Who has the right to life?

[Sharon den Adel]

I'm surprised that this genetic screening is generally only available to women over 35. Any woman has a risk of having a child with Downs Syndrome, therefore all women should be entitled to have their embryo/fetus screened for any potential defects.

I myself do not want a child with Downs Syndrome, and would insist on screening the embryo/fetus as soon as possible to ensure it is not suffering from fetal defect or disorder.

I realise that saying I do not wish to have a child with special needs may come across as harsh, but I think we all have to consider what we are capable of.

Should we shrug our shoulders when we learn our unborn child has Downs Syndrome, (to use it as an example) and have the child anyway because it wouldn't be 'fair' to abort it? I think everyone should think about whether they would be capable of raising a child with special needs. That is, talk to parents of special needs children, research health issues, mental issues etc that may come with having a child with a disorder such as Downs.

Not everyone would be equipped to care for a special needs child, and no one should be forced to.

This should come down to personal choice. No one should be made to have a child with special needs if they do not feel they could cope.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Sharon den Adel

[WIP]

I'm surprised that this genetic screening is generally only available to women over 35. Any woman has a risk of having a child with Downs Syndrome, therefore all women should be entitled to have their embryo/fetus screened for any potential defects.

Obviously the over 35 policy has a lot to do with the increasing likelihood of birth defects in women who get pregnant at a later age, but your point is valid that birth defects can set in at any age regardless of how healthy and careful a woman is! During my wife's third and final pregnancy, she was concerned about possible harmful effects of a drug that she had been prescribed, and her gynecologist could only say that she could only determine that the level of risk was very low, but still a statistical possibility. Sometimes the odds are in your favour and sometimes their not! Her doctor said that she had delivered perfectly healthy babies from crack-addicted mothers, while having healthy young women face severe complications -- one never knows!

I myself do not want a child with Downs Syndrome, and would insist on screening the embryo/fetus as soon as possible to ensure it is not suffering from fetal defect or disorder.

I realise that saying I do not wish to have a child with special needs may come across as harsh, but I think we all have to consider what we are capable of.

Should we shrug our shoulders when we learn our unborn child has Downs Syndrome, (to use it as an example) and have the child anyway because it wouldn't be 'fair' to abort it? I think everyone should think about whether they would be capable of raising a child with special needs. That is, talk to parents of special needs children, research health issues, mental issues etc that may come with having a child with a disorder such as Downs.

Not everyone would be equipped to care for a special needs child, and no one should be forced to.

This should come down to personal choice. No one should be made to have a child with special needs if they do not feel they could cope.

I agree with you that personal choice should be the main determinant in deciding whether to go ahead with a pregnancy when birth defects are discovered, but for the record, not everyone with Down Syndrome is an institutional case! My older brother has a woman with Down Syndrome working at his store -- she is likely the best employee he has since she has the most seniority on the staff; but even though her cognitive abilities are at least average or close to average, she has health problems related to her affliction that are affecting her overall health right now, and will inevitably lead to an earlier death, like others with the disease. In many, if not most cases, it's worth asking if a life with Down Syndrome is worth living? But there are at least some examples where people with the disease are still able to live meaningful, productive lives.

The problem with making the decision a complete personal choice is what do you do with women who want an abortion because of more frivolous reasons, such as the baby is going to be the wrong sex? As far as I know, the sex of a child can't be determined before 16 weeks or so in pregnancy, so your talking about an abortion that's getting closer to the point where brain is developing the neural pathways to make control of movement possible later on in life. Does the fetus have a right to life at this point when it is well on the way to developing as a person?

And allowing sex selection as a reason for abortion usuallymeans aborting females, since some countries where women are valued less than men, such as India and China, are experiencing a shortage of young women already. State authorities are worried about possible unrest resulting from this imbalance in the near future. Should abortion be allowed for the purpose of sex-selection? I would vote no and would override personal choice in situations like this.

[Sharon den Adel]

As far as I know, the sex of a child can't be determined before 16 weeks or so in pregnancy, so your talking about an abortion that's getting closer to the point where brain is developing the neural pathways to make control of movement possible later on in life. Does the fetus have a right to life at this point when it is well on the way to developing as a person?

Good question, and my answer is no, for the reason that I support abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

And allowing sex selection as a reason for abortion usuallymeans aborting females, since some countries where women are valued less than men, such as India and China, are experiencing a shortage of young women already. State authorities are worried about possible unrest resulting from this imbalance in the near future. Should abortion be allowed for the purpose of sex-selection? I would vote no and would override personal choice in situations like this.

I do not agree with sex selection, I find it appalling that women could abort their child simply because they were the 'wrong' sex. However, I do support the choice to abort, even if I may not agree with the reasons behind that choice. I hope that made sense.

[M.Dancer]

I do not agree with sex selection, I find it appalling that women could abort their child simply because they were the 'wrong' sex. However, I do support the choice to abort, even if I may not agree with the reasons behind that choice. I hope that made sense.

It doesn't. I think you would agree that abortion cannot be a blanket right.

I'm sure you would agree that say, a woman who habitually gets pregnant and aborts so she can dine on the fetus would be over the line. Would you support her choice? No of course you wouldn't, there are good reasons, bad reasons and reasons that are grey. Cannibalism is not grey. Maybe sociopathic selfishness isn't either....

The only question is: where is the outrage line drawn?

Edited May 31, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Sharon den Adel]

The only question is: where is the outrage line drawn?

It depends on each person. Some people are outraged by certain images, and others are not. It depends on what each individual perceives as 'outrage'.

[Kitchener]

There's nothing even faintly problematic about holding that abortion is a blanket right, and finding some abortions appalling.

One can similarly hold that free speech is a blanket right, while holding some people's utterances to be disgusting and shameful. Or that adults have the right to drink alcohol; yet that some people's drinking is appalling. The consistency of these attitudes is clear to anyone capable of stringing two thoughts together.

Indeed, many supporters of access to abortion seem to have just such a consistent attitude; hence the slogan that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare."

[bush_cheney2004]

...Indeed, many supporters of access to abortion seem to have just such a consistent attitude; hence the slogan that abortions should be "safe, legal, and rare."

Then how come we don't see them on TV?

[Kitchener]

Then how come we don't see them on TV?

I can't speak to the issue of what you notice or remember from TV. Personally I see virtually no supporters of abortion access on television outside of brief references during elections; and those I do see rarely get enough air-time to differentiate their positions from the one I just summarized. So it's hard to know what you take yourself to be saying here.

But certainly the Democratic party in the US, and both especially both Clintons, have made "safe, legal, and rare" a mantra on the abortion issue over the past 15 years. Including on TV.

[M.Dancer]

It depends on each person. Some people are outraged by certain images, and others are not. It depends on what each individual perceives as 'outrage'.

Great....are all your morals so plastic...murder only being murder in the eyes of the beholders, theft only for those who see theft as theft..?

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way

[M.Dancer]

Then how come we don't see them on TV?

Slogans are nice.....and a slogan that reflects reality ...well that's rare....

Perhaps then someting like....Safe, Legal and Morally Repugnant.....but rare? Hasn't been for decades.

Edited May 31, 2008 by M.Dancer

[bush_cheney2004]

....But certainly the Democratic party in the US, and both especially both Clintons, have made "safe, legal, and rare" a mantra on the abortion issue over the past 15 years. Including on TV.

Ah, that's the political answer, but not the Reality TV answer. I can see "graphic" depictions of all our precious "rights" in broadcast media, but not abortions. Maybe on cable!

[Kitchener]

not the Reality TV answer

I suspect that neither you nor I knows what you're talking about now.

[Kitchener]

rare? Hasn't been for decades.

The slogan is about a goal (as slogans typically are) -- it's not meant to be a 3-word empirical study. "Rare" is an allusion to the conviction that an important way of addressing moral concerns about abortion is to educate about, and provide access to, contraception. Realism about the problem (as opposed to empty, ill-informed moralizing) requires seeing abortion policy and law as part of a general approach balancing bodily rights, reproductive autonomy, and the moral weightiness of unborn (and especially near-term) fetuses.

[bush_cheney2004]

I suspect that neither you nor I knows what you're talking about now.

Abortions man...I want to see abortions! Medically induced, suction aspiration, D&C/D&E, induction, and the grandaddy of them all....dilation and "extraction".

Let's celebrate the hard won right to give the unborn the goodbye look.

[M.Dancer]

The slogan is about a goal (as slogans typically are) -- it's not meant to be a 3-word empirical study. "Rare" is an allusion to the conviction that an important way of addressing moral concerns about abortion is to educate about, and provide access to, contraception. Realism about the problem (as opposed to empty, ill-informed moralizing) requires seeing abortion policy and law as part of a general approach balancing bodily rights, reproductive autonomy, and the moral weightiness of unborn (and especially near-term) fetuses.

I bow to your expertise of the raison d'etre of slogans.

How's this one?

Hey hey!!Ho Ho!

This damned inconvienent fetus has got to go

Hey Hey Ho ho

There....now the slogan is dealing witha goal (getting rid of an inconvient life) and it's honest.

[Kitchener]

...and it's honest.

We're talking about actual things, not stuff you make up.

[M.Dancer]

We're talking about actual things, not stuff you make up.

The things I have made aree sitting at my feet watching Alvin and the Chipmunks....the stuff you think you are talking about is rotting in a bio hazzard land fill. But please, wax philospohical about the moral concerns addressed in a slogan while at the same time, completely ignoring them.

Two Four Six Eight

Abortion ends a perfect Date

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey hey!!Ho Ho!

This damned inconvienent fetus has got to go

Hey Hey Ho ho

That's the spirit!

We cannot lose

The Right to Choose

'Cause fetal rights

Give us the blues!

Edited June 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Kitchener]

The things I have made aree

...stupid strawmen that you project onto people you haven't met, in situations you don't know. But please, do assure us that "it's honest". Your uninformed convictions carry ever so much weight.

But please, wax philospohical about the moral concerns addressed in a slogan while at the same time, completely ignoring them.

Since I've done neither of these things, this would be just the latest in your relentless string of moronic misrepresentations.

[M.Dancer]

Since I've done neither of these things, this would be just the latest in your relentless string of moronic misrepresentations.

I'm sure there is a long list of things you haven't done. #1 would be honestly standing by your statements.....

The slogan is about a goal (as slogans typically are) -- it's not meant to be a 3-word empirical study. "Rare" is an allusion to the conviction that an important way of addressing moral concerns about abortion is to educate about, and provide access to, contraception. Realism about the problem (as opposed to empty, ill-informed moralizing) requires seeing abortion policy and law as part of a general approach balancing bodily rights, reproductive autonomy, and the moral weightiness of unborn (and especially near-term) fetuses.

So go one....how does one address the moral concerns of killing a life throiugh education?

"Don't be depressed honey, it was just a fetus, here, have a condom.....

But my favourite ..."balancing bodily rights" How many rights does the fetius have when the mother wants it dead? "moral weightiness of unborn" Please...bend at the knees....

Now here is an oxymoron "reproductive autonomy" That hasn't been true since we evolved past the single cell stage of evolution.....

[Sharon den Adel]

Great....are all your morals so plastic...murder only being murder in the eyes of the beholders, theft only for those who see theft as theft..?

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way

Abortion isn't murder. It is legal, and therefore cannot be murder. It is simply personal opinion as to whether abortion is murder.

[M.Dancer]

Abortion isn't murder. It is legal, and therefore cannot be murder. It is simply personal opinion as to whether abortion is murder.

That's what I mean about plastic. It changes. If abortion somehow became against the law, iabortion I believe, in your opinion would be murder.

Sometimes morality exists inspite of what is legal...

....mind you, I didn't say it was murder.....never the less it is killing....only at the moment it is legal.

[Kitchener]

I'm sure there is a long list of things you haven't done. #1 would be honestly standing by your statements.....

Explaining things to you is neither waxing philosophical about them nor ignoring them. Sorry your silly false dilemma fell apart. But that'd be your problem for writing it, not mine for pointing out its foolishness.

So go one....how does one address the moral concerns of killing a life throiugh education?

By educating on how to avoid pregnancy in the first place: abstinence or contraception.

"Don't be depressed honey, it was just a fetus, here, have a condom.....

It's not enough to bang on the keyboard, petal. You should have some basic clue first.

But my favourite ..."balancing bodily rights" How many rights does the fetius have when the mother wants it dead?

That's a good question, which is why I mentioned it. Why don't you think about it instead of wetting your pants and spewing idiocy?

But whatever rights a fetus might have, a woman certainly has rights over her body -- a fact that must be reflected in abortion law. The fact that this is obvious, I'm sure, is no barrier to your fumbling it and shouting your way through half-witted another strawman, but there you go: bodily rights have to be factored in. Here's another question for you to puzzle over with your customary degree of honest reflection: What rights would a fetus need, in order to oblige a woman to donate her body to it for months? How many people die on Earth every day because you wouldn't donate a month's wages to them, never mind nine months use of your body?

"moral weightiness of unborn" Please...bend at the knees....

Yes, it's official -- you've gone from foolish dishonesty to outright incoherence.

Now here is an oxymoron "reproductive autonomy" That hasn't been true since we evolved past the single cell stage of evolution.....

Right. Nobody has ever had any degree of personal choice over whether and when they have children. You really have to start thinking, at least for half a moment, before making up stupid things and posting them as if you believe them.

[WIP]

Good question, and my answer is no, for the reason that I support abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

Hypothetically, that could mean abortion is permissible right up to the day before labour and the baby's delivery are due to occur. Assuming that you don't agree with infanticide, is there a difference between the 34 to 36 week old fetus and the newborn baby that justifies the distinction? The newborn may have moved outside of its mother's body but it is still totally dependent on the mother.

I do not agree with sex selection, I find it appalling that women could abort their child simply because they were the 'wrong' sex. However, I do support the choice to abort, even if I may not agree with the reasons behind that choice. I hope that made sense.

Should it still qualify as a personal lifestyle choice in situations where it is causing detrimental effects on society as a whole, such as in India and China?

A quick scan of the internet finds the abortion debate divided between "pro life" and "pro choice." The pro life lobbyists do not recognize a woman's right to privacy and personal autonomy at any point during pregnancy! Even some emergency contraceptives are forbidden because they might interfere with the magical point of "conception."

On the other hand, pro choice usually doesn't regard the new life as having any legitimacy and personal human rights that would compete with the woman's right to privacy even at the very end of the development process. It leads to an ironic dilemma where medical ethicists are demanding anesthesia be used during operations on fetuses that are past 24 weeks of development because of the possibility that the newly forming pain sense will affect the child subconsciously later in life -- similar to the connection made between psychological problems and difficult, premature births. Is there is an ethical obligation to also anaesthetize a third trimester fetus that's being aborted? If so, it makes it harder to argue that the late stage fetus has not become a person, if it is deemed worth protecting from unnecessary harm and suffering!

I can't find any polling numbers online for the breakdown in opinion on abortion beyond a simple yes/no question. The pro choice numbers are higher in Canada than in the U.S., but it's likely that we have a similar breakdown of the numbers as U.S. polling that asks more detailed questions. What's fascinating about the American abortion debate is that after 35 years of rhetorical warfare between two dogmatic positions, the majority of Americans are right where they were in 1975, with the majority agreeing that abortion should be legal in some, though not all situations:

The nonpartisan public opinion research organization, Public Agenda, points out that despite a generation of constant wrangling over abortion, American public opinion remains as divided as it was when Roe v. Wade was first decided. In 1975, a Gallup poll found that 54 percent thought abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances; 21 percent thought it should be legal in all circumstances; and 22 percent thought it should be illegal. In 2003, another Gallup poll saw these numbers shift to 57 percent; 24 percent; and 18 percent, respectively.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/35013.html

From my perspective, the unmoveable middleground represents a feeling that most people have on this debate -- that there are two competing interests that make an absolute position unreasonable. The argument is where to draw that line where one set of rights would take precedence over the other.

[charter.rights]

That's what I mean about plastic. It changes. If abortion somehow became against the law, iabortion I believe, in your opinion would be murder.

Sometimes morality exists inspite of what is legal...

....mind you, I didn't say it was murder.....never the less it is killing....only at the moment it is legal.

First trimester fetus' are not alive. They are part of the mother's body and she has the right to decide what to do with it.

The argument is very much like the definition of what constitutes death. Currently we suggest that the loss of brain activity constitutes death, even though we know that machines can keep the boy "alive" for days...months...and possibly even years.... Since the definition of death has been modified a number of times over the last century, it is likely an open door for future definitions being modified.

At the same time we must accept as a society that the fetus is not alive it is not conclusive proof of being unborn. It is merely the measure we currently use and therefore gives the woman the right to choose. However, once the fetus becomes a baby in the womb we must examine decisions of abortion and provide only legitimate reasons for doing so. Perhaps in 50 or 100 years we'll see this as a socially immoral act but until we redefine what constitutes life either in entering into or existing from, we are stuck with current definitions.

The real argument against the Right to Life movement isn't about stopping abortions or whether or not a fetus is alive or not, but it is about the refusal by a limited but extreme conservative group forcing their views on others, with no room for compromise or discussion. Among those that are pro-choice there is always room for discussion about whether or not a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body.