Partial Birth Abortion & Late Term Abortion -- should they be prohibited?

[Ben_Hicks]

BURNER, I think you’re missing the point (surprise!) or you’re being intellectually dishonest by deliberately misunderstanding my analogy. I wouldn’t have to

Central park in NYC has several carrage ways, allong with roads and jogging paths and it is doing just fine. Also , “you wanna save , you pay for it” is totaly aplicable here. If buisness is already getting slow and the town wants to use this project to jump start it, and people oppose it, then if thoes buisnesses fold up you will pay by haveing to go to another town to aquire things that were once just up the street. It wil cost you more time and gas money to travel, whereas if you had let the plan go , you would have a renewed local prosperity and no need to travel.

I think you’re missing the point (surprise!) or you’re being intellectually dishonest by deliberately misunderstanding my analogy. I wouldn’t have to pay for it in the same way I would have to pay for newborns under the scheme you’re proposing. Yeah, it might cost me a little more to drive a little further but I’m still not paying for the park. You’re suggesting I pay for the newborns. I have no moral obligation to do that. If, as the result of a hypothetical illegalisation of abortions, there is a tax hike or something, then I would have no problem paying that but that is not what you’re asking me to do. You’re asking me to give direct care and aid to the newborns. I am under no moral obligation to do that any more than I am under a moral obligation to go to the congested side of the park, walk into a small business and say “Here you go Mr small business owner, sir. Here’s $1000.00 to cover any expenses incurred by the cancellation of plans to build the dual carriage way as a result of my protest against it”.

In short, I don’t need to justify my opposition to the destruction of a thing, any thing by throwing money at it the way you’re asking me to. It is enough that the destruction is immoral.

And that is a lot more clear cut when it comes to the abortion debate than it is when it comes to discussing the future of my local park.

[Ben_Hicks]

Oops, one day I’ll master the cut 'n paste tools on this thing

[BURNER]

I wouldn’t have to pay for it in the same way I would have to pay for newborns under the scheme you’re proposing. Yeah, it might cost me a little more to drive a little further but I’m still not paying for the park. You’re suggesting I pay for the newborns. I have no moral obligation to do that. If, as the result of a hypothetical illegalisation of abortions, there is a tax hike or something, then I would have no problem paying that but that is not what you’re asking me to do. You’re asking me to give direct care and aid to the newborns. I am under no moral obligation to do that any more than I am under a moral obligation to go to the congested side of the park, walk into a small business and say “Here you go Mr small business owner, sir. Here’s $1000.00 to cover any expenses incurred by the cancellation of plans to build the dual carriage way as a result of my protest against it”.

I completely see your point. My understanding is that if you dont want it then you shouldnt have to pay for the consequences of it, whether it fails or is a success.Now apply your point to other people.

You’re suggesting I pay for the newborns. I have no moral obligation to do that

Neither does anyone else, the perspective mother included. She cant be forced to pay with time and energy for something she doesnt want in the first place. Or can she be forced to pay and you are just being a hypocrite?

You’re asking me to give direct care and aid to the newborns. I am under no moral obligation to do that

Neither is anyone else. If you are unwilling why do you feel “moraly” correct in forceing another person to do it? Why should they have to do something that you are unwillling to do?me thinks I scent hypocracy again, do as I say and not as I do perhaps?

[Stratocaster]

Ben, don’t argue with this guy. It ain’t going nowhere.

[greenteeth]

Good God!!! I can’t beleive what I’m hearing!!! Some of you actually think it would be ok to abort a baby at nine months when the physical health of the mother isn’t at stake!!!

So… is it ok to kill the baby at 2 weeks old? What the freakin difference?!?

I’m not pro-choice, but I at least can understand the arguments for 1st term and 2nd term abortion, but third term!?!?

[Apos]

—I believe there is some merit in the information gleaned from those cites and that they are supporting evidence (not primary evidence, supporting evidence) for other information posted.—

I don’t see how. There are far too many variables involved, and no statistical figures by which we can control for them. Judgements of what is life-threatening can be wrong. People change their behavior when told that something is life threatening. People have different resources for doing anything about it. People recieve widely ranging quality of medical care. Technology for saving life has changed over time. New problems have developed over time. This is simply the wrong sort of data for determining what we want to determine.

—I disagree that the ethical considerations are the same (though they may be for you).—

I understand, but it is hardly a matter for another thread. IMO, it cuts directly at the issue of whether the decision to have an abortion is ethical or not.

—If it can be agreed (big “If” I know) that a fetus at 9 months is, in fact, a person then the decision to prevent a non life threatening abortion in that case is no different then making the decision to prevent a person from murdering a new born.—

I’m afraid the range of dispute here is much wider, because I don’t agree that naming it a “person” or not by some arbitrary semantic criteria has any relevance to its moral status. It doesn’t matter what we CALL “a fetus at 9 months”: it matters only what it IS (it’s actual, physical characteristics that distinguish it from or relate it to other beings), how that relates to what is done to it, and what moral relevance that has.

That is, I don’t think arbitrarily labeling something a “person” or not has any relevance to the debate, for either side. It is, simply put, a waste of everyone’s time to focus on.

[Consuela_Bobuela]

*Originally posted by Ben Hicks *

Naturally, I am opposed to the destruction of the park(and believe me, the dual carriageway will destroy it.) and I’ve made my views known to the council. However, that doesn’t mean I’m under any obligation to pay the local businesses the money they would lose by not having the dual carriage way ruin this area of outstanding national beauty.

In other words, it is totally logically consistent to object to the destruction of a think without being willing to pay for its upkeep. As such, your “You wanna save it? You pay for it” argument really does fall flat on its face. Hopefully you won’t try to pick it up. **

You may object to anything at anytime, that is true. But if you try to stop the workers from doing their job on the carriageway and/or harass and threaten them you are crossing the line.
If that is the extent of your vehemence, perhaps you should put up or shut up…money that is.
Likewise, if you are going to stand outside a clinic and demand of women to give birth to an unwanted baby, I feel you you should be willing to help out financially and physically.
Would you follow up on the welfare of these children after they are born? You should if you feel so strongly. Don’t you agree?

[Ben_Hicks]

Bob - Don’t worry, I think I’ve finally learned my lesson. I think the denizens of this forum would agree, whatever their stance on abortion, that BURNER isn’t worth educating.

Consuela

You may object to anything at anytime, that is true. But if you try to stop the workers from doing their job on the carriageway and/or harass and threaten them you are crossing the line.

I never mentioned forcibly stopping the workers from doing their job anywhere in my analogy so I think it’s unreasonable of you to assume that I would. Obviously picketing directly in front of the JCB’s of the workers would be grounds for me to be forcibly removed, same as if I were to chain myself to the door of an abortion clinic. However, if I protest outside of the park (read: outside of the 60ft buffer zone outside of an abortion clinic) and rely on petitions and speeches etc… to get my point across successfully, I’m well within my rights.

Likewise, if you are going to stand outside a clinic and demand of women to give birth to an unwanted baby, I feel you you should be willing to help out financially and physically.

Let me ask you, if I were walking across a bridge and saw a woman planning to throw her newborn baby off into the water and I stopped her, would I be financially liable for that baby? After all, it is unwanted and I am forcing the mother to take care of it against her will. However, something tells me that, in this latter instance, you would not find me financially liable. I certainly wouldn’t be demonised for my actions.

[merge]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**No, because there already is an established conciousness and personality that is just beneath the surface (if it is reversible). A newborn has never had an established sense of self, they don’t even recognize themselves in the mirror until around age 2. **

LOL… this is the funniest thing I have ever read on this topic…

Now it is ok to kill something that has no pesonality???
So forget this whole partial birth thing… just have the kid… and wait as long as 2 years as long as they don’t recognize themselves in a mirror…

Ok… Abortion will never be illegal… I wish all activists on both sides would just accept this as fact…

[Meatros]

Uh oh…Burner’s a bit upset…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2890307#post2890307

[Grim_Beaker]

Apos

I don’t see how. There are far too many variables involved, and no statistical figures by which we can control for them. Judgements of what is life-threatening can be wrong. People change their behavior when told that something is life threatening. People have different resources for doing anything about it. People recieve widely ranging quality of medical care. Technology for saving life has changed over time. New problems have developed over time. This is simply the wrong sort of data for determining what we want to determine.

It is true that there are many variables not being accounted for. I haven’t been questioning that. I guess where we’ve been disagreeing is that I have believed that the disparities are too large for unaccounted variables to compensate for. Thus my earlier statements indicating what I felt were reasonable conclusions absent the more detailed data. On the other hand your position seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong here) that it is not reasonable to draw any substantive or supporting conclusions whatsoever from the data provided. What level of detail do you feel is necessary here? Do you feel that detail is possible to reasonably obtain?

I understand, but it is hardly a matter for another thread. IMO, it cuts directly at the issue of whether the decision to have an abortion is ethical or not.

If you feel the subject is appropriate to this thread then I would be interested in hearing your take on it.

I’m afraid the range of dispute here is much wider, because I don’t agree that naming it a “person” or not by some arbitrary semantic criteria has any relevance to its moral status. It doesn’t matter what we CALL “a fetus at 9 months”: it matters only what it IS (it’s actual, physical characteristics that distinguish it from or relate it to other beings), how that relates to what is done to it, and what moral relevance that has.

That is, I don’t think arbitrarily labeling something a “person” or not has any relevance to the debate, for either side. It is, simply put, a waste of everyone’s time to focus on.

When I said "If it can be agreed … " I wasn’t referring to labeling or rhetorical devices. I was referring to the actual “personhood” status of the unborn in question. The “IS” question on a physical level you mentioned in your post. So, to clarify, if the unborn IS a person then the moral questions surrounding them are the same as they are for any other person we happen to interact with.

Also, if you’re so inclined I’d like a response to this:

That’s all well and good as far as it goes but I would have liked it more if you had posted something more conclusive about the issue. How do you feel about it? Why? What is your supporting evidence? How did you arrive at your conclusion(s)?

Specifically, what criteria do you, personally, use for determining personhood status? One would assume that your position regarding abortion would naturally flow from what you believe the criteria for personhood to consist of. I considered asking what sort of data would be acceptable to you for determining the prevalence of life threatening conditions for third term pregnancies. However, I have no idea what your position on this subject is. If you believe third semester abortions for non life threatening reasons is not moral but are unwilling to advocate a change in legislation then the point is really moot isn’t it? Provided I could find ironclad proof showing that late abortions are performed for non life threatening reasons it still wouldn’t make a difference in your position for all practical purposes.

Grim

[Apos]

—On the other hand your position seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong here) that it is not reasonable to draw any substantive or supporting conclusions whatsoever from the data provided. What level of detail do you feel is necessary here? Do you feel that detail is possible to reasonably obtain?—

The whole problem is that we can’t even tell. If this were a statistical data point, my complaint would be that we have no measure of error: we can’t form any sort of confidence interval. But this isn’t even a statistical finding for the value we want in the first place. On the other hand, the data provided earlier IS a statistical measure of what we want, and DOES (presumably) come with things like alpha, the proceedure for randomization, etc.

—So, to clarify, if the unborn IS a person then the moral questions surrounding them are the same as they are for any other person we happen to interact with.—

Again, this is not a useful way to argue. All the moral arguments for “persons” were constructed with non-fetal humans in mind, using “person” as a sloppy shorthand for reffering to the group to which those arguments applied. But you can’t simply extend the designation “person” to a fetus and then transitively apply to them only the conclusions of the related moral arguments. You have to go back and pre-justify those arguments for this different sort of being (utterly regardless of whether it can be called a person or not).

It’s also important because I don’t see morality as any sort of either/or binary where all persons have moral interests and all non-persons do not.

—Specifically, what criteria do you, personally, use for determining personhood status? One would assume that your position regarding abortion would naturally flow from what you believe the criteria for personhood to consist of.—

Again, personhood is irrelevant to me. What is important are the capacities of the being in question. Does it, for example, have an interest in not feeling pain? At some point, fetuses begin to have the capacity to feel pain, and hence do have such an interest. But then, so do any number of other creatures that we have no moral qualms about causing large amounts of pain to in the interest of food production. It is even possible for beings to have a capacity to feel pain (and hence it be morally wrong to cause them pain, all other things equal) but not have the capacity to fear death or have interests for the future which are frustrated by death.

So, for me, the question of the wrongness of killing a zygote/embryo/fetus rests on what capacities it has, and what countervailing interests are set against them.

[Grim_Beaker]

So, for me, the question of the wrongness of killing a zygote/embryo/fetus rests on what capacities it has, and what countervailing interests are set against them.

I already asked about capacities in another thread but I’ll do so here again, except in greater depth. You’ve mentioned a capacity for feeling pain as one capacity presumably along a continuum of capacities. Or perhaps a matrix would be the better structure to represent a beings capacity, with perhaps emotional, mental and physical all being dimensions within the matrix. Maybe there are other dimensions you would add to the list. In any case your statement regarding the wrongness of killing a being (whether that being is a fetus, a tape worm or a sheep) is dependent on it’s capacity and/or set of capacities. Of course, this begs the question… “What capacity or capacities make it wrong to kill an entity without it’s consent?”

[Grim_Beaker]

Actually, to be more complete the questions should be something like:

“In your opinion what and how strong are the countervailing interests in considering late term abortion? At what point does the capacity or set of capacities in a being override the aforementioned countervailing interests?”

[ElJeffe]

I’m a bit confused here. How is the frequency of late-term abortions that don’t involve the health of the mother AT ALL relevant to the question of whether or not they should be outlawed? By that argument, as soon as the murder rate drops below a certain level, we should legalize murder. Hey, if there’s only a few hundred murders a year, no sense having a whole law against it, right?

I’m against later-term and partial-birth abortions, except in cases where the mother’s health is at risk (and, as has been mentioned, not for fluffy reasons of “emotional distress”, but real, tangible, and serious health risks). If there is one abortion that is for other reasons, that is one too many. Sorry, but after a certain time frame, the life of the baby outweighs the convenience of the mother. If the mother has second thoughts at eight months… I don’t care. If the mother doesn’t realize she’s pregnant until eight months… I don’t care.

My general feelings on the matter are a bit more complicated. I’m pro-choice, but just barely. I think the act is regrettable, and while I don’t think all abortions should be outlawed, I think that we, as a society, should try to work to bring the number of abortions as low as possible. As to when they should be allowed? Well, I think that at Day 0, abortion is acceptable (or at least as acceptable as it gets). At 9 months, it’s unacceptable. Saying that the little 8-lb biped in your belly that moves and kicks and responds to stimulus and has brain waves and could survive on its own outside the womb is anything less than a full-fledged human is ludicrous to me.

However, that raises the question: At what point is the cut-off? Well, that’s tricky, and it’s the question that makes me pro-choice only reluctantly. Saying that at Day X it’s a blob of matter and at Day X+1 it’s a human presents obvious difficulties. Any cut-off point we use is going to be fairly arbitrary, but the arbitrariness of the cut-off doesn’t invalidate the need for one. Most of our laws have an arbitrary element to them (speed limit, anyone), yet we don’t argue that these laws are important. Abortion is no different.

Perusing the literature, it appears that most of the biological systems that we would consider to make up a human - brain activity, a beating heart, a nervous system, all the organs, and so on - are pretty much in place by Weeks 8-10. It’s been determined that the parts of the brain that can detect pain are there somewhere around Week 15, or so (if I remember correctly). In light of this, outlawing abortions (excpet for health reasons) after the first trimester seems fairly logical. And so that’s pretty much where I stand. Of course, my mind is always subject to change, but in this case, I would tend to change in the direction of the pro-lifers, if anything, given my tenouous support of the pro-choice position as is.

So anyway, getting back to the point… Can anyway enlighten me as to how the frequency of these dreaded non-health-related PBA’s is relevant to the issue of whether or not they should be banned?
Jeff