To be frustrated that it's impossible to have a discussion on abortion ethics....

[coconuttella]

On one side there's those who believe an embryo has fully human rights from conception, and on the other those who believe the foetus has no rights at all until birth.

Both sides seem to put forward their position forcefully and dogmatically as though they're stating the obvious, and anyone who thinks the ethics surrounding it may be a more complex is shouted down, especially by some on the pro-chioice side who seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with their stance as a misogynistic slave of the patriarchy.

Personally, I'm not in either camp and find the ethical questions complex, with this being brought home the other evening when I was reading that Incas didn't regard babies and toddler as having human status until the age of 3-4 (where they had a ceremony to mark this rite of passage) and no longer totally dependent on their mothers and past the most perilous time wrt child mortality. It made me question again my thoughts on when we should a human should acquire rights, and frustrated me that any discussion on this immediately degenerates into a slanging match.

coconuttella

You can't force a woman to go through Pregnancy, the changes that happens to their body carrying a baby to term. Go through Labour (which nearly killed my wife - ended up having an emergency C-section).

The above is pretty damn simple to be honest, if a woman chooses to not go through the above then that is 100% their decision!

I agree with the OP it is so hard to have a discussion on this very interesting topic because the people discussing it often deal in absolutes.

I suspect that most women who are silent on the topic have the personal opinion that they probably wouldn't terminate but are not arrogant enough to judge those who do, or declare that they wouldn't under any circumstance. A 'there but for the grace of God go I' sort of attitude.

It does make me very angry when pro life campaigners, who supposedly care so much for these unborn babies, say that they should be adopted. The damage to a child brought up unwanted and unloved can be catastrophic. I suspect that this attitude is less to do with wanting what's best for the baby, and more to do with wanting to impose religious and spiritual beliefs on other people.

It's not an unborn child though. That's the failure in this argument. It sentimentalises pregnancy and the foetus. A woman becomes equal to a collection of cells that may or may not be viable, certainly up to twelve weeks - when the vast majority of terminations take place.

It ignores the visceral reality of pregnancy, especially in those women who do not want to continue with it.

*coconutella

If you believe the unborn child does have rights, then it's a dilemma involving two individuals with rights, and those rights shouldn't be automatically withdrawn from the unborn child simply because the mother doesn't want to give birth.*

By the same token though, if a parent doesn't want to donate a kidney to their child, they don't have too. Isn't that also two people with rights? Why should the child die just because the parent doesn't want to donate a kidney (less risky than pregnancy and giving birth). Also why are the rights of a dead body worth more than a person who is currently alive but needs a transplant to stay that way? In both these situations the donator is considered to have the more important rights. But the equivalent when it comes to abortion, the mother, is considered to have equal or fewer rights?

The above is pretty damn simple to be honest, if a woman chooses to not go through the above then that is 100% their decision!

It's only that simple if you accord the unborn baby rights. If so, it's not simply about the woman's choice. With regard to your DW, I'm sorry to hear she nearly died as a result of carrying her baby. I would certainly agree that where there's a health risk to mother or baby then there's a strong case for an abortion.

By the same token though, if a parent doesn't want to donate a kidney to their child, they don't have too. Isn't that also two people with rights? Why should the child die just because the parent doesn't want to donate a kidney (less risky than pregnancy and giving birth).

Maybe the answer to that is to require organ donation at death.

With regard to those using the organ donor argument, I'd favour mandatory organ donation.

There are also already so many children in care waiting to be placed in a forever home, we should be focusing on them not on forcing women to keep their babies. About 60,000 children are in care right now, how do you think SS would cope if there were a lot of unwanted babies to find homes for as well??

Re adoption, women shouldn't be forced to keep their babies merely to satisfy adopters' desire for a newborn rather than a child coming out of the care system. Also, adopters who are desperate for babies are actually not people who are best placed to deal with the issues faced by the children they are adopting.

What would happen is lots of children would end up in orphanages, it's what happened in Romania when abortion was banned.

And I'm speaking as someone who did suffer infertility and then adopt.

I agree with that but, but I have never heard it discussed and it doesn't seem to be a priority for pro lifers.

coconuttella

I completely agree with mandatory organ donation, the dead don't need their organs.

I would certainly agree that where there's a health risk to mother or baby then there's a strong case for an abortion.

Where does the dying in childbirth scenario fit with this?

That is what the poster you responded to with this had referred to.
How can you possibly see the future?

It is currently illegal to remove the organs of a dead person for the use of transplantation, even when such a use could immediately save the life of someone else, without their prior permission, or the permission of their next of kin. However, brain dead women have been kept on life support in order to incubate their foetus, despite DNR orders and the desperate distress of their relatives. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/06/texas-pregnant-brain-dead-woman-life-support

I seriously question the ethics of people who believe that the bodily autonomy of a male cadaver is sacred, but that of a living woman is up for discussion.

It's also amazing how many pro lifers change their minds and either facilitate abortions for their wives/daughters/mistresses, or themselves because they believe that they need one for the correct reasons. That their circumstances are valid, whilst all the other women who have them must be dirty whores who sleep around.

There is a serious empathy vacuum. No one on the pro choice side is saying that all pregnancies should be terminated and that abortions should be the default. Most also fight for better access to contraception and better sex education, as well as supporting women who have chosen to go through with their pregnancies.

No child should be born to parents who don't want them. I say this as someone who has been desperately trying to get pregnant for the last two years. I wholeheartedly believe in a woman's right to choose.

Sorry for the diatribe, as you were

Obviously mandatory doesn't include those who have had blood transfusions, cancer, or other diseases?

Would you want to have the heart of a serial murderer for example?

coconutella

With regard to those using the organ donor argument, I'd favour mandatory organ donation.

Well I don't agree with your views on abortion but at least your view is consistent. If someone didn't agree with the above but was pro life I would say their view didn't make sense. As PPs have said, sometimes pro lifers care so much about the child up until birth, then don't care about it at all.

I don't think it's hard at all op.

Each to their own for views.

However every human being has the right to total bodily autonomy. Male/female pregnant or not.

So anyone has the right to have an opinion on abortion but not a right to force those views onto another person or seek to gain control of their body.

Abortion should be available on demand for any reason throughout a pregnancy if the woman freely wants one.

Pregnancy is the only thing that only effects the pregnant woman.

The organ donation argument doesn't make sense.

Sorry x posy, got over invested and didn't rtft

And hate with a passion the exceptions for incest or rape ffs! So 'good girls' can beg for an abortion but 'bad' girls who get pregnant can't.

Fuck that

Yes-you can't be a little bit opposed to abortion. You are either pro choice or not.

Or would you like the organs from someone who used to do cocaine on a regular basis whilst in their 20s but decided to change their lifestyle?

Or someone who escaped sex slavery and turned their life around?

Or someone who was was a member of an extreme right wing organisation?

I think the organ donation is important in this. It imparts a judgemental view. Which is what abortion rights are all about - and most definitely shouldn't be.

Who are you to decide what a person should do with their body?

It used to be that suicide was deemed abhorrent. It used to be that babies born dead went to Limbo. Fuck that!

Pregnancy is the only thing that only effects the pregnant woman.

But that's the problem - the pregnant woman clearly isn't the only one affected (unless you say that a foetus has no personhood up until the moment of birth - which I think is the position in UK law, but not the position ethically for most people).

And hate with a passion the exceptions for incest or rape ffs! So 'good girls' can beg for an abortion but 'bad' girls who get pregnant can't.

I think the logic is more that contraception was not an option in these cases. (Not my own position btw - just explaining.)

Here's the deal for me:
Whether abortion is legal or not, women have always sought abortions and always will.
It's just how it is for a huge amount of reasons and any number of ethical discussions won't change that basic fact.
When you make it illegal, you are simply putting a woman's health and possibly life in danger.
Making strict anti-abortion laws is basically anti- women.
Where do you draw the line? I'd like to think that the medical world and the women who seek terminations should lead the way.

You are either pro choice or not.

I disagree.... I am fully pro-choice for first trimester. I'm not sure where to draw line in second trimester, but I'm not fully pro-choice in the third trimester. I don't believe a mother should have complete unfettered rights to an abortion up to term as I believe a viable foetus should have rights that the mother's right don't automatically trump. In this regard I'm pretty consistent with the law of the land.

I think that some people are misconstruing the organ donation argument. It's not about being forced to accept organs from a crack addict it's about bodily autonomy and how the law respects that of someone (living or dead) in the case of transplants, even if it means that someone dies as a direct result, but some people believe that women should not be able to make the decision to discontinue an unwanted pregnancy, even if that means permanent mental or physical damage or death to that woman as a result.

Also becomes interesting as parents can give permission for thier children to provide blood or bone marrow, or stem cells, without any consultation of the child's wishes. It's a really interesting ethical quagmire.