Abortion

[Grizlaw]

The food angle is interesting because if a mother starved her child (or willfully killed it) because she didn't have enough food, she would certainly be charged with murder. The difference, of course, is that there is an alternative to starving to death - namely social services and/or adoption. With an un-born child that is threatening the mothers life there is no reasonable alternative to aborting the child to save the mother, unless the child is developed enough to survive outside the womb.

Well, when you start inserting real-life factors (social services, adoption) into a purely theoretical discussion, it tends to dilute the main philosophical points being debated. Isn't the basic point here that society, as a general proposition, does not allow Person A to kill Person B simply because Person B's existence is harmful to Person A? Sure there are a few exceptions (self-defense, insanity of Person A, etc.), but the basic philosophical point here is that our society values Person A's life and Person B's life equally, and if for some reason the existence of one of them is detrimental to the other the general rule is that allowing one of them to kill the other is not acceptable.

Of course in the case of a very young child (such as an un-born child) if the mother dies then the child dies also, so there is an substantial argument that could be made that saving the life of the mother is more important than saving the life of the child in order to save at least 1 life (lessor of 2 evils).

That, I think, is a good point. Of course, it becomes a bit of a spectrum (i.e., how much danger does the mother's life have to be in before it becomes acceptable to kill the fetus in order to end the risk? If there is a 2% chance that the pregnancy will kill her? 10%? 50%?) But, I can't disagree with the basic point...

--GL

['93HonoluluCat]

The pro-life argument is based on the premise that an unborn child is a human life, and should be entitled to the same rights as a person who has been born. If we accept that premise, then it follows logically that causing the death of an unborn child should be illegal, and that abortion should therefore always be banned. That's well and good; a person might disagree with the premise, but if you accept the premise, the conclusion is cogent.

However, most pro-lifers, no matter how staunchly they argue that abortion is immoral, will still agree that abortion should be allowed in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy. This is the point at which, (pardon the expression), all hell starts breaking loose in terms of logic. By agreeing that a mother whose health is in jeopardy should be allowed to abort a pregnancy, aren't the pro-lifers in effect agreeing that, however important the unborn child's life is, it is somewhat less important than the health of the mother? If we as a society truly judged the life of an unborn child to be equally important to that of a living person, then the death of an unborn child should be equally tragic to that of the mother, correct? If you follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, you have to conclude that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances, because the unborn child's life should be equal in importance to its mother's.

Of course, these questions are rhetorical; I think it's fairly obvious that the reason the pro-lifers have almost universally not taken this position is because it is simply unpalatable from a political standpoint. However, that is the point that has always bothered me about the pro-life argument.

I do think a "health of the mother" exemption is valid, and I do not see "pro-life" and "health of the mother" as mutually exclusive. I see this as a medical procedure similar to other life-saving measures. There are some drastic procedures doctors perform in order to save patients' lives.

I still completely disagree with the convenience of aborting a pregnancy out of convenience. If it's too inconvenient to create a life, grow up, and be a parent to a child, than maybe people ought not be so willing to share a bed (or couch, or...).

(BAC, don't take that personally--it was not meant as a hit against your persona.)

[Grizlaw]

I do think a "health of the mother" exemption is valid, and I do not see "pro-life" and "health of the mother" as mutually exclusive. I see this as a medical procedure similar to other life-saving measures. There are some drastic procedures doctors perform in order to save patients' lives.

And you don't think that viewing an abortion in a case where the mother's life is in jeopardy as simply a "medical procedure similar to other life-saving measures" is at all inconsistent with the notion that the unborn child's life is equally valuable to that of a living person?

--GL

['93HonoluluCat]

I do think a "health of the mother" exemption is valid, and I do not see "pro-life" and "health of the mother" as mutually exclusive. I see this as a medical procedure similar to other life-saving measures. There are some drastic procedures doctors perform in order to save patients' lives.

And you don't think that viewing an abortion in a case where the mother's life is in jeopardy as simply a "medical procedure similar to other life-saving measures" is at all inconsistent with the notion that the unborn child's life is equally valuable to that of a living person?

No, I don't. All parts of the body are important, but there are instances when organs and/or significant parts of the body are removed in order to save the patient's life.

I do see what you're getting at, GL, and while I think a "mother's health" exemption is valid, I do think it's unfortunate the values of the life of the mother and the life of the child even have to be debated.

[Grizlaw]

No, I don't. All parts of the body are important, but there are instances when organs and/or significant parts of the body are removed in order to save the patient's life.

But you're essentially equating the unborn child with a defective organ or part of the mother's body that needs to be removed. How do you logically reconcile that with the view that the unborn child is a person with rights of its own?

['93HonoluluCat]

No, I don't. All parts of the body are important, but there are instances when organs and/or significant parts of the body are removed in order to save the patient's life.

But you're essentially equating the unborn child with a defective organ or part of the mother's body that needs to be removed. How do you logically reconcile that with the view that the unborn child is a person with rights of its own?

It's a tragic and difficult situation, to be sure.

Look, no one wants to lose any part of their body, because the organs are all there for one reason or another. But just because you're fond of your spleen doesn't mean it shouldn't be removed if it's lacerated or damaged to the point of endangering the suvivability of the whole body.

As I see it, the options are these if a pregnant mother's life is in danger:

• 1. Keep the baby, and lose the mother's life (and perhaps even lose the life of the baby if he/she is not close enough to term)
  2. Remove the baby, and save the mother's life (if she wants to pursue this option)

It's a difficult subject, to be sure, but the line of delineation must be made somewhere.

[briannell]

it doesn't differentiate in a medical record that the D&C preformed was due to the complications of pregnancy. they simply stamp the word ABORTION and list at what week it took place (well, at least back in 99 at John Hopkins) what a horrible thing!

i didn't want that stigma, and medically my hubby and I should have weighed our doctors advice a little more. I spent 6 months in and out every week just to keep me to term with our son. I AM so HAPPY that I did not listen, because I love Ben, but it really damaged my health.

i still think it's a personal choice. the example originally listed in the article was a healthy young woman and healthy pregnancy. to abort in that case is pure selfishness on the part of the woman. there are too many people today wanting kids, and with open adoptions being more and more common, you can't use the excuse "but my baby will never know me". also, if you KNOW whom the father is you can get financial assistance from him.

i think more men are willing to step up to the plate than are given credit. some men don't want kids at all, so abortion may not phase them. however, the few men I know that lost a child due to an abortion regret not being able to have more say in it. a few wish they could have been given the chance to be a single dad rather than for her to abort.

['93HonoluluCat]

the example originally listed in the article was a healthy young woman and healthy pregnancy. to abort in that case is pure selfishness on the part of the woman. there are too many people today wanting kids, and with open adoptions being more and more common, you can't use the excuse "but my baby will never know me". also, if you KNOW whom the father is you can get financial assistance from him.

Absolutely.