News Should abortion be considered murder?

[misskitty]

Please permit me to be a little more specific, and forgive me if this has already been covered, since I dind't read the whole thread (if I'm echoing anyone, just consider it me agreeing with you)...

The abortion debate has 3 parts (and yes, the order is important):

Part 1 is the determination of the moral status of the mother and her offspring. For some, the answer is simply "life" begins at conception and a 1 second old zygote is the moral equivalent of an adult, human female. Note, I include "female" in that because the idea that females and males are equivalent moral agents is a relatively new concept and one that still enters the debate from time to time. For others, the status of the offspring may even change on a daily basis, based on its stage of development.

On part 1, for the two sides, there can be no general agreement (as we've seen, even on part 1's existence), but at the very least the two sides can endeavour to understand each other.

There is a limited possiblity, as you said, to really know when a zygote really does become a human. Like Moonbear said in her earlier post, a woman's body might just naturally abort the pregnancy and she may just believe her period was late by a few days. As I stated before, there are many reasons for a woman to be late, even elivated levels exercise can throw a cycle off.

Part 2 is about resolving the conflict of rights between the two moral agents above. This comes from the western principles of rights: your rights extend only as far as they trample the rights of another. Its the key question in virtually any discussion of rights (consider smoking: the rights of the smoker and non-smoker in a restaraunt conflict with each other) This question is actually simplest for the far-prochoice side: if "life" starts at birth, then there are no rights to conflict with. Though the far pro-life side also often sees the answer in such clear terms, the fact of the matter is that its not clear: Even if a 1 second old zygote is considered the moral equivalent of an adult human female, the conflict between their rights still has to be remedied. Ie, if they both have an equivalent right to life, there may be a case (a car accident, for example), where the fetus's existence threatens the life of the mother and a decision has to be made as to who'se life takes priority.

This makes sense. I can agree with your smoker in a restaurant analogy. If I was the victim in a accident like that, I'd want them to save me, not to sound selfish, because that's not it.

Part 3 is making this all fit with practical reality. Its been alluded to before, but the examples given were bad: a good example of this is Prohibition. It was decided that drinking was immoral/wrong and a detriment to society, so it was outlawed. Fine. But the practical reality was that outlawing it created more problems than it solved. Thus, Prohibition was repealed.

As I said before, this debate has little chance of arriving at a general agreement - but let's face it, which debates ever do? This debate may be more contentuous than average, but its not fundamentally different in that way. The best we can hope for is to gain an understanding of and respect for the various viewpoints. The reason I'm even discussing this at all (as I said before, I tend to avoid this issue) is that I see some potential for a serious, civil, respectful discussion here. It would be unprecidented, but it would be a good thing and I'd like to see it happen.

Russ, you always present your arguements so eloquaintly! I mean it too seriously. I agree with Kerrie, your prohibition analogy fits this perfectly, or as close as we're going to get. I can't really say anything except you have presented a really good argument just like Kerrie, Evo, and a few others here.

By the time this thread dies, I might have a different position. Nobody cross their fingers though. This isn't about changing peoples' views, its about respectfully discussing a controversial topic in a civil manner.

 

[Moonbear]

This is another question I have. I think Evo, Moonbear, or Kerrie might be the most qualified to answer this, nothing against everyone else of course! Anyway, can't a c-section (I can't spell what the "c" stands for) prevent or hinder a woman's ability to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term? What are some of the horrible affects of an abortion...we don't get this information in the education program.

There shouldn't be any problems with future pregnancies, as long as everything went properly with the c-section. Some obstetricians prefer to err on the side of caution and plan c-sections for subsequent deliveries based on an old belief that a c-section would weaken the wall of the uterus and lead to rupture during a normal vaginal delivery, but more recent reports say there's no reason to need to do this.

A uterine rupture, if it does happen, is a pretty serious complication. If it's minor, sometimes it is possible to carry a pregnancy to near term, but sometimes it is severe enough to be life-threatening. This is also rather rare, and would be a situation where if the course of treatment required abortion, I don't think even most pro-life proponents would argue against it as the only alternative is for both the mother and embryo or fetus to die if the mother bleeds to death. When the complications are this life-threatening, I don't think there's even an issue of choice; the mother can want to carry the pregnancy, but there's just no physical way to do it.

I will get back to you on the risks/potential complications of abortion (I assume you mean risk to the woman). Are you interested in a discussion of the emotional risks, or just the physical/medical risks? Like any medical procedure, it is not risk free, although, neither is giving birth.

But, I will point out that the procedure used for early (first trimester) abortions is the same procedure used to evacuate the uterus when spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) occurs and is detected on ultrasound or when the embryonic membranes and tissues are not fully expelled naturally. Either hormones are given to induce labor-like expulsion, or a precedure known as vacuum aspiration is performed where the cervix is dilated and the contents of the uterus are removed with vacuum.

 

[Evo]

This is another question I have. I think Evo, Moonbear, or Kerrie might be the most qualified to answer this, nothing against everyone else of course! Anyway, can't a c-section (I can't spell what the "c" stands for) prevent or hinder a woman's ability to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term?

Having C-Section (Cesarean Section)itself doesn't normally prevent a woman from getting pregnant or carrying another child to term and delivering naturally (vaginally) if the reason for the first Cesarean is no longer an issue.

What are some of the horrible affects of an abortion...we don't get this information in the education program.

With a professional medical abortion there should be no problems. It is a very simple procedure. The vacuum procedure I am familiar with (I know two girls that had it done) I drove one girl there and brought her home. It's quick and painless, she was put under a light anesthetic that put her to sleep for the procedure, but she woke up immdiately after, and she felt nothing, she just left with a normal period. The vacuum was tiny, with a little square at the tip of the wand. It's an improvement over the old D&C (dilation and Curetage) method where they would scrape the inside of the unterine lining out of the womb. These could cause problems sometimes with too aggressive scraping and accidental puncture. These procedures are usually for 1st & 2nd trimester, third trimemester I could never do, They give you drugs to strart labor and you have to have the full labor and delivery of the live baby, then leave it to die, I can't believe this is allowed except in the most dire cases. Back before Planned Parenthood, I knew girls would go into a bad part of town to get an abortion, she'd be given what ever they had wiskey, marijuna, hash, opium. I even talked to a girl whose boyfriend did it with a close hanger. A lot of girls in my classes would be eating strange herbs, and be jumping off high furniture, or go rock climbing, horsback riding. Strong vinegar douches were popular

 

[Moonbear]

I agree with everyone who has said that education is key. I can tell you that it has been one of the biggest influences in my making the decision to remain abstinant until marriage. That's my choice though. Not everyone makes that choice and that's ok too because they can make whatever decision they want.

I just wanted to commend you on this choice. Just remember that even after you are married, unless you and your future husband want a very large family, it will still be important to be educated about contraceptive/birth control options to determine what method works best for you and your spouse within whatever constraints are acceptable to your religious beliefs, if any. Understanding your own biology will also help in making better choices about birth control when you are married (especially for those whose preferences/beliefs lead them to choosing natural family planning, which relies heavily on an understanding of your own body to be effective), as well as for helping you understand better how to conceive when you are ready to do so.

[/biology soapbox]

 

[misskitty]

Ok, the medical proceedure is the only one that really makes sense. Every other form you mentioned, shows exactly how desparate these women get! I never knew they were willing to go to such extremes of having their boyfriend perform it with a close hanger! Thats just wrong. Not the fact they want an abortion, but the fact they are willing to have it done like that... :

 

[Evo]

Ok, the medical proceedure is the only one that really makes sense. Every other form you mentioned, shows exactly how desparate these women get! I never knew they were willing to go to such extremes of having their boyfriend perform it with a close hanger! Thats just wrong. Not the fact they want an abortion, but the fact they are willing to have it done like that... :

During the time before abortion was legal, women were desparate, they would stick knitting needles and crochet hooks up inside themselves, douch with chemicals that might cause abortion. They had no where to go unless their families were rich enough to fly them out of the country for a medical abortion. So they would try their own. Many girls became crippled, barren, scarred, some died.

 

[Kerrie]

That is definitely NOT something I would want done to my body, surgically or medically! Kerrie,in all seriousness, you just gave me another reason to abstain from sex until I'm married and plan to have my children. My mom might want to thank you even though she knows where I stand on the situation.

It does sound gruesome doesn't it? But some women would rather go through this then labor itself.

 

[misskitty]

I think I'll pass on that and go through with the labour thanks. Lol. Its does sound really gruesome even though Evo posted earlier that the, uh, vaccum?, wasn't all that painful from what she was told.

I'll still pass.

 

[misskitty]

During the time before abortion was legal, women were desparate, they would stick knitting needles and crochet hooks up inside themselves, douch with chemicals that might cause abortion. They had no where to go unless their families were rich enough to fly them out of the country for a medical abortion. So they would try their own. Many girls became crippled, barren, scarred, some died.

Ok, I'm going to say this: thats just wrong!

I'm sorry, but there is absolutly NO need for that to go on! There is no need for people to have that happen to them. I'm starting to see your position a little more clearly.

 

[Kerrie]

I think I'll pass on that and go through with the labour thanks. Lol. Its does sound really gruesome even though Evo posted earlier that the, uh, vaccum?, wasn't all that painful from what she was told.

I'll still pass.

There are pain meds given for the procedure yes, typically it is suppossed to be like a heavy monthly bleeding with a little more cramping. Of course there are pain meds for labor as well nowadays I think most of those who choose abortion are doing so under more desperate conditions, it's not necessarily a snap decision.

 

[Moonbear]

During the time before abortion was legal, women were desparate, they would stick knitting needles and crochet hooks up inside themselves, douch with chemicals that might cause abortion. They had no where to go unless their families were rich enough to fly them out of the country for a medical abortion. So they would try their own. Many girls became crippled, barren, scarred, some died.

This still happens in developing countries where abortion is not legal or clinics not easily available. I came across an article of a study done in Brazil, where abortion is still illegal except when the life of the mother is threatened, but has been decriminalized. They reported on young teens who were pregnant or had gotten an abortion, and there was a group that "considered" abortion who changed their mind after trying herbal teas and drugs they believed would induce abortion (some of those who did get an abortion also tried these methods first). Something interesting in the article was that those who sought abortion were more likely to have a partner who they consider unsupportive of the pregnancy (50%), while 90% of those who were pregnant and chose to continue the pregnancy had partners who were supportive of them continuing the pregnancy. There were slight differences in having family members recommend abortion to them, but the study concluded it was their partners who seemed to have the most influence. Another interesting finding is that the girls who obtained an abortion reported either unsupportive fathers (the girls' father) or that their fathers didn't know of the pregnancy (only 8% reported fathers who were supportive), whereas of those who didn't seek abortion, about half of them had supportive fathers. It seemed the combination of having a supportive father and supportive partner was quite influential in the decision to carry the pregnancy. I've been trying to find any similar studies in other countries where abortion is legal and cultural attitudes toward abortion differ, such as the US, but haven't yet come across any. It may be too much to generalize this, but if this pattern holds up, then it seems something that will be key to preventing abortion is to start focusing on male attitudes toward unplanned pregnancy.

Here's the reference if anyone is interested.
J. Biosoc. Sci. (2003) 35, 71–82
ADOLESCENTS’ DECISION-MAKING AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ABORTION IN NORTH-EAST BRAZIL
PATRICIA E. BAILEY, ZENILDA V. BRUNO, MARIA F. BEZERRA,
IVANY QUEIRÓS, CRISTIANA M. OLIVEIRA

 

[misskitty]

I can't really think of anything new to say...I guess you could say I'm speechless.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't understand what caesarian section would have to do with anything?

Thompson's argument relies on our moral intution saying that we should have the right to disconnect the violinist from our kidneys. We would not, however, be justified in chopping him to pieces and sucking him up into a vacuum machine. For her analogy to work, she must grant that the best we do in cases of abortion is remove the fetus/embryo from the womb, but not actively kill it. In fact, we should make every attempt possible to keep it alive using whatever additional means might be at our disposal.

This seems to be an attempt to escalate the debate in a way that makes it appear the woman must undergo a greater risk/harm for the abortion to occur than is necessary. What reason would there be for not removing the fetus via a less invasive, less risky vaginal route?

I hope I've explained above. Because Thompson's argument grants the personhood of the unborn, we must grant that the unborn have rights that must be balanced against the rights of the mother, not completely sacrificed for her sake. The mother's right to not have her body used for sustenance seems to be enought to outweigh the unborn's right to life, in Thompson's eyes, but the mother's right to not have to undergo a surgical procedure does not outweigh the unborn's right to life.

If you're going to make the argument that such a technological advancement would make early term abortions morally impermissable, then why would it be any more permissable to allow any woman who has had intercourse within the past several days to go unexamined for the presence of a fertilized zygote when you could save it from the likelihood of implantation failure leading to the flushing of it from her body with her next menstrual flow?

You just covered the reason pretty well:

How could you balance this against the rights of the women to privacy and to protection against illegal and invasive searches when there is only a small chance that conception has occurred if you give equal status to the zygote as to the mother?

I don't want to give the appearance of speaking for Thompson or for the philosophy professor that wrote the questions you are addressing, but it seems that searching a woman's womb to see if she has a fertilized zygote in it would be considered impractical and an unreasonable invasion of privacy, even to ensure that no unborn are wrongfully killed. There is the additional caveat that being flushed out with menstrual flow is a natural occurence and doesn't violate the unborn's right to not be killed. No one is responsible for such an accidental occurence. To go back to Thompson's argument, such a situation would be analogous to the violonist dying despite his host allowing him to remain plugged in. In that case, we can all agree that no moral misdeed was committed.

The way I would view the issue, if such a hypothetical advance in technology became available, is not that the zygote or embryo suddenly acquires personhood status, but that because we could remove the woman from the equation, we could err toward the side of appeasing the pro-lifers by permitting the development of an embryo/fetus with indeterminate personhood status without needing to infringe upon the rights of the adult woman who we can all agree (I hope) definitely has personhood status.

Thompson grants the personhood of the unborn at all stages of development to simplify her argument and avoid the complications of properly defining personhood and subsequently arguing about it with people who are not likely to ever agree. I'm not too sure what you mean by "infringe upon the rights of the adult woman," however. Why would removing the unborn in such a way that it was not killed be an infringement of her rights?

Edit: Thinking upon this further, at such an early stage of development, one of the three criteria you posted earlier for "personhood" status is still absent, that being sentience.

Again, Thompson grants the personhood of the unborn at all stages of development. Presumably she doesn't actually believe that the unborn are persons, but she will grant this because she knows that no argument against personhood is going to satisfy the 'human life at conception' ilk.

Until such technology is available, two criteria are absent, independent function and sentience. Earlier, you also mentioned that you believed sentience began at the beginning of the second trimester, however, I do disagree with that. My opinion is that sentience requires higher cortical brain function, which does not yet exist in the second trimester.

Well, this is a matter for considerable dispute and neither of us really knows. I'm just going off of the fact that neural development at that stage is about equal to adult sharks and some small mammals, which many people consider to be sentient. I would also dispute that higher cortical function is a necessary condition for sentience. I would argue that the nearly complete development of the limbic system at that stage (the system associated with emotions, feelings, etc.) is more important. The higher cortical functions are probably necessary to develop any concept of differentiation between self and environment and also to be able to look toward the future. These are commonly cited features that separate human consciousness from animal consciousness, but they are not necessary for sentience, which is simply the ability to experience. By nine-ten weeks, myelination of nerve fibers is complete, and the two hemispheres have begun to be integrated. Also, the ventricular system is fully developed, connecting the brain fully to the spinal cord, so assuming a basic level of sentience at this point, the fetus would feel pain.

This is a challenge in the argument over the beginning of personhood, because, in my opinion, sentience is the most important trait that confers personhood, but it's unknown when this begins. The range could be anywhere from the middle of the second trimester to closer to the end of the first year after birth.

I think you're mixing up sentience with higher conscious functioning. Using the latter as a criterion for personhood is very dangerous, as not only newborn infants, but many brain damaged adults would not be considered persons if we did. I would not like to live in a society where newborns and the brain damaged could be as easily and legally killed as the unborn.

(As usual, I'm running around posting between other things, but wanted to reply to those questions with some of my own questions. I may need to edit or clarify my argument later.)

It's fine. I'm doing the same, kind of hit and run style.

 

[Kerrie]

It may be too much to generalize this, but if this pattern holds up, then it seems something that will be key to preventing abortion is to start focusing on male attitudes toward unplanned pregnancy.

I don't think that is generalizing at all. Men, especially the male partner, do have a huge influence of the pregnancy. Without him, the woman faces single motherhood, huge financial responsibilities (getting child support is no guarantee from him in the U.S.), and lack of parental suppot in general. These children who grow up fatherless have been proven to have a higher chance of getting caught up in crime and committing suicide.

As for illegal abortions in other countries, these women who choose to attempt it may not succeed, thus not only hurting themselves, but severely affecting the unborn child if it goes to term.

 

[misskitty]

I agree with Kerrie. I don't think that you generalized that at all. You might have put it too mildly. The overall opinion, in my community as it has been discussed (not often), is they don't care one way or another. I have been fortunate in that when discussing the topic, the guys have always said they would help support and raise the child no matter what. Now I don't know how much that tells you, but then again they were all men who had high morals and ethics, so it may not be vaible at all.

It might be best to not only start with the men, but the parents as well. I mean seriously, it seems like there is a BIG difference in how parents address the issue depending upon the sex of their child. When it comes to girls people are against it and telling them they should abstain and go on birth control even though they aren't having sex. When it comes to the guys however, that isn't the case.

Granted, this may not be the case in every community or every parent. Realistically, how much of a difference is there in how parents communicate this issue to their sons versus their daughters?

 

[Averagesupernova]

That would be like the law in China limiting every couple to one child and if they do have more than one then the government does not recognize the child as ever exsisting.

I was joking. I'm a sarcastic a$$ sometimes.

 

[misskitty]

Oh, :blush: alright. Well, at least we can be a little light hearted about it.

 

[Reshma]

Female Foeticide

I would like to raise another issue in this discussion on Abortion since no one so far has raised it. It is the barbaric practice of female foeticide.

By definition of female foeticide--the term refers to a practice of selective elimination of the female foetus after prenatal sex determination or pre-selection, thus avoiding the birth of a girl child. It is commonly referred to as female foeticide.

The is quite a common practice in the developing countries of Asia(India, Pakistan etc.) and also one of the main reasons for the low sex ratio in these countries. Some of the worst gender ratios, indicating gross violation of women’s rights, are found in South and East Asian countries such as India and China. The determination of the sex of the foetus by ultrasound scanning, amniocentesis, and in vitro fertilization has aggravated this situation. No moral or ethical principle supports such a procedure for gender identification. The situation is further worsened by a lack of awareness of women’s rights and by the indifferent attitude of governments and medical professionals. The main reasons why this is practiced are social, economic and political & can be stated as:

1.Preference for a son by family and society, Social and familial pressure on women to produce sons, Lower status of women in the society etc.

2.Cost related to marriage, especially in form of dowry. Most women lack financial independence.

3. Little political interest in bringing innovative policies to deal with this problem.

Female foeticide is an extreme manifestation of violence against women. Female foetuses are selectively aborted after pre-natal sex determination, thus avoiding the birth of girls. As a result of selective abortion, between 35 and 40 million girls and women are missing from the Indian population. In some parts of the country, the sex ratio of girls to boys has dropped to less than 800:1,000. The United Nations has expressed serious concern about the situation.

Now sticking to the topic of this discussion--are you Pro-life or Pro choice?

My answer would be quite uncertain as the issues relating to abortion are quite complicated, both political and ethical to arrive at a conclusive and common consensus. YES, abortion should be carried out only if the woman wishes to--I am for Pro choice then.
But abortion of a foetus just because it is female is cold-blooded murder--then I am DEFINITELY for pro-life!

 

[Reshma]

Now PLEASE don't deem me as being feminist. I'm sincerely trying to raise awareness on another issue which is being largely ignored by the International Community.

 

[Curious3141]

YES, abortion should be carried out only if the woman wishes to--I am for Pro choice then.
But abortion of a foetus just because it is female is cold-blooded murder--then I am DEFINITELY for pro-life!

Here is where I think most pro-choice logic breaks down. Why should the mother get to decide when it's OK to kill a fetus ?

Remember, that a lot of the time the decision to abort is made out of convenience, and not a whole lot else. I am presuming you are not in disfavor of a woman (who got pregnant through irresponsible sexual behaviour) deciding to get a termination because it's not convenient to continue with the pregancy. [And, Reshma, in an Indian context, I know that a lot of young unmarried women (and their complicit families) procure discreet abortions to cover up sexual indiscretions that would make future arranged marriages difficult, if not impossible. If that's not a foeticide of convenience, I don't know what is].

I see little difference between that and terminating a female child because of the perceived inconvenience in going through with that birth. Remember, that in the traditional Indian system, you have the problems of dowries, and future parental maintenance if you have exclusively female offspring.

I think it's hypocritical and self-serving of a woman to declare that one is wrong and the other is OK. I am of the opinion that abortion done for convenience is wrong, male or female, mother's choice or not.

Pro-choicers like to argue that the fetus cannot survive without the support of the mother. That is true, but neither can a newborn or infant fend for itself. The law does not permite selfish carers to unburden themselves of handicapped offspring through euthanasia. To be consistent, the same proscription should apply to killing fetuses. Besides there are plenty of laws that afford protection to entitities that have no voice of their own, like animals. Why shouldn't anti-abortion laws be drawn up to protect human fetuses too ?

The sophistical quibbling about the point where human life "begins" is just arbitrary semantics and it is hypocritical and self-serving, with no real biological or ethical basis.

The only instances in which I would be OK with termination of pregnancy are :

a) if the mother becomes pregnant through no fault of her own, like in a violent rape and chooses not to continue with the pregnancy - because she did nothing wrong, and it would be cruel to hold her to the responsibility of gestation and labour resulting from a violent crime against her person.

b) if the mother is suffering from a medical condition that would make it very dangerous for her to continue with the pregnancy.

c) if the life expectancy/quality of life of the offspring is so exceedingly poor that it really makes no sense to allow the pregnancy to continue. I am not talking about Down's or mild cerebral palsy here, instead I am talking about severe dysmorphic syndromes that don't permit viability beyond the first few days or weeks, and even then, only with ICU support.

***

I always though my views were rather strange given that I am an atheist yet "pro-life". But I found (and joined) a society composed of like-minded people called The Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League. So I guess I'm hardly alone out there.

As a doctor, I have actually seen and handled abortuses during my OBGYN rotation (although I have never induced a termination because of conscientious objection). Believe me, abortuses are little babies, fully formed, and very recognisably human, no matter how much the pro-choice advocates seek to dehumanise them.

 

[Reshma]

Here is where I think most pro-choice logic breaks down. Why should the mother get to decide when it's OK to kill a fetus ?

I think it's hypocritical and self-serving of a woman to declare that one is wrong and the other is OK. I am of the opinion that abortion done for convenience is wrong, male or female, mother's choice or not.

You got me wrong here, sir. I'm not saying that abortions should be carried out without keeping in mind the woman's health and the possible risks involved. I'm just trying to put forth the intention with which female foeticide is carried out.

I am presuming you are not in disfavor of a woman (who got pregnant through irresponsible sexual behaviour) deciding to get a termination because it's not convenient to continue with the pregancy.

I'm completely against irresponsible sexual behaviour. But there is another issue here--who is to decide the moral boundaries here and take responsibility for it?

[And, Reshma, in an Indian context, I know that a lot of young unmarried women (and their complicit families) procure discreet abortions to cover up sexual indiscretions that would make future arranged marriages difficult, if not impossible. If that's not a foeticide of convenience, I don't know what is].

Yes, hypocrisy is salient feature of Indian societies. They set the penultimate rules and end up breaking it themselves for their so-called convenience and prestige in the society. But who is to blame here: the people participating (including educated ones) in such acts?

I see little difference between that and terminating a female child because of the perceived inconvenience in going through with that birth. Remember, that in the traditional Indian system, you have the problems of dowries, and future parental maintenance if you have exclusively female offspring.

Bingo! The perception of a female offspring as a LIABILITY is the issue here. Who creates and participates in customs like dowry--we ourselves? Does this mean the only solution to this is NOT to have daughters? Do sons guarantee life-long security and comforts for their parents?

I think the issue of pro-choice and pro-life have already been discussed here well and good. The issue here is aborting foetuses purely on gender basis(females in this case) keeping in mind pre-marital pregnancy, affordability are not an issue here. There is a virtual gender genocide taking place in some parts of the country often aided and abbetted by the female-folk. In certain parts of India, there are villages where there hasn't been a single marriage of a daughter as most of the female offsprings are killed at birth or die pramaturely.

Don't you think it is insane?

 

[Curious3141]

You got me wrong here, sir. I'm not saying that abortions should be carried out without keeping in mind the woman's health and the possible risks involved. I'm just trying to put forth the intention with which female foeticide is carried out.


I'm completely against irresponsible sexual behaviour. But there is another issue here--who is to decide the moral boundaries here and take responsibility for it?



Yes, hypocrisy is salient feature of Indian societies. They set the penultimate rules and end up breaking it themselves for their so-called convenience and prestige in the society. But who is to blame here: the people participating (including educated ones) in such acts?



Bingo! The perception of a female offspring as a LIABILITY is the issue here. Who creates and participates in customs like dowry--we ourselves? Does this mean the only solution to this is NOT to have daughters? Do sons guarantee life-long security and comforts for their parents?

I think the issue of pro-choice and pro-life have already been discussed here well and good. The issue here is aborting foetuses purely on gender basis(females in this case) keeping in mind pre-marital pregnancy, affordability are not an issue here. There is a virtual gender genocide taking place in some parts of the country often aided and abbetted by the female-folk. In certain parts of India, there are villages where there hasn't been a single marriage of a daughter as most of the female offsprings are killed at birth or die pramaturely.

Don't you think it is insane?

Yes, I think selective femal foeticide is insane.

I also think allowing any abortion of convenience is insane. Just because the woman thinks it's her choice doesn't make it so.

As far as the responsibility for premarital sexual indiscretion goes, I think both father and mother should bear equal financial and caregiver responsibilities. Even if if means giving up big dreams like a college education. You broke it, you bought it.

I think you know where I'm coming from. And I agree Indian society (and society in general) is fraught with hypocritical inconsistency.

 

[Kerrie]

As a doctor, I have actually seen and handled abortuses during my OBGYN rotation (although I have never induced a termination because of conscientious objection). Believe me, abortuses are little babies, fully formed, and very recognisably human, no matter how much the pro-choice advocates seek to dehumanise them.

Thank you for your refreshing point of view You bring up some excellent points, ones worth pondering over from a pro-choice point of view. Personally, I could never make the choice for myself (being female and 4 months pregnant currently). However, your morals are not ones that others do not share, and have not seen what you do in your profession, thus it makes the choice "easier" because of what they see for themselves. If abortion was outlawed (in America anyway), would our women be safer seeking illegal abortions because they were determined to get one whether it was legal or not? It has happened for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so. Of course, having abortion completely illegal will save many potential children too. Can we guarantee that these unplanned or unwanted children will have a quality life too? Most of them I am sure they will, because once you (a parent) sees your newborn for the first time, love is instantly there (I say most, not all).

I have often wondered if abortion is legal more because of the safety of women over the moral issue at hand. Sort of like why gambling and drinking are legal (within certain boundaries of course). People are going to do it anyway. It's interesting how morals and the law get tangled up like they do.

 

[Curious3141]

Thank you for your refreshing point of view You bring up some excellent points, ones worth pondering over from a pro-choice point of view. Personally, I could never make the choice for myself (being female and 4 months pregnant currently). However, your morals are not ones that others do not share, and have not seen what you do in your profession, thus it makes the choice "easier" because of what they see for themselves. If abortion was outlawed (in America anyway), would our women be safer seeking illegal abortions because they were determined to get one whether it was legal or not? It has happened for hundreds of years, and will continue to do so. Of course, having abortion completely illegal will save many potential children too. Can we guarantee that these unplanned or unwanted children will have a quality life too? Most of them I am sure they will, because once you (a parent) sees your newborn for the first time, love is instantly there (I say most, not all).

I have often wondered if abortion is legal more because of the safety of women over the moral issue at hand. Sort of like why gambling and drinking are legal (within certain boundaries of course). People are going to do it anyway. It's interesting how morals and the law get tangled up like they do.

I agree that pragmatic considerations have been allowed to dictate the law, and perhaps this is the wiser choice. But I think the whole process is too easy and too painless for the woman (and the man who impregnated her). A child is not something that should be so flippantly disposed of with a dilatation and suction/curettage in twenty minutes. There should be a sincere effort made to explore other avenues, including some financial and social help in carrying an "unwanted" child to term, then putting it up for adoption in a foster home. There is no shortage of childless couples who are willing to move heaven and Earth to call somebody their son or daughter. Why deprive them of that mercy with a murder ?

Kerrie, if you want to bring up the point of "unwanted" kids, please keep in mind there are plenty of kids that were "wanted" previously, then become "unwanted" baggage tossed around inconsiderately during separations, divorces, or simply bad financial straits. There is no reason to suppose that an "unwanted" conceptus carried to term by a mother is going to be any worse off; in fact, the opposite may be true because adoptive parents prefer taking in neonates and infants into their homes. I dare say these "unwanted" babies are going to be faring a lot better in loving homes than the so called "wanted" children who are later treated as chattel by their moronic parents.

 

[misskitty]

This is a new twist on the original thread. I was wondering if someone was going to bring up the abortion rates in the countries, like China and India, where sons are more valuable than the lives of daughters. It seems as though such patterns of opinions have put values on human life; a man's life is more important than a woman's life. Wrong, they are equally valuable and there is no price for life. The fact people can substantiate such opinions is beyond my comprehension.

Reshma, I don't think anyone is going to deem you as a feminist. The question you have brought to light is one people don't like to address most of the time. I wonder why that is.

There are billboards in China depicting a mother holding an infant and the father with his hands on the mother's shoulders, both parents smiling at the tiny child. The translation of the text underneath them is roughly: Its ok to have a daughter.

 

[Kerrie]

A child is not something that should be so flippantly disposed of with a dilatation and suction/curettage in twenty minutes. There should be a sincere effort made to explore other avenues, including some financial and social help in carrying an "unwanted" child to term, then putting it up for adoption in a foster home.

I absolutely agree. Not so long ago, I supported abortion for the "woman's right to choose", but I would say my support today is mostly from the perspective of the safety for women. The reasons women decide to abort can be careless ones or selfish ones much more often then medical ones. I have read many instances that the decision to abort caused a tremendous amount of grief and guilt later on too in these women.

Adoption isn't always an avenue either for these women because of judgement being passed on them from family for example. I also think women abort not just because they don't want to support a child, but also because they don't want to go through pregnancy itself either. Speaking from experience, it's not comfortable, labor can be difficult and painful (women fear this quite a bit in the whole childbearing process), and you have a flurry of questions from people about what to name the baby, who's the father, etc. The man involved clearly doesn't have to endure this, especially if the couple isn't committed to one another already. It is easy for her to feel that she received the unfair advantage, especially if the couple took precaution and still ended up pregnant (ie: condom broke).

I think the best way for the pro-lifers to ever "win" this neverending battle is to put their efforts into the support you mention, such as financial and social help. Judgement passing and pictures of dead fetuses only enrage emotions for both sides. If a woman is thinking of aborting because she wants to finish college, can there be incentives for her to carry on through the pregnancy yet still maintain her ability to finish her schooling? Can we educate those men potentially involved and the woman's family (especially if she is young) to support her decision to carry the child? From a link I posted earlier in this thread, the actual numbers of abortion has declined in recent years. Something is working to change the negative stigma of "unwed young pregnant woman".

please keep in mind there are plenty of kids that were "wanted" previously, then become "unwanted" baggage tossed around inconsiderately during separations, divorces, or simply bad financial straits.

This is a tragedy I admit. But I am strictly addressing unplanned pregnancies here. How many of these unplanned pregancies result in less then adequate parental love by both parents? Many of these women fear raising a child alone. Bottom line, women need support by the pro-lifers if we are going to raise the moral standards of American (and other) societies, not judgement that they are awful people for thinking such a thing. Chances are, they are very scared and don't know what to do about their own situation when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

 

[learningphysics]

Avenue not mentioned - sterilization

Risk of pregnancy can be minimized by tubal ligation for women, or vasectomies for men. If one does not want to deal with accidental pregnancies, or the struggle of dealing with a pregnancy, then this seems the correct option.

 

[Kerrie]

Risk of pregnancy can be minimized by tubal ligation for women, or vasectomies for men. If one does not want to deal with accidental pregnancies, or the struggle of dealing with a pregnancy, then this seems the correct option.

for some men and women, it isn't about never wanting children, but the right time in their life. reversal of this is expensive and difficult. tubal ligation is an expensive surgery that is not always covered by insurance, the same goes for vasectomies. an abortion has a much lower cost then these procedures.

is anyone aware of how expensive contraceptives are? a pack of oral contraceptives cost at least $30 a pack ($1 a day through a private insurance carrier). some are higher since some women cannot take certain types. not all health insurance companies are willing to help cover the costs of these pills too.

if contraception was free to all who needed it, the need for abortion might rapidly decline.

 

[learningphysics]

for some men and women, it isn't about never wanting children, but the right time in their life. reversal of this is expensive and difficult. tubal ligation is an expensive surgery that is not always covered by insurance, the same goes for vasectomies. an abortion has a much lower cost then these procedures.

is anyone aware of how expensive contraceptives are? a pack of oral contraceptives cost at least $30 a pack ($1 a day through a private insurance carrier). some are higher since some women cannot take certain types. not all health insurance companies are willing to help cover the costs of these pills too.

if contraception was free to all who needed it, the need for abortion might rapidly decline.

I agree with your point about the costs of vasectomies and tubal ligation.

However, I disagree that these options should be avoided just so that in the future, a couple can still have a child. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What is more important?

That a couple suffer no incoveniences whatsoever: the expense of contraception, the discomfort of tubal ligation or vasectomies, losing the chance of having a child in the future (after vasectomy or tubal ligation), the frustration of no sex (abstinance).

Or that a possibly living human being is not killed?

 

[Reshma]

Curious3141, I agree with most of the points you have made. It is indeed wrong to treat children even in their foetal stage as mere objects that can be toyed in the hands of the mother and society in general. Adoption is a very good option if the biological parents don't want to take up the responsibility.

Kerrie has made some very good points regarding unplanned pregnancies. I think the society should be better equipped morally and psychologically in dealing with such situations and render the much needed support to the mother. Cheaper availability of contraceptives is also a valid point.

Misskitty, thank you for your support. The reason no one raises this issue is female foeticide campaigners are falsely labelled Pro-feminist even though their only motive here is to save the life of the innocent unborn foetus. Probably the international community is not so well aware of the vast gender differences existing in the societies of India, China etc. The societies here irrespective of whether they are illiterate, under-educated, highly educated, economically backward or forward prefer male children to females. Females here ALWAYS have a secondary status in all orders of life.