley abortions is objectively wrong.

Sebster, at what point would you differentiate between non-human fetus and human child?

RustyKnight wrote:Sebster, at what point would you differentiate between non-human fetus and human child?

Truthfully, you don't have to. We don't accord children the same rights as adults, so simply possessing the status of "human" does not mean the a fetus must have all the same rights as a child, let alone an adult. Moreover, even if we accord the fetus all the same rights as any other human, there is no particular reason to presume that we must act to protect those rights.

Phototoxin wrote:I do agree that the 'pro-life' wierdos who are also pro-death penalty, anti-women empowerment, etc should be shot.

Just so you know, they more or less form the entirety of the "pro-life" movement, at least in the US. Especially the leadership of said movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If you are unable see the parallels between murder and abortion (especially as the issue is perceived by the pro-life movement), then this isn't a debate.

Random killing is not, and should not be, permitted on the rationale that a society in which it is acceptable to randomly kill people is not a safe place to live, even if said rationale comes in the form of subconscious emotional reactions. Terminating unborn humans poses no threat to members of society beyond potential medical complications for the mother, which are less than the risks of complications from carrying it to term. The two are therefore completely incomparable. At the point of abortion, the fetus is a mindless lump of tissue, compared to which a cow appears sapient, only human on the genetic level.