Forced abortion

[ninwa]

As I've stated before, if the mother's life is at risk, an abortion is an acceptable, albeit undesirable, solution. But I don't think that a baby's life is worth an end to nine months of painful symptoms. Also, in Australia the health insurance issue is not applicable.
I may have presented a confused argument, and if I did I'm sorry, but the crux of my argument is that a baby's life should not be sacrificed for the comfort of the mother, who should accept the risk of pregnancy when deciding to have sex. I repeat, if the mother's life is at riskat any stage, then abortion is acceptable. I respect your opinion, and I thank you for pointing out flaws in mine.

A baby's life should not be sacrificed (and I believe in the article's case it WAS a baby, because I think a 7 month old foetus is capable of surviving on its own - someone correct me if I'm wrong) because it is a human being and therefore has all the associated rights granted to it by virtue of being so.

My problem with your argument is that you presume to infringe upon the rights of women in favour of a bunch of cells, which would have no chance of surviving but for the sustenance of the mother's body (i.e. a parasite).

Thanks for bringing an alternative viewpoint to the debate, although I cannot say that I respect it.

[Special At Specialist]

If a woman really wants to have an abortion, she should do so early in the pregnancy. Why wait until you're 8 months pregnant before deciding you don't want the baby? I think that a woman choosing to have an abortion during the third trimester should be required to give a good reason to the satisfaction of the doctor.

However, this is getting a bit off-topic. The real case is forced abortion, not abortion by choice.

[Russ]

I repeat, if the mother's life is at riskat any stage, then abortion is acceptable. I respect your opinion, and I thank you for pointing out flaws in mine.

I do have an honest question, which is have these flaws altered your opinion or perspective in any way?

If a woman really wants to have an abortion, she should do so early in the pregnancy. Why wait until you're 8 months pregnant before deciding you don't want the baby? I think that a woman choosing to have an abortion during the third trimester should be required to give a good reason to the satisfaction of the doctor.

Why does she need a "good" reason? Surely if she can find a doctor willing to perform the operation, then that should be the end of the matter?

[Special At Specialist]

Lol. This is a funny stance you take considering last night you were all for the baby being forcefully aborted at 7 months which as far as I know is pretty close to being a fully developed fetus.

That is because there is a world of difference between a forced abortion and abortion by choice. The situation in China is far different to the situation in Australia, so I don't think that it's fair to make generalised rules regarding abortion across the whole world.

[paulsterio]

We can get caught up in definitions and the like, but it doesn't matter, the thing is, circumstances change, things happen, and things have to be done in order to meet those changes.

Would you rather a woman undergo an abortion or raise a child badly?

[Special At Specialist]

We can get caught up in definitions and the like, but it doesn't matter, the thing is, circumstances change, things happen, and things have to be done in order to meet those changes.

Would you rather a woman undergo an abortion or raise a child badly?

Under most cases, I would rather she undergoes an abortion. But in the case of Eugenics, then my view would be different.

[MonsieurHulot]

I do have an honest question, which is have these flaws altered your opinion or perspective in any way?

Yes, I believe that although in my opinion abortions are still immoral in many cases, they may be less immoral than the alternative, such as allowing a woman to put both her life and her baby's life at risk. If I had the choice, I would never make abortions illegal, as that would most probably open the gate for other civil liberties to be revoked.

[paulsterio]

Under most cases, I would rather she undergoes an abortion. But in the case of Eugenics, then my view would be different.

How does our abortion debate right now have anything to do with Eugenics?
And just 10 seconds ago you were against abortion, what?

In this case the definitions do matter as abortion is based on what is defined as essentially a "human" or a "potential for human", so if you can't define those then all hell would (theoretically) break loose

Not really, definitions are only there so everyone knows they're talking about the same thing, I think we all know what both those words mean, you can look to other obscure examples to make comparison, but deep in your heart you know the difference.

[Special At Specialist]

I would also like to clarify that, although I think abortions during late pregnancy are usually immoral (as MonsieurHulot suggested), they should not be illegal. I don't think that everything immoral should be illegal, due to rights of freedom.
An analogy would be: if you saw a young child drowning in the sea, would you be required to swim out to him and save his life? In this case, I think that there should not be a law making it illegal to be unwilling to help the child, but it is immoral.

[paulsterio]

I would also like to clarify that, although I think abortions during late pregnancy are usually immoral (as MonsieurHulot suggested), they should not be illegal. I don't think that everything immoral should be illegal, due to rights of freedom.
An analogy would be: if you saw a young child drowning in the sea, would you be required to swim out to him and save his life? In this case, I think that there should not be a law making it illegal to be unwilling to help the child, but it is immoral.

"Rights of freedom", what are you talking about? Last night you were saying that it's fine for a woman to be forced down and forced to have an abortion?!?!?!? Slight double-standard here!

[paulsterio]

You can't make that distinction, thus we have to have a manmade distinction for the purposes of law...etc.

[Eriny]

Abortion is just a series of continuing shades of grey. I mark the time of "life" as when the foetus could survive outside the body, without medical intervention. Before that, there's really no biomedical difference between it and a parasite, other than the fact that most women want babies. It's her body, not an incubator for the baby and she certainly shouldn't have to act in its best interest rather than her own.

In a xenophobic society like America, fewer abortions means that the population is more 'American', and they don't need to rely on immigration on their future productivity.

Do you really think it's the xenophobia and not the overt religious influences? Xenophobia might be a part of it, but I think their position is being informed by their religous morals.

I think you're right, but at the same time it's worth looking at the context. The anti-abortion lobby in the US has gotten incredibly loud quite suddenly. I can't say for sure why that is, but I'm sure that economic insecurity and the threat of no longer being the world's superpower is related, at least to a degree. Rights to abortion have been established for a very long time, it's interesting that they are under serious threat right now, and not say, ten years ago.

On the topic of abortion, I think a foetus does have certain rights. For instance, I think foetal homicide laws are a good thing (as in, criminal penalties for killing a foetus, not necessarily on par with murder charges though). However, the rights of the foetus do not supersede the rights of women. I don't think a debate on whether or not a foetus is 'a human' or 'alive' at a particular point is helpful. Either way, there is a conflict about which rights prevail, and I think that the fully realised woman has to win that conflict.

[Thu Thu Train]

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/gisella-perl/

[Russ]

Would you regard a paralyzed 25 year old person who has required constant support throughout his/her life from his/her mother to prevent imminent death as a "person" or a "parasite" (not saying i disagree with your argument, but i think we have to try and define a "human")

Quality of life is not the same thing as life. He doesn't require anything intrinsic to her body to stay alive

Yes, I believe that although in my opinion abortions are still immoral in many cases, they may be less immoral than the alternative, such as allowing a woman to put both her life and her baby's life at risk. If I had the choice, I would never make abortions illegal, as that would most probably open the gate for other civil liberties to be revoked.

Wasn't this your position at the start?

[Special At Specialist]

How does our abortion debate right now have anything to do with Eugenics?
And just 10 seconds ago you were against abortion, what?

Because an unfit mother could be classified by some as "mentally ill" or an "inferior mother" and would therefore be ineligible to conceive a child.
Also, do not mistake me. I am only against abortion in some scenarios. I'll try to clarify things:
I am in favour of abortion (by choice) when:
- The fetus has not yet properly developed (less than 28 weeks pregnant)
- The mother is incapable of supporting the child
- The child would be considered a liability (as is the case with overpopulation)
- The mother is at risk from pregnancy
- The mother did not consent to unprotected sex before the pregnancy (such as rape)
I am against abortion (morally, not legally) when:
- The fetus is almost fully developed (such as the last 2 months of pregnancy)
- The mother had ample opportunities for an earlier abortion
- The child would be beneficial to the mother, the family and the country

Forced abortion is different though. In the case of forced abortion, I would expect that the government provides sufficient warning beforehand, explaining the choices and responsibilities of the mother.