Morally??? Without the consent of the woman??? You act as if it has a choise, like it could live somewhere else if it wanted, but chooses to stay in the uterus.
Okay, so now we have a right to abort if the expectant mother’s health is at stake.
What all does that entail? Does mental health count? What if pregnancy means the woman will have to stop taking drugs that maintain her health but would not be deadly if she stops taking them (like drugs to prevent blindness in diabetics or something)? What about illegal drugs- would being addicted to them be a good enough reason to abort? What about legal drugs- you arn’t supposed to smoke, drink, or drink caffeine while pregnent- would it be responsible to force a woman that refuses to quit these drugs bring a potentially deformed child into the world? Or do we require her to keep the fetus and stop doing whatever substances she does? How do we do that?
Health is not such a cut and dried thing. And if we do allow exceptions for the mother’s health, shouldn’t we allow some for the mother’s lifestyle? There are jobs (model, handler of toxic chemicles, etc.) that can’t be done while pregnant. Loseing one’s medical insurance and livlihood is a pretty big health risk, I’d say.
If we allow men to force women not to have abortions, do they also have the ability to force pregnant women not to take drugs- legal, illegal or medical? What about cases of mental health, does the guy get an opinion on if he thinks it’d be too much of a risk? Does he still get to force her to carry the fetus to term if it is a bad but ultimately not-life threatening pregnancy- one that requires a couple months of bed rest or something?
I’m not writing this to try to find loopholes in your arguments. Rather, I’m trying to say that pregnancy is a pretty intense and complex thing. Even when it looks like someone is aborting a fetus out of “convenience” there could be nearly infinite factors closely related to that womans body- and perhaps unknown to anyone else- that convince her that carrying a fetus full-term isn’t a good idea. And women need to have control over their bodies. Bodies arn’t just shells or transoportation devices for the brain. They are complicated and nuanced entities that are intimiately related to a person’s life and soul. Women need to have determinism over their bodies and their lives. Only they truly know their body’s rhythms and weaknesses and changes. Only they know what pregnency will do to them. And only they should decide if an abortion is the right thing or not.
Actually, no – and that’s one of the biggest complaints that pro-lifers have regarding Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
What I’ve been saying is that abortion is justified if the mother’s LIFE is in serious jeopardy. As I said, a conscientious physician should attempt to save both lives, if at all possible. It would be the height of irresponsibility to say “Well, the mother might die, so let’s kill the fetus right now!”
As for the argument, “Well, I think I would commit suicide if I had to give birth, so I should just have an abortion” – come on! Do we really need to explain why that’s a false dilemma? Do the words “professional help” not come to mind?
And you show a profound ignorance of mental illness. Mental illness is just as much a product of physiology as physical disease. And there are any number of mental illnesses that can’t be treated with counseling alone. There are several medications that are safe to take during pregnancy; Prozac and lithium being two of them. However, many drugs are very dangerous to take because they can cause severe birth defects, which would seem to me to defeat the purpose of outlawing abortion.
It’s a trade-off. Should even sven be forced to take medications to control her illness, even though they may be dangerous to the fetus? Or should she be required not to take appropriate medications and endure the hell of an active illness?
Finally, what of the child forced to live with a mother who may not be mentally equipped to raise it? Do you think it’s fair to subject it to a lifetime of possible mistreatment or even death at the hands of a mother who is delusional or hallucinatory? (Think Andrea Yates, among others.) Even more important, since mental illness can be genetic, is it fair to bring a child into the world with the knowledge that s/he may end up with the same illness?
The world isn’t a black and white place. There are many, many shades of grey. A woman’s choices shouldn’t be celibacy or pregnancy.
Robin
And the preceding was brought to you by MsRobyn, and not by Airman.
Robin
You’re oversimplifying the nature of mental illness, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that to be true.
No, because not even fetal deformity is justification for ending a human life.
Besides, even if we grant your claims to be 100% accurate, and even if we assume that deformed fetuses SHOULD be aborted (which I most certainly disagree with!), that would only abortions for CERTAIN women in danger of suicide. It would NOT justify abortion for all women with suicidal leanings, and it most certainly would NOT justify abortion in general.
This is one of the classic problems with the pro-choice cause. They routinely seize on rare and unusual cases (rape, incest, fetal deformity and endangerment of the mother’s life) and use these to justify abortion in general. As I said before, that’s like saying that speeding is sometimes necessary (in medical emergencies, for example) and so speeding should be allowed in all circumstances. The folly of such reasoning should be immediately obvious.
The medications MIGHT be dangerous to the fetus, but abortion most certainly is. Abortion almost invariably results in death, and in the rare cases where the fetus survives (e.g. Gianna Jensen), he/she is damaged for life. It’s rather foolish to harp on the potential dangers of taking medication, while ignoring the fact that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being.
Moreover, as I said, such instances only apply to certain cases of mental illness… and thus, can not be used to justify abortion for all mentally ill patients, or all of womankind.
Besides, as I said, the physician’s duty should be to save both mother and child, if at all possible. This could, in some hypothetical case, mean balancing the risk to the mother against the risk to the child. It most certainly does NOT mean that a layperson (e.g. the mother) should be given unilateral authority to kill the unborn for the sake of saving her own neck.
Then I assume to “save your own neck” you would forbid killing in self defense?
Not at all. In fact, I’ve repeatedly said that abortion is sometimes justified, to save the mother’s life.
Killing in self-defense is not always justified. This is by no means the same as saying that it is never justified. I trust that the distinction is clear.
Okay, JThunder, try this info on for size:
From this site:
(Note: Bolding mine, caps theirs.)
So, let me ask you again. Given your dismissal of psychiatric problems as “a false argument”, and given your reluctance to approve of abortion even in cases of fetal deformity:
Does this mean that a child with significant, severe birth defects with absolutely no chance at a life free of pain and intensive medical needs should be brought into the world?
Or, consider this. Should the family of a child with these birth defects have to face caring for this child, or face losing the child after birth? I’ve lost a child; it’s the worst possible thing that can happen to anyone. While my older son was in intensive care, I saw children with these kinds of defects. They were not capable of anything close to a normal life. Their lives were spent in and out of the hospital. Most of them were unable to develop past what we would consider normal for an infant. In other words, my (now) six-month-old can do a lot more than some of the kids in the ICU ever could. Their families faced the pain of having a child who could never do what most children can; who spend their lives in hospital or in special institutions because home care is impossible. And most of these kids were on Medicaid (funded by your taxpayer dollars) because of the cost of care.
Care to re-think your position?
Robin
Irrelevant. The article only says that some medications can cause fetal abnormalities which are sometimes fatal to the unborn. (Note the exact phrasing, “compatible AND incompatible with life.”)
In other words, even if we grant that such badly deformed individuals should be aborted (a question which I shall explore shortly), it would only apply to certain cases of mental illness where the mother is taking certain medications. It does not justify abo
rtion for the mentally ill in general, and it certain does not justify abortion at large.
You know, I’ve pointed this out SEVERAL times already. Several times. I think we all know why you’re ignoring this fact.
ABSOLUTELY. Not even deformed individuals deserve to have their lives taken away from them. Or do you seriously think that they deserve to be snuffed out?
In fact, can you tell us what the suicide rate is for people with such handicaps? It is less than that of the general population. In fact, according to some, it is virtually zero.
Considering how valuable human life is, if you’re to argue that these individuals should be killed, then I think you had better find darned good evidence that the majority of these people have no desire to live.
YES. The fact that the child may be a burden does not absolve them of responsibility. After all, if an infant were to have a serious, crippling accident, would this absolve the parents of the need to care for that infant? Certainly not. Such circumstances are difficult, but they do not mean that the parents can walk away from responsibility – at least, not in civilized society. They must provide care for the child, either directly or through other means (e.g. foster care or adoption).
I know that it’s tragic, as your own family has lost children as well. More recently, two of my dear friends had a child who was badly deformed, and who lasted less than a week. However, this still does not justify taking that innocent’s own life. Civilized human beings do NOT kill innocents humans in order to avoid financial expense, or to spare themselves grief.
<aside> I’d just like to apologise to candida and catsix for not replying to their posts. I tend to get stress headaches and I’m under a lot of pressure with university projects and haven’t had much free time for anything except lying in a dark room with a towel over my eyes these last few days. This friday is the deadline for my project and once that’s out the way I’ll be able to correspond with you some more. Hopefully this debate won’t have run out of steam before then.
Regards,
Ben.
This debate will never run out of steam. Neither here, nor in real life.
JThunder, I don’t think we’ll ever really understand each other. Therefore, I don’t have anything else to say about this issue, so I’m bowing out.
Robin
As the odds that JThunder, dil and I will ever reach a mutual understanding are about as high as the odds that I would consult them for my medical decisions, I think nothing can be gained from further discussion.
G’Day.
Six
Ok, since I was just made a liar of, and this thread is loosing steam 
Guess I’m out of here too.
Well, can we at least agree that before we ordain the killing of deformed human beings – on the grounds that they’ll face pain and suffering – that we should at least find out how deformed humans actually feel about this?
I mean, c’mon. If we’re to claim that their lives are not worth living, shouldn’t we hear from them first? Is there any evidence that they are attempting suicide en masse? Seems to me that we should determine that first, before we make this decision on their behalf.
The issue isn’t that the kid is deformed, as much as the kid is being deformed by the willful (but perhaps unavoidable) actions of the parent. If I were forced to carry a pregnancy to term, I would be faced with the horrible choice of causeing a human with terrible life-long disabilities to be brought into this world through my willful and knowing actions (continueing to take meds) or else dealing with the unspeakable hell of mental illness and the high possiblity of killing myself (and, in the process, the fetus).
I don’t think I could bring myself to ingest a chemicle that I knew would be poisening a fetus in my womb and would result in a person that would never lead a normal life because of my actions. Could you take a pill if you knew that taking it would result in another person having to deal with a disability? So that leaves me with the other option- stop taking meds and hope nobody dies. Great. I’m sorry, those terms are a lot less acceptable that abortion. At least with abortion one of the parties gets a choice!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by even sven *
**The issue isn’t that the kid is deformed, as much as the kid is being deformed by the willful (but perhaps unavoidable) actions of the parent.
And how is that relevant? That only pertains to the manner in which they became deformed. It does not address the issue of whether these individuals would prefer to be killed or not.
Remember, the claim was made that these unborn individuals should be killed, so as to spare them from pain and suffering. Before jumping to that conclusion, should one not provide evidence that the vast majority of deformed individuals DO want to die?
Ah. In which case, the true motive is not an one of kindness. Rather, the act is to irrevocably end another human life, so as to avoid facing the painful consequence of one’s actions.
Which, as we’ve already seen, is a false dilemma, for reasons indicated earlier. Moreover, it smacks of practicing medical self-diagnosis without a license, and wielding the assumption that one will indeed commit suicide. Even if that assumption is likely, it is not something which the layperson should conclude without seeking extensive medical consultation.
And of course, I’ve already pointed out that such reasoning, even if it were valid, would only apply to a subset of cases where the mother is contemplating suicide, and a far smaller subset (by comparison) of cases where the woman is pregnant.
WTF are you talking about JThunder? I have been suicidal in the past. I have sat down in front of the pills, I have stood at the edge of the cliff, I have scratched with the knife. All this without bizarre hormones raging through my body