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.

Yeah, poor thing. But it also seems like a big cluster with another donor(The donated egg) causing alot of problems.

Whatever the reason, forcing someone to have an abortion against her will seems like the opposite of the general "Don't Legislate My Vagina" mantra we usually hear.

It's her choice to do what she will with her reproductive organs. The "father" in this case should have no more right to force her to terminate than any other babydaddy.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Whatever the reason, forcing someone to have an abortion against her will seems like the opposite of the general "Don't Legislate My Vagina" mantra we usually hear.

It's her choice to do what she will with her reproductive organs. The "father" in this case should have no more right to force her to terminate than any other babydaddy.

Except, y'know, the whole part where it wasn't an issue of forcing her to have an abortion she was morally against, but of an extra $5,000 she wanted but they were unwilling to pay.

ITT, many people comment on a story when it's pretty clear they didn't bother to actually read the story.

Anyway, this is a sad one and no one really came out covered in glory in the end.

Since we're talking about abortion, here's a hypothetical scenario/question. Lets suppose you are morally opposed to abortion for... whatever reason, it's not important.

Does it ever become immoral not to have the abortion? Like, severe birth defects, no chance of living for more then a few months, or a year, whatever, in pain the whole time.

That is a good question. I would say yes. Birthing a child into this world with no chance(Like this girl, it sounds bad, im sorry) at a normal or happy life, it is wrong.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Whatever the reason, forcing someone to have an abortion against her will seems like the opposite of the general "Don't Legislate My Vagina" mantra we usually hear.

It's her choice to do what she will with her reproductive organs. The "father" in this case should have no more right to force her to terminate than any other babydaddy.

Although it could be argued that if you sign a contract saying that if specific criteria are met you will have an abortion, you have not only "legislated your own vagina" but permenantely locked that in as your decision. You can't not pay your mortage and then charge the bank to reposess your house.

Wow. In this situation, everyone loses.


Thanks Obama!

 Ouze wrote:
ITT, many people comment on a story when it's pretty clear they didn't bother to actually read the story.

Anyway, this is a sad one and no one really came out covered in glory in the end.

Since we're talking about abortion, here's a hypothetical scenario/question. Lets suppose you are morally opposed to abortion for... whatever reason, it's not important.

Does it ever become immoral not to have the abortion? Like, severe birth defects, no chance of living for more then a few months, or a year, whatever, in pain the whole time.

An Abortion can never be morally correct.

Its like going to someone thats pretty sick and saying "hey, you got only like a 30% chance of surviving. Would you like to consider suicide?"

Except the child has no say in the matter.

You can't know for sure if the baby will die, ever. A low chance maybe, but give it that chance at the very least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krellnus wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Whatever the reason, forcing someone to have an abortion against her will seems like the opposite of the general "Don't Legislate My Vagina" mantra we usually hear.

It's her choice to do what she will with her reproductive organs. The "father" in this case should have no more right to force her to terminate than any other babydaddy.

Although it could be argued that if you sign a contract saying that if specific criteria are met you will have an abortion, you have not only "legislated your own vagina" but permenantely locked that in as your decision. You can't not pay your mortage and then charge the bank to reposess your house.

No, in this case it turned out to be a contract stipulation that could not legally be made. You can't force someone to have an abortion, and someone can't sign a document that would require them to get one.

Just like someone under age cannot give legal consent, nobody can ever be forced to have an abortion.

 Krellnus wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Whatever the reason, forcing someone to have an abortion against her will seems like the opposite of the general "Don't Legislate My Vagina" mantra we usually hear.

It's her choice to do what she will with her reproductive organs. The "father" in this case should have no more right to force her to terminate than any other babydaddy.

Although it could be argued that if you sign a contract saying that if specific criteria are met you will have an abortion, you have not only "legislated your own vagina" but permenantely locked that in as your decision. You can't not pay your mortage and then charge the bank to reposess your house.

So you're saying there are instances where a woman shouldn't have total control over her reproductive choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Whatever the reason, forcing someone to have an abortion against her will seems like the opposite of the general "Don't Legislate My Vagina" mantra we usually hear.

It's her choice to do what she will with her reproductive organs. The "father" in this case should have no more right to force her to terminate than any other babydaddy.

Except, y'know, the whole part where it wasn't an issue of forcing her to have an abortion she was morally against, but of an extra $5,000 she wanted but they were unwilling to pay.

Irrelevant.

If she doesn't want to have one, she shouldn't have to. That's the point.

 Grey Templar wrote:

An Abortion can never be morally correct.

Pretty sure it can. If you are having an eyeless flipper baby that is almost certain to die and totally certain to live a horrible pain filled existence and also probably kill the mother, then flush that sucker out.

Grey Templar wrote:
An Abortion can never be morally correct.

Well, not until one moves past a child's binary notion of morality. Utilitarianism would allow for several situations wherein it would be moral. In fact, other than Kantian ethical discourse, most moralities would allow for an abortion to be morally correct in certain circumstances.

You see, you're confusing your own dogmatic beliefs with a universal morality here.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Whatever the reason, forcing someone to have an abortion against her will seems like the opposite of the general "Don't Legislate My Vagina" mantra we usually hear.

It's her choice to do what she will with her reproductive organs. The "father" in this case should have no more right to force her to terminate than any other babydaddy.

Although it could be argued that if you sign a contract saying that if specific criteria are met you will have an abortion, you have not only "legislated your own vagina" but permenantely locked that in as your decision. You can't not pay your mortage and then charge the bank to reposess your house.

So you're saying there are instances where a woman shouldn't have total control over her reproductive choices.

Not quite, I'm saying that if she signs a contract that stipulates that in certain conditions, she will have an abortion, then she has made a choice she cannot reneg on (since in this case it is not actually her child, she's a surrogate).

That clearer?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Wow. In this situation, everyone loses.


Thanks Obama!

Um...what? What the hell does Obama have to do with this? The state laws were in effect, not federal laws, so Obama has nothing to do with this. Or were you attempting to be funny?


And Kalashnikov, miracles are possible: baby isn't likely to live, but there's always a chance. Unless she's in terrible pain, in which its hopeful that she passes quietly in her sleep with no pain. But with the comments that she wakes up each day smiling and is happy...then it sounds worth it to say that I hope she pulls through.

 Krellnus wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Whatever the reason, forcing someone to have an abortion against her will seems like the opposite of the general "Don't Legislate My Vagina" mantra we usually hear.

It's her choice to do what she will with her reproductive organs. The "father" in this case should have no more right to force her to terminate than any other babydaddy.

Although it could be argued that if you sign a contract saying that if specific criteria are met you will have an abortion, you have not only "legislated your own vagina" but permenantely locked that in as your decision. You can't not pay your mortage and then charge the bank to reposess your house.

So you're saying there are instances where a woman shouldn't have total control over her reproductive choices.

Not quite, I'm saying that if she signs a contract that stipulates that in certain conditions, she will have an abortion, then she has made a choice she cannot reneg on (since in this case it is not actually her child, she's a surrogate).

That clearer?

That wouldn't be an enforceable contract. It would need to say "in this situation, you either have an abortion that we pay for or you assume all parental rights and get nothing". A contract cannot give away basic human rights. It can only dictate the consequences of exercising them when you agreed not to.

RT has the way of it.

timetowaste85 wrote:Or were you attempting to be funny?

And failing miserably, evidently.

 azazel the cat wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Or were you attempting to be funny?

And failing miserably, evidently.

Sorry man-yeah, I horribly missed how that was even close to funny. Maybe others did, as I was the only one to question it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its like going to someone thats pretty sick and saying "hey, you got only like a 30% chance of surviving. Would you like to consider suicide?"

Except that in your example it's a sick person. A fully developed human being with thoughts, capacity to feel pain, etc. Rushing to choose death over a decent chance of life is an ethical problem because that person has so much to lose. And even then there is still a good argument for assisted suicide in the case of some terminal illnesses, where the near-certain suffering and lack of quality of life can be a fate worse than death for many people.

A fetus with crippling medical problems, on the other hand, isn't a person yet. It has none of the things that make us who we are, and will never be aware of its own existence if it is aborted. It is simply a mindless blob of meat with nothing to lose.

You can't know for sure if the baby will die, ever. A low chance maybe, but give it that chance at the very least.

Not with absolute 100% certainty, but look at it this way: would you consider it reasonable to quit your job and spend everything you own (selling your house/car/etc, emptying your child's college savings, etc) to buy a single lottery ticket? After all, you can't know with 100% certainty that you're going to lose everything and doom your family to horrible poverty. There's the non-zero chance that you could end up incredibly rich and happy.

The baby is exactly the same: we can know with very little doubt that a baby is going to have serious medical problems and will probably have a short and pain-filled life, and even if it somehow survives it will have severe long-term problems which will probably prevent it from having a normal life. The slim chance of being wrong does not justify the overwhelming probability of allowing that kind of suffering.

 Peregrine wrote:

A fetus with crippling medical problems, on the other hand, isn't a person yet. It has none of the things that make us who we are, and will never be aware of its own existence if it is aborted. It is simply a mindless blob of meat with nothing to lose.

Whilst I agree with your postion, the way you have worded it is just a bit flamey don't you think?

 Krellnus wrote:
Whilst I agree with your postion, the way you have worded it is just a bit flamey don't you think?

The fetus is. Not Grey Templar (who is just wrong, not mindless).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its like going to someone thats pretty sick and saying "hey, you got only like a 30% chance of surviving. Would you like to consider suicide?"

Except that in your example it's a sick person. A fully developed human being with thoughts, capacity to feel pain, etc

Not necessarily. A 3 year old child is not (by far) a fully developped human, and a great majority would find sickening (and highly illegal) to suggest suicide to a child simply because they have an abysmal chance of survival.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Not necessarily. A 3 year old child is not (by far) a fully developped human, and a great majority would find sickening (and highly illegal) to suggest suicide to a child simply because they have an abysmal chance of survival.

Ask any parent, a three year old has a functioning brain, a personality, etc. They have all of the things that define "person", even if they haven't reached the same level as an adult. A fetus isn't even close to that point, it has less of a "self" than the cow many supposed "pro life" people will happily eat for dinner.

(And yes, there are gray areas in all of this. But this is a practical question, not a philosophical exercise. The majority of abortions, including the one in this case, happen before there's anywhere near enough brain development to consider the fetus a person.)

 Peregrine wrote:


Ask any parent, a three year old has a functioning brain, a personality, etc. They have all of the things that define "person", even if they haven't reached the same level as an adult. A fetus isn't even close to that point, it has less of a "self" than the cow many supposed "pro life" people will happily eat for dinner.

(And yes, there are gray areas in all of this. But this is a practical question, not a philosophical exercise. The majority of abortions, including the one in this case, happen before there's anywhere near enough brain development to consider the fetus a person.)

Ask any cognitive science doctorate, hell, even masters, and they will tell you that you are incredibly wrong. A three year old doesn't have the most basic logical module to understand most of what it says. And yes, this is a philosophical excercise, if ever there was one. There's no exclusion based on the fact the it has practical applications. You use a definition of personnality that fits your need without understanding that it lacks any hard, objective definition. You therefore open yourself to a criticism by linguistic analysis.

And your betting example is laughable. You should always bet for what allows you a greater chance of survival, if anything, because no gains are possible without existence. A contrario, you should not bet all the means of this continued existence.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Ask any cognitive science doctorate, hell, even masters, and they will tell you that you are incredibly wrong.

Well, given that I didn't define any specific developmental level that the three year old has achieved I really doubt your "expert" is going to somehow prove me wrong.

And yes, this is a philosophical excercise, if ever there was one.

No, it's a practical question: is it right or wrong to abort a doomed fetus at X weeks? The fact that there's a gray area much later at Y weeks, or Z years after birth, or whatever, has nothing to do with the state of the fetus at X weeks. Most abortions, including the one in this case, are done early enough that it is virtual certainty, with near-unanimous agreement between the experts in the field, that a fetus lacks the things that could reasonably define a "person".

You use a definition of personnality that fits your need without understanding that it lacks any hard, objective definition.

I never gave a specific definition. In fact, that's the whole point. Any functioning definition of "person", other than an appeal to some kind of magical "soul" that has no evidence to support it, will include attributes that a fetus (at the time of most abortions) does not have. There is a lot of gray area about development and personhood in general, but it all occurs far away from this case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And your betting example is laughable. You should always bet for what allows you a greater chance of survival, if anything, because no gains are possible without existence.

That's assuming that mere survival is the most important thing, rather than survival with a decent quality of life. For example, if you're suffering from a terminal illness and are about to spend your few remaining weeks in unbearable pain while so full of drugs that you can no longer think, bankrupting your family in the process, the rational thing to do is to kill yourself before you reach that point. Your continued survival has negative value, so you should not make it the highest priority.

A contrario, you should not bet all the means of this continued existence.

So then why should you ignore the equally overwhelming odds that the future child will live a short and painful life in favor of wishful thinking about "miracles" that might save it?

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, given that I didn't define any specific developmental level that the three year old has achieved I really doubt your "expert" is going to somehow prove me wrong.

Well, yes, you did. You said that they had everything that an adult would have to be considered a person. Since 3 years old don't have everything that an adult has, and far from it, you've already opened yourself to huge criticism there. 3 years old are a person in the same way that a brilliant chimp is a person.

No, it's a practical question: is it right or wrong to abort a doomed fetus at X weeks? The fact that there's a gray area much later at Y weeks, or Z years after birth, or whatever, has nothing to do with the state of the fetus at X weeks. Most abortions, including the one in this case, are done early enough that it is virtual certainty, with near-unanimous agreement between the experts in the field, that a fetus lacks the things that could reasonably define a "person".

You have a very immature view of what philosophy is. And no, there is no unanimous agreement between the experts of the field, because there is no proper field, nor is there a reasonnable definition of what a person is. They are all arbitrary. A scientist needs to look to another field to give him a definition of personnality, usually either philosophy or law.

Any functioning definition of "person", other than an appeal to some kind of magical "soul" that has no evidence to support it, will include attributes that a fetus (at the time of most abortions) does not have. There is a lot of gray area about development and personhood in general, but it all occurs far away from this case.

That's not the problem. The problem is that those attributes are also not present in a lot of developpmental stages where we actually do attribute personhood. Which should indicate that 'personhood' is already an arbitrary term, and that it is mostly used to justify a large range of sensitivities.

That's assuming that mere survival is the most important thing,

The difference is between 'the most urgent' and 'the most important'. It is most urgent to assure your survival. It is the most important to aim at getting a decent quality of life. On the question of 'is there is a point where conditions invalidating the second also invalidate the first', I'm sure there is, but that's not to someone else to prejudge years and decades in advance.

For example, if you're suffering from a terminal illness and are about to spend your few remaining weeks in unbearable pain while so full of drugs that you can no longer think, bankrupting your family in the process, the rational thing to do is to kill yourself before you reach that point. Your continued survival has negative value, so you should not make it the highest priority.

In this case, maybe. Except real life rarely offers such black and white scenario. And again, the main difference here is that the suffering person is capable of making that calculation by themselves, and doesn't have the choice imposed by another.

So then why should you ignore the equally overwhelming odds that the future child will live a short and painful life in favor of wishful thinking about "miracles" that might save it?

You seem to think that this kid is absolutely doomed to a life of suffering, while the article only speaks of multiple heart surgeries. That's not a life of unending, unbearable pain, at least not if that's all. I went out with a girl who sadly died on the operation table two years ago, on her (I think) 7th hearth surgery. She was very loved, and very loving. I do think she would not have thrown away those 24 years of life in exchange for less suffering. Kids with harsh diseases or deadly diseases don't require 'miracles' to lead good lives, they require loving parents and relative.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Well, yes, you did. You said that they had everything that an adult would have to be considered a person.

No, go back and read it again. I said that they qualify even though they aren't at the level of the adult yet.

You have a very immature view of what philosophy is. And no, there is no unanimous agreement between the experts of the field, because there is no proper field, nor is there a reasonnable definition of what a person is. They are all arbitrary. A scientist needs to look to another field to give him a definition of personnality, usually either philosophy of law.

And the point is that any functioning definition of "person" will involve some kind of high-level brain function (IOW, more than a cockroach would have). Since a fetus at 20-ish weeks doesn't have a brain yet (and there is near-unanimous agreement that it doesn't) it can't be a person.

And TBH, even the most devout pro-life people don't really believe that a fetus is a person. There's no outrage over the high rate of natural miscarriages, even though it represents a horrifying death toll if you really believe that personhood begins at conception. Since the pro-life side doesn't support declaring natural miscarriages the most urgent problem we face and dedicate vast amounts of resources to fixing it the obvious conclusion is that their claims about personhood are insincere.

The difference is between 'the most urgent' and 'the most important'. It is most urgent to assure your survival. It is the most important to aim at getting a decent quality of life. On the question of 'is there is a point where conditions invalidating the second also invalidate the first', I'm sure there is, but that's not to someone else to prejudge years and decades in advance.

We're not talking about years and decades in advance. We're talking about a baby that will be born horribly deformed, require huge amounts of medical intervention just to keep it alive, and probably die soon after birth anyway. The chances of ANY high-quality life are much lower than the chances of a life full of pointless suffering.

And again, the main difference here is that the suffering person is capable of making that calculation by themselves, and doesn't have the choice imposed by another.

There is no person being imposed on. In the case in the OP the fetus had less of a brain than a cow, an animal we happily slaughter because we think they're tasty.

You seem to think that this kid is absolutely doomed to a life of suffering, while the article only speaks of multiple heart surgeries.

Then you should read the article again.

Because the doctors determined that the baby would need multiple heart surgeries after birth and would have only a 25 percent chance of leading a normal life, the couple decided that an abortion was the next best step.

...

She has a birth defect called holoprosencephaly, where the brain fails to completely divide into distinct hemispheres. She has heterotaxy, which means many of her internal organs, such as her liver and stomach, are in the wrong places. She has at least two spleens, neither of which works properly. Her head is very small, her right ear is misshapen, she has a cleft lip and a cleft palate, and a long list of complex heart defects, among other problems.
...

If she lives, she has a 50 percent chance of ever walking.

 Peregrine wrote:


No, go back and read it again. I said that they qualify even though they aren't at the level of the adult yet.

Then you operate with undefined terms, which is pretty much worse.

And the point is that any functioning definition of "person" will involve some kind of high-level brain function (IOW, more than a cockroach would have)

So why isn't a chimp a person? And no, 'functionning definitions of 'person' do not require high-level brain functions. The operating definition of a person in canadian society is a living human being unsupported by a womb.

Since a fetus at 20-ish weeks doesn't have a brain yet (and there is near-unanimous agreement that it doesn't) it can't be a person.

Wrong. A 5 weeks old fetus has a brain. a 6 weeks old fetus as (5) differentiated brain modules and complex nervous systems. However, the nervous system acquire organ control at only 26-27 weeks.

Then you should read the article again.

Alright, I'll admit that I skipped over that part after reading the whole 'she has 25% chances of living a normal life'. If it had been 25% chances of really leading a normal life, I'd have taken these odds. 25% chances of not being a vegetable, only to be this, when we already know she doesn't have loving parents... I think that might warrant an abortion. I do think it's really sad that this is due to parents already knowing they are not compatible, but yet keep on trying.

But just to be precise, holoprocencephaly can be mild and cause only minor learning disorder. It doesn't sound like one of those cases, because of the facial deformations associated with harsher cases, but on the other hand, almost all severe cases are fatal in the womb.

I believe the deadline for abortion is when we can realistically keep a fetus alive outside of the womb...
That said I could be wrong...

 purplefood wrote:
I believe the deadline for abortion is when we can realistically keep a fetus alive outside of the womb...
That said I could be wrong...

That's the 'living and viable' criteria I mentionned, and it would make sense that both english and canadian law have the same. Which would also mean that we would attribute 'personhood' earlier and earlier as the technology to support the fetus outside the womb develops.

Although I think that at this point we've gone as far as we will in giving protections to fetuses, simply because the social mouvements supporting choice would see it as an attack on their rights.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Then you operate with undefined terms, which is pretty much worse.

Again, the point is that a precise definition isn't necessary. The gray area is way outside what we're talking about. Consider an analogy:

Whether "killing" is right or wrong is a complex subject. For example, there is legitimate disagreement over how and when it is ok to kill in self defense, whether or not you can have a "just" war, etc. However, none of that disagreement prevents us from saying that torturing and murdering people just to watch them suffer is wrong. We don't say "wait, you can't say that, you haven't defined 'murder' properly yet" because that uncertainty isn't relevant.

So why isn't a chimp a person? And no, 'functionning definitions of 'person' do not require high-level brain functions.

I actually believe that chimps do qualify for some kind of "personhood", but that's an irrelevant gray area.

And yes, brain function is required. If you remove a brain from someone's body and destroy it, then place the body on life support machines so the rest of it remains alive I don't think you're going to say that they still qualify as a person.

Wrong. A 5 weeks old fetus has a brain. a 6 weeks old fetus as (5) differentiated brain modules and complex nervous systems. However, the nervous system acquire organ control at only 26-27 weeks.

A functioning brain. IOW, achieving a level above that of a cockroach. Brain tissue might technically exist at five weeks, but it certainly isn't doing any thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:
I believe the deadline for abortion is when we can realistically keep a fetus alive outside of the womb...
That said I could be wrong...

That runs into the problem of what happens when we are able to create an artificial womb (which is merely a technological obstacle). Now "can keep it alive" starts at conception, even though the "baby" is just a single cell. Effectively you're allowing improvements in technology to keep pushing the deadline earlier and earlier, past the point where the thing you're protecting doesn't plausibly qualify as a "person" by any reasonable standard.