Raped by her uncle, but can she have an abortion? (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

Let's list them, and I shall list the situations where it doesn't.

- pregnancy in those of extreme youth (like this 11-year-old, in which it is generally dangerous to carry a foetus to term)
- pregnancy in those at risk of gestational diabetes (a family friend of mine got this in her third pregnancy, and almost died when it transformed into type II. She had a triple transplant. Her son is an awesome little guy, but she should not have had that pregnancy)
- high risk pregnancies because of other health issues

Etc etc. A mother's life ALWAYS trumps that of a zygote or a foetus under 28 weeks, and I would go so far to say that her life trumps that of her baby in all cases, given that the mother, having lived for however many years before conceiving and possessing experiences and relationships, certainly has more claim to life in instances where it's "one-or-the-other" (i.e. mother must die, baby must die or both will die).

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

@Squeenie

I agree. Like I said, there are situations where an abortion seems acceptable. Italics because I'm really not sure about it.

- pregnancy in those of extreme youth (like this 11-year-old, in which it is generally dangerous to carry a foetus to term)
- pregnancy in those at risk of gestational diabetes (a family friend of mine got this in her third pregnancy, and almost died when it transformed into type II. She had a triple transplant. Her son is an awesome little guy, but she should not have had that pregnancy)
- high risk pregnancies because of other health issues

Etc etc. A mother's life ALWAYS trumps that of a zygote or a foetus under 28 weeks, and I would go so far to say that her life trumps that of her baby in all cases, given that the mother, having lived for however many years before conceiving and possessing experiences and relationships, certainly has more claim to life in instances where it's "one-or-the-other" (i.e. mother must die, baby must die or both will die).

Since when does having lived a more varied life (mothers experiences>babies experiences) suddenly make one more worthy of living in the future? I'd say that baby has a greater potential to have a productive life from that point onward than a mother does, since the baby has a lengthier period of child producing ability ahead of it. I'm assuming that propagation of species is key here. Other than that though the baby presumably has more years ahead of it. Should the baby have a small chance of having a productive or healthy life and the mothers life is in danger (such with with high risk pregnancies like you mentioned), then yes, I'd say that having an abortion would be the morally sound decision to take in that case. If the mother's life is in danger and the babies is not, then I do not support an abortion in that particular scenario. Once again, because I'm appealing to the sanctity of life (can't choose one over the other, a life is a life) and that the baby has a more productive life ahead of it (propagation). I'll also add that since I don't agree with human intervention in situations where it's one life against another, that I believe that it's best to simply let nature decide - natural selection. If the mother or baby dies, then so be it. It ought not to be up to other humans to decide when and if other humans die in all but the most extreme circumstances.

I'm not aware of the statistics of reasons behind abortions. Does anyone know why the majority of abortions take place?

Also, why 28 weeks? What's so special about that end point?

 

[Kwayera]

A consequence of sex is a baby. If you're prepared to have sex then you know the risks. Condoms are not, and have never pretended to be 100% infalliable. You know this. Everyone knows this. A broken condom is not an excuse.

Yes it is, because the intent was not there.

Someone who's driving a car, has a dog run out in front of them, swerves and kills someone on the roadside is not responsible for their death in my books, because even though killing someone is a consequence of driving a car, the intent to kill was not there.

 

[Kwayera]

I agree. Like I said, there are situations where an abortion seems acceptable. Italics because I'm really not sure about it.

So what are the situations where it doesn't, that don't infringe on the rights of the mother?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Yes it is, because the intent was not there.

Intent is not an issue. Like I said, the point to having sex is to produce a baby and there's no way to plead ignorance in this situation.

Someone who's driving a car, has a dog run out in front of them, swerves and kills someone on the roadside is not responsible for their death in my books, because even though killing someone is a consequence of driving a car, the intent to kill was not there.

Nice straw man.

The chances of hitting a pedestrian while driving is slim. The point of driving is not to hit pedestrians. You should have said: Someone is driving along the footpath, swerves and hits a pedestrian, resulting in their death yada yada yada.

The chance of a condom breaking is significantly higher. The point of having sex is to make babies (sperm+egg=zygote. it's in the year 8 science syllabus).

EDIT: By the way, and fairly importantly, I don't like my stance on abortion, but it seems like the only morally acceptable view to have. If someone was able to prove me wrong or change my mind then I'd be pretty happy about it, because for the first 20 years of my life (or since I learned what an abortion was) I was pro-abortion. I hate babies, and if I had one in me I'd abort it. I wouldn't think that would be the right decision and I would call myself a murderer, but I'd still do it.

 

[Kwayera]

=
Since when does having lived a more varied life (mothers experiences>babies experiences) suddenly make one more worthy of living in the future? I'd say that baby has a greater potential to have a productive life from that point onward than a mother does, since the baby has a lengthier period of child producing ability ahead of it.

Only in the terms of the fact that the mother is necessarily older. The fact that the mother has already successfully reproduced once actually goes towards her favour.

[quoteI'm assuming that propagation of species is key here. Other than that though the baby presumably has more years ahead of it. Should the baby have a small chance of having a productive or healthy life and the mothers life is in danger (such with with high risk pregnancies like you mentioned), then yes, I'd say that having an abortion would be the morally sound decision to take in that case. If the mother's life is in danger and the babies is not, then I do not support an abortion in that particular scenario.[/quote]

So you would force the mother to die to give birth, even though the child may not survive, given the scenario of gestational diabetes where the only person at risk is the mother (as it was not passed on to the child)?

Once again, because I'm appealing to the sanctity of life (can't choose one over the other, a life is a life) and that the baby has a more productive life ahead of it (propagation).

What makes you say the baby has a more productive life ahead of it? As with other animal species in which females survive past their reproductive periods, the mother has many years of productivity left, and has a much higher chance of surviving to fulfull that productivity than an infant that is vulnerable to infection, SIDS, etc..

I'll also add that since I don't agree with human intervention in situations where it's one life against another, that I believe that it's best to simply let nature decide - natural selection.

That is not natural selection. Natural selection is selection for traits that increase your individual relative Darwinian fitness - that is, to produce as many viable (surviving) offspring as possible. In fact forcing a mother to endure a dangerous pregnancy defies Darwinian fitness and thus natural selection.

If the mother or baby dies, then so be it. It ought not to be up to other humans to decide when and if other humans die in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Pregnancy is not extreme in that it is not rare, but it is extreme in that it is dangerous.

I'm not aware of the statistics of reasons behind abortions. Does anyone know why the majority of abortions take place?

Also, why 28 weeks? What's so special about that end point?

No idea about those stats, but ~28 weeks (although in some cases it is ~26 weeks) is when the thalamic brain connections necessary for feeling pain and other sensory inputs form and develop. Foetuses born before 26-28 weeks often do not survive.

 

[scarybunny]

I don't think anyone skips out of an abortion clinic, but sometimes it's the lesser of two problems. Either way, an accidental pregnancy is going to emotionally disrupt you.


And Neb, that's what personal morality is all about. You come to realise that the world functions in shades of grey, and you will rarely be happy with every aspect of a moral decision.

 

[Iron]

Im with Nebz on this. It's totally irresponsible and selfish to insist on a right to have sex without consequences. It's just another excuse to cut love out of a relationship.

 

[Kwayera]

Intent is not an issue. Like I said, the point to having sex is to produce a baby and there's no way to plead ignorance in this situation.

Actually that is not accurate in humans, and for a large amount of social species besides. Sex is also used to cement social bonds, and in many primate and cetacean societies, it remains very important in that role, and even in species with displayed ovulation and a clear breeding season, sex outside these times occurs (and often) as a bonding tool - and that is important, and worth expending the energy for. So no, sex is not just for reproduction, as has been argued ad infinatum in the DGE? thread.

Clear though gross example: sex between adults in which the female is well above breeding age and has undergone menopause.

Nice straw man.

The chances of hitting a pedestrian while driving is slim. The point of driving is not to hit pedestrians. You should have said: Someone is driving along the footpath, swerves and hits a pedestrian, resulting in their death yada yada yada.

Not that slim, and it's the same principle as you used. The point of sex is not ALWAYS to reproduce, and that is an important distinction.

The chance of a condom breaking is significantly higher. The point of having sex is to make babies (sperm+egg=zygote. it's in the year 8 science syllabus).

The chance of a condom breaking is not significantly higher, and even when not using contraception, the chance of conceiving is not high in itself, and the chance of remaining pregnant is not high either (in fact, rather inefficiently, most zygotes are unviable and are aborted very early on, often misinterpreted as an oddly-timed period).
I was going to say something further on this, but I forgot mid-sentence D:

 

[lorikeet]

I love that this was posted in 'Light and Offbeat news'

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Ner! Put it in one post!

Im with Nebz on this. It's totally irresponsible and selfish to insist on a right to have sex without consequences. It's just another excuse to cut love out of a relationship.

Silence troll.

I don't think anyone skips out of an abortion clinic, but sometimes it's the lesser of two problems. Either way, an accidental pregnancy is going to emotionally disrupt you.

And of the disruption to the baby? Forgive me, but it sounds as if you're dismissing the baby here, which is disturbing.

So you would force the mother to die to give birth, even though the child may not survive, given the scenario of gestational diabetes where the only person at risk is the mother (as it was not passed on to the child)?

So there's a risk to the mother but no risk to the baby? I would force the pregnancy, potentially leading to the death of the mother, yes.

Only in the terms of the fact that the mother is necessarily older. The fact that the mother has already successfully reproduced once actually goes towards her favour.

I don't follow.

What makes you say the baby has a more productive life ahead of it? As with other animal species in which females survive past their reproductive periods, the mother has many years of productivity left, and has a much higher chance of surviving to fulfull that productivity than an infant that is vulnerable to infection, SIDS, etc..

Assuming average life expectancy:

Productive years left of baby = x years
Productive years left of mother = x years - (current age) years.

The baby is certainly open to infection etc, and years ago (or in certain countries even now, mind) the abortion would have been the more biologically sensible route to take (perhaps not morally). In Australia I would believe we have the medical ability to keep the baby alive in the vast majority of cases.

That is not natural selection. Natural selection is selection for traits that increase your individual relative Darwinian fitness - that is, to produce as many viable (surviving) offspring as possible. In fact forcing a mother to endure a dangerous pregnancy defies Darwinian fitness and thus natural selection.

Fine fine. My mistake. I should have used a different word. My point still stands about um, naturalism?

Pregnancy is not extreme in that it is not rare, but it is extreme in that it is dangerous.

You know that's not what I meant by extreme.

No idea about those stats, but ~28 weeks (although in some cases it is ~26 weeks) is when the thalamic brain connections necessary for feeling pain and other sensory inputs form and develop. Foetuses born before 26-28 weeks often do not survive.

It's the arbitrary average. The only non-arbitrary point I've yet learned about is at the initial point of fertilisation. If there were a later point at which life began, I would come around and fully accept abortions up to that point, and would have absolutely no qualms with accepting it.

Actually that is not accurate in humans, and for a large amount of social species besides. Sex is also used to cement social bonds, and in many primate and cetacean societies, it remains very important in that role, and even in species with displayed ovulation and a clear breeding season, sex outside these times occurs (and often) as a bonding tool - and that is important, and worth expending the energy for. So no, sex is not just for reproduction, as has been argued ad infinatum in the DGE? thread.

Clear though gross example: sex between adults in which the female is well above breeding age and has undergone menopause.

Would you agree that the primary purpose of sex is to propagate species? Do you concede that in all but the most extreme circumstances (conservative home schooling mebbe ) the risk of falling pregnant following concensual sex is known, even if unlikely?

The chance of a condom breaking is not significantly higher

I say we should compare statistics if we want an answer here.

(in fact, rather inefficiently, most zygotes are unviable and are aborted very early on, often misinterpreted as an oddly-timed period)

Ehhh, by abortion I'm strictly talking about the conscious, assisted variety. Not the unassisted, "biological" form.

 

[jb_nc]

im a gay baby aborteing muslim.

pm me for all your abortion and mujahideen needs.

 

[squeenie]

I love that this was posted in 'Light and Offbeat news'

See, this is why we need to change this forum!

Anyways, Kwayera is right. There is proof that animals other than humans have sex for pleasure. Dolphins do it, for example. And aren't we supposed to be talking about a girl who got raped? Meaning she had no say in it?

So there's a risk to the mother but no risk to the baby? I would force the pregnancy, potentially leading to the death of the mother, yes.

And I find it disturbing that you're dismissing the life of the mother here. As I've said twice before in this thread, abortion is sometimes a necessary evil that is needed to save someone's life and sanity. In the original article, it said that the girl was 20 weeks pregnant, which is before the thalamic brain connections form in the foetus, that allow it to feel pain.

But I guess another question that comes out of this is that is the foetus conscious of its existence? And when does it become so? I suppose if it really was conscious of its existence, that would make abortion seem even worse than it already is.

It seems that this thread just gets more complicated with every post...

 

[Kwayera]

And of the disruption to the baby? Forgive me, but it sounds as if you're dismissing the baby here, which is disturbing.

At the current legal age up to abortion in most (if not all) countries where it is legal - only before 24 weeks - the baby does not know. You are obfuscating a living, thinking being with a being who by definition cannot yet think and feel.

So there's a risk to the mother but no risk to the baby? I would force the pregnancy, potentially leading to the death of the mother, yes.

...and so you do the very thing that you have said you couldn't; chosen one life over another, even if only by inaction.

I don't follow.

A female who has successfully given birth has proved herself fit enough to
- continue surviving long enough to
- breed again.

Assuming average life expectancy:

Productive years left of baby = x years
Productive years left of mother = x years - (current age) years.

The baby is certainly open to infection etc, and years ago (or in certain countries even now, mind) the abortion would have been the more biologically sensible route to take (perhaps not morally). In Australia I would believe we have the medical ability to keep the baby alive in the vast majority of cases.

That's counting chickens before they hatch. Productively (and yes, this is biology, and it's cold - live with it), the adult female is worth more than the baby, because she has survived to sexual maturity and already proven her ability to breed. Her child has not, and (in the case of other animals) may not even survive childhood long enough to breed.

Fine fine. My mistake. I should have used a different word. My point still stands about um, naturalism?

Not really, no. We interfere with other species' reproductive processes all the time.

It's the arbitrary average. The only non-arbitrary point I've yet learned about is at the initial point of fertilisation. If there were a later point at which life began, I would come around and fully accept abortions up to that point, and would have absolutely no qualms with accepting it.

You would give a blastocyst full human rights status? It is a ball of cells. And up to ~24 weeks (giving a bit of wiggle room), the foetus can neither think nor feel. How judge you that it is afforded more rights than a person who can?

Would you agree that the primary purpose of sex is to propagate species? Do you concede that in all but the most extreme circumstances (conservative home schooling mebbe ) the risk of falling pregnant following concensual sex is known, even if unlikely?

I would in the latter, but not in the former. It is an important distinction to make for our species, amongst others - sex is not primarily for reproduction. The social bonds formed during sex can increase an individual's Darwinian fitness, but not directly.

Ehhh, by abortion I'm strictly talking about the conscious, assisted variety. Not the unassisted, "biological" form.

You said earlier that intent didn't matter. Through no fault of her own, a woman can spontaneously abort a foetus, even a viable one. Is that still murder?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

And I find it disturbing that you're dismissing the life of the mother here.

I'm not dismissing the life of the mother by any sane stretch of the imagination. My personal belief on abortion centres around the idea that the life of the mother and child are equivilent, and that it is not in the place of other humans to decide which lives and which dies without reasonable probability of survival in one case. Don't twist my words.

As for consciousness, that opens up a whole range of other issues. Do we just kill "vegetables", and if so, is it moral? My answer to both would be no, and for the reasons already stated.

At the current legal age up to abortion in most (if not all) countries where it is legal - only before 24 weeks - the baby does not know. You are obfuscating a living, thinking being with a being who by definition cannot yet think and feel.

No, I'm just not making a distinction based on consciousness or otherwise.

...and so you do the very thing that you have said you couldn't; chosen one life over another, even if only by inaction.

I've chosen to allow one to live over the other, but I personally haven't given preference because I see both as equal.

A female who has successfully given birth has proved herself fit enough to
- continue surviving long enough to
- breed again.

And of the fertile time left?

That's counting chickens before they hatch. Productively (and yes, this is biology, and it's cold - live with it), the adult female is worth more than the baby, because she has survived to sexual maturity and already proven her ability to breed. Her child has not, and (in the case of other animals) may not even survive childhood long enough to breed.

I don't want to pass judgement on this before I see statistics or something showing that actual productivity (chances of producing offspring) in a healthy, once pregnant adult female compared to a baby still to develop. In poorer countries the balance would be tipped towards the mother, but in Australia I'd believe it's a lot closer (actually, I'd believe that it'd swing the other way).

Not really, no. We interfere with other species' reproductive processes all the time.

And do I agree with this, or put humans on the same level as other species?

You would give a blastocyst full human rights status? It is a ball of cells. And up to ~24 weeks (giving a bit of wiggle room), the foetus can neither think nor feel. How judge you that it is afforded more rights than a person who can?

I give them that status because I see no other fair and solid boundary to put in place.

I would in the latter, but not in the former. It is an important distinction to make for our species, amongst others - sex is not primarily for reproduction. The social bonds formed during sex can increase an individual's Darwinian fitness, but not directly.

The social bonds/mate selection process is there, I don't doubt it, but I'd think that the overall purpose of sex is to make babies. Like um, a gun. The majority of gun shootings are at targets, but the purpose of a gun is not to shoot targets, it's to incapacitate or stop living things. Guns are made for that purpose, although they're used more often (overwhelmingly more often) in other circumstances. Poor analogy but it's the best one I could come up with.

You said earlier that intent didn't matter. Through no fault of her own, a woman can spontaneously abort a foetus, even a viable one. Is that still murder?

Nope, because by murder I'm talking predmeditated or conscious killing. I probably shouldn't be using the word 'murder' since that implies illegality, but you get what I mean.

 

[Serius]

No idea about those stats, but ~28 weeks (although in some cases it is ~26 weeks) is when the thalamic brain connections necessary for feeling pain and other sensory inputs form and develop. Foetuses born before 26-28 weeks often do not survive.

Well uh, babies have been born before 26 weeks, record i think is 22 weeks or something rediculous....thats my input.

I know you werent making that claim, but a lot of pro choicers say that its not murder because abortions happen before the baby is even viable, where as if they are happening up to 28 weeks...well the baby can actually survive outside the uterus then.

 

[Kwayera]

Well uh, babies have been born before 26 weeks, record i think is 22 weeks or something rediculous....thats my input.

I know you werent making that claim, but a lot of pro choicers say that its not murder because abortions happen before the baby is even viable, where as if they are happening up to 28 weeks...well the baby can actually survive outside the uterus then.

I'll respond to Neb later, but as I said, babies born before 26-28 weeks often do not survive. They can and do with prenatal care but that is extremely rare, even in first world countries. If they do survive, they generally have sever respiratory disorders all their life.

If that baby born at 22 weeks survived, he's extremely lucky.

 

[alex1905]

The little slut is clearly lying about being raped so she can get an abortion and not face the consequences of being the dirty whore that she is.

Oh yeah, cause an 11 year old would do that, jerk.

 

[Kwayera]

Pssst. He was being facetious.

 

[lala2]

Nebuchanezzar mentioned vegetables, and this brings to mind the whole concept of sentience and what exactly is defined as life. Why are we so opposed to what I see as the stopping of a bunch of cells from dividing further when we can just cut down trees that are decades, possibly even hundreds of years old? Of course, once the baby starts to develop its senses, then that might be the cutoff point because it's when it starts to become sentient.

The question becomes, I feel, defining what life is--is it sentience, an experience of not being dead, just existing, or something else? Because ultimately I feel the debate about abortion is how you define life and under what circumstances.