Printable View
I read in this morning's paper about a woman who was "addicted to abortions" and had 17 in 15 years.
I'm not going to look up this woman or talk about her case, because I want to start off just asking a hypothetical: what do you think should be done in the case of a woman who is addicted to abortions?
Is it a bad thing?
Does it warrant intervention from the law?
If so, how?
The only way I could see something being done about her and people like her would be if abortion were illegal, or there was a limit on how many you could have.
I mean if I was an insurance company I'd make the copay grow exponentially after maybe procedure 10 per decade but from a moral standpoint if you're ok with one abortion why not be ok with more than one?
I.e., if the sanctity of life thing doesn't apply to one why does it apply to 15? Disregarding the circumstance of the abortion (last stop birth control for consensual sex or a rape case with an 80 lbs woman whose body would be shattered by a pregnancy).
I think the law should look into it, but not for a moral issue or anything like that. Anyone who has had 17 abortions in 15 years is probably not the mentally healthiest person, and for the good of herself and the people who may be around her I think the authorities should at least look into it.
Yeah, I really want the government getting involved in preventative mental healthcare *eye roll*
Mandatory hysterectomy.
I mean what can you do that isn't either aggressively invasive on the woman's body or doesn't result in an unwanted child being born? It's not as if this is a common problem.
One abortion is fine, one hundred is fine. I think the woman should have her tubes tied, but if she wants to pay the money, and make a doctor rich, that's her prerogative
I know a girl who by 20 has had 5 or 6 abortions. She isn't addicted though, she's just a twat.
Personally, there's nothing I enjoy more than a good abortion so...live and let die...?
NothingQuote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
Smoking is pretty terrible and millions are addicted to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
Yes, thank you for gracing us with your opinion, TOGS, but I really was hoping for answers more like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy
Well, basically. (I actually expected more argument itt than this.)Quote:
Originally Posted by sponge
Well, gwahir, people who are fat and smoke are more of a burden collectively on a healthcare system than this one woman.
I wouldn't be surprised if individually at least some of them were more of a burden on a healthcare system.
Yeah, this woman is an idiot, and even I have to question to ethics of getting chain abortions just for the fun of it. Still, shit happens, no system is perfect, and sometimes wierdos do weird things. Eh.
AH HAH.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
Here's what I want to talk about.
Why?
Let her do what she wants with her body and money. It would be weird though if she had a husband and kids and the husband goes along with this; how do you pick which live and which don't? Or does she try to get pregnant just to get the abortion in that specific moment? There really isn't much to discuss other than that it's weird...
and that the rest of society would crucify this woman given the chance.
Because even though I support available and legal abortion, I still think there are both practical and ethical issues with it that at least should be given a bit of consideration.
No, I don't think there is an invisible being that infuses zygotes with souls. On the other hand, there is simply no clear cut time when a fetus becomes viable and thus has personhood ascribed to them. If anything, I think one could make a valid argument to the effect that babies are themselves not viable after birth up to a certain age Indeed, some people have made this argument in favor of legal infanticide, and infanticide used to be a regular practice when humans felt as though they didn't have the resources to support their children. (Yeah infanticide is practiced in modern times mostly on unwanted girls, but so is selective abortion of girls as well.)
Also, with the development of more and more advanced neonatal technologies, viability is likewise increased in earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. So are you telling me that when a fetus is a human is dependent on the state of our technology? Well, according to Roe vs. Wade, at least legally it is what determines if the fetus can be aborted or not.
At any rate, the argument in the above paragraph only address a very small fraction of abortions, as those that late in the pregnancy are rare, and neonatologists think that there is a hard limit of 22 weeks when a pre-term baby can survive at all (obviously, there has to be some hard limit). However, what if there is developed an artificial womb-like environment external to the mother's womb that pushes viability even earlier? For now it is a hypothetical argument and thus its applicability to the current abortion debate is dubious at best, but still I think it's at least an interesting scenario to consider.
Another concern is with regards to abortions used to be that they might have a psychological toll on some women, but a review of studies on women that have one abortion seems to conclude that they are methodologically unsound, as they do not adequately control for other sources of psychological trauma (such as poverty, abuse, etc.) There might be some evidence that multiple abortions might be psychologically more trying on women, but that's the strongest statement I've read on this.
These are just a couple of the issues surrounding abortion that I think do surround the abortion debate. In the end, you are arresting the development of something that will eventually become a thing we recognize as a human, and it really is a gradual development from zygote to baby with no real clear cut off between phases. I have to admit that mostly I'm playing the devil's advocate here, as again I am in support of safe, available, and legal abortion.
That's the thing, though. It's not her money. She is an Australian spending the taxpayer's money for her abortions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolution
I'm curious as to why viability is such a big issue in the abortion debate. What's the ethical difference between a viable and unviable foetus? If there's no being that infuses unborn babies with souls, and it's okay to end the life of a foetus that technology cannot support, it should be okay to end the life of one it can support.
Viability is no better a cutoff point than conception, I think.
The beginning of life is a culturally-defined point in time, not a medical one.
And, more importantly, gwahir didn't mention anything about her using taxpayer money. If she's financing this irresponsible behavior with taxpayer dollars, then they ought to take her out back and shoot her. Public money shouldn't be funding any medical treatment, much less elective procedures.
Well, in the US, there was legal significance attached to the idea of viability thanks to Roe vs. Wade.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
So then where is the cut-off? If a baby is about to be born, is it still abortable as long as it's in the womb? If that's the case, then why shouldn't infanticide of newborns be legal?
Well, given that gwahir is from Australia, I assumed the woman was getting abortions with their socialized healthcare system. Apparently, she's actually American, that's not really applicable here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
Neither babies nor foetuses are people, in any useful meaning of the word. The only physical/intrinsic difference between them is that one's in a box and the other isn't.
Infanticide is different to abortion -- that is, infants are different to foetuses -- in one morally relevant way: when it's born, people in the world form attachments to it. From legal, societal attachments (like giving it a name, or status as a "person" by law) to loving, familiar attachments. In short... foetuses are different to babies because people like babies better.
I did say we're not talking about any case in particular. This is removing it from healthcare and insurance and all that mundane crap that belongs elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
Just as a point of reference, when youth mortality rates were higher (up to mid-eighteenth century in england, for example), parents would rarely name their children until they were several years of age, because, well, a lot of them died.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
You're making it sound like for seven years they just acknowledged the child as "boy".Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
Back on topic - Any addiction is unhealthy, especially this one because let's face it, it isn't normal; drug addiction is understandable but what reward could anyone possibly gain from getting intentional abortions? I'm not sure what punishment if any would be appropriate for this specific woman, but fifteen is a ridiculous number.
No, they just wouldn't name infants or toddlers.
I kind of think of it the way I'd think of killing pets. If you can't take care of your pet, you can send it to the SPCA, where if no one else can take care of your pet, it will be humanely euthanized. We think of it as wrong to torture animals, of course, but we don't really tend to think of it as morally reprehensible to end the life of a dog or cat that is unwanted/unloved/unable to be taken care of. In fact, it's considered sad but responsible. That said, if I found out someone was getting their dog pregnant just to crush the skulls of the puppies over and over, I'd find that a little bit fucked up, you know? Even if it's not "murder." Because it is creating life for the sole purpose of ending that life. And I think we might instinctively feel like that's wrong because it goes against our biological imperatives.
Getting an abortion because the pregnancy was a mistake is one thing, because it shows something more like responsibility to make a decision about the consequences of carrying to term. But getting pregnant just to abort? I think abortion should be legal, but that doesn't mean I think getting an abortion is the same thing as getting a mole removed. It's not, or there wouldn't be such a debate.
sponge is right, thread over.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
On the flip side the 15 or whatever children would have been far larger burdens on the public coffers had they been born and supported by the state until age 18 (longer if you consider the need-based financial aid they'd almost certainly qualify for if they were to go for higher ed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
There is a happy median here, get x free abortions in y years and you get to pay your own way until you drop below your quota again with the option of a state-funded sterilization.
Either you have abortion rights or you don't. Having some kind of quota per person is pretty retarded.
yeah i agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
but ethical considerations aside, when it comes down to it the more that individuals use health insurance in countries with private healthcare or use subsidized healthcare in countries with subsidized care, the more expensive healthcare is for everyone.
but it's not like abortion addiction is that common anyway so this one woman's practice makes little difference. it's the fatties and smokers that do.
My proposed quota is in regards to how many taxpayers will pay for, not how many you're legally allowed to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
Well, abortion is an elective procedure most of the time anyway. So there's no reason whatsoever for a taxpayer to fund it.
If the birth/raising/existence of that child would be a bigger burden on the taxpayer then there is every reason to fund it.Quote:
Originally Posted by benzss
True. Then again if conceiving/aborting a child would be a bigger burden on the taxpayer, then there's every reason to sterilise those who don't meet certain sensibility requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonj
You could argue that way but you're moving towards a fascist society with that logic. Simply offsetting unneccessary births by funding abortions is not quite as socially damaging as mild eugenics.
Good thing it's your logic and not mine then, heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonj
But I digress. Abortion is an elective procedure because, more often than not, it's the consequence of a freely taken lifestyle choice. And I'm not sure anybody should fund anybody else's lifestyle choices - children (or lack thereof) included.
If you insist on universal/socialised healthcare (ugh) then it should at the very least be universal (in addition to being rubbish) but only for non-elective and emergency procedures. Having elective and other unnecessary procedures paid for surely devalues the entire point of affordable healthcare by kicking up its cost p/person, no?
What about mandatory sterilization after a certain point. I don't find it to be that the government would be stepping in on this case, because if you did not want to be sterilized, you could just not have an abortion.
...Quote:
Originally Posted by ocelot22
Really?
Brilliant! You should write your congressman immediately to share this idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by ocelot22
I think he should volunteer for the medical trials to test the aforementioned sterilizations.
like fuck that shit is so ridiculous that now i'm laffin
HEY LADIES BETTER CARRY THAT BABY TO TERM OR ELSE WE PLUG UP YOUR UTERUS FOREVER
you know...actually, it's a pretty kickass idea
"I'm going to plug up your uterus forever" sounds like really disgusting dirty talk.
Oh baby, my shaft is going to rock your fallopian tubes ohhhh baby
mmm put ur penile instrument up near my ovarian love trap mmmm
ah, the ovarian love trap: millions enter, but only one leaves
where is ebay's listings for uteran corks because there are some i just want to take care of as a favour to society
sometimes as many as eight can leave
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
Wrong.
Holy fucking shit you must be a high school student that is so wrong.
The physical difference is negligible. It's a personal and, ultimately, cultural definition. Anecdotally, I know of people that have had miscarriages and the father memorialized his child's passing with a tattoo. Taken to the extreme you get those creepy miscarriage internet memorials that we laugh at in flames. On the flip-side, we have abortions (coincidentally, complete with their own set of emotions and guilt.) There are Pacific island cultures in which a child is not considered a person until 4 or 5 years of age. They don't even receive a name before that point. In our culture, women have names determined before they are even physically capable of pregnancy, much less completed mate selection.
You can define when you think a collection of unique DNA starts being a person whenever you want, because it's ALL arbitrary. A new-born is no less of a parasite than a fetus. An adolescent is scarcely a larger contribution to society than a pre-teen. It's a complete farce to claim there is any logical reasoning behind making the determination at the 3rd trimester rather than 3 months after birth; your logic is based simply on how similar it looks to you.
solecistic would you like to join my campaign to remove and save all of women's eggs and sterilize them so that they can be complete whores and never pay any consequences but then when someone fucks up and wifes them they can procreate?
(it's a great idea until the procreation part)
but atmosfear, if you never procreate, how do you plan on getting into dad tavern?
it would be a hell of a lot easier to do that with men and their sperm than womenQuote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
just sayin'
yep i am on board broQuote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
by accidentQuote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
yeah but part of the point is to restrict women's rights. things have really gotten out of hand recently with Obama's removal of the glass ceiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by sycld
I'm all for sterilization for at least one full generation.
The next generation can figure it out from there
I never thought it would quite go that far, but i definitely approve.Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
We should make all of her subsequent pregnancies result in abortions.
The beginning of life as it's culturally defined is unscientific, arbitrary and useless. The point at which life begins is already defined objectively by biology - life begins when the first cell splits. Cultural opinions are irrelevant and little more than an excuse for relativist stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmosfear
That said, I don't have a problem with abortion. It's not something I would choose for myself, but I don't think the government should be making the choice either.
AgreedQuote:
Getting an abortion because the pregnancy was a mistake is one thing, because it shows something more like responsibility to make a decision about the consequences of carrying to term. But getting pregnant just to abort? I think abortion should be legal, but that doesn't mean I think getting an abortion is the same thing as getting a mole removed. It's not, or there wouldn't be such a debate.
Well, we're talking about what defines a person here, because the issue against abortion is that it is seen as murder. Two cells do not make life, nor qualify as murder, lest penicillin become one of the biggest serial killers in recent history.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
He said "The beginning of life" not "beginning of personhood." The former is defined by conception (when growth starts). The latter is arbitrary and has no bearing on the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
I honestly can't tell if you're being this obtuse or just creating a strawman.Quote:
Two cells do not make life
He obviously meant the beginning of a human life from a legal or ethical standpoint, i.e. the beginning of personhood, rather than simply the literal "beginning of life" from a scientific standpoint. Seems like you're being a bit obtuse yourself. It couldn't have been that hard to see what he meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
Which is precisely what I was referring to. "Human life" and "beginning of life (created through human sexual reproduction)" are two ways of expressing the same exact thing. Human life does not start as part of another species and then magically become a human at some arbitrarily assigned point. Nor do philosophy, ethics or law define what human life is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
Basing the ethical and legal definition of a human life on anything but biology is patently retarded.Quote:
from a legal or ethical standpoint, i.e. the beginning of personhood, rather than simply the literal "beginning of life" from a scientific standpoint.
Obviously the question ought to be "When does a human gain human rights?" but that's not what he said. But to be fair, I skimmed the first page so I may have missed some context. He did seem to reinforce a relative view of human life in post 42 though.
To add something beyond the niggling... Gestation (around 8 weeks iirc) is when all the internal organs are in place and limbs and genitalia are nearly fully formed. This is also the point where a we start calling it a fetus rather than embryo. If there is a need for a bright line, it probably ought to be there.
Wow, thank you for dropping that scientific truth bomb on me, I totally thought we started out as a different species.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
The reason I said "a human" life is because legally and ethically, "a human life" not does not necessarily begin at whatever point you are saying that biology tells us it begins at. I would have thought it was obvious that I wasn't trying to suggest that the embryo is actually a part of another species until a certain point. My point was that something which is biologically alive, and a part of the human species, still isn't necessarily legally or ethically a living human being. Which is what atmosfear was pointing out by saying that the "beginning of life" is a culturally-defined point.
Within the contexts of themselves and for their own purposes, yes they do. Whether that definition is 'correct' with respect to biological science is a different question, but legal and ethical systems do generate their own definitions of human life which are what are what will be used (and thus are what matter) with regard to the questions those systems address.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
Maybe so; I don't necessarily disagree. Atmosfear's point--that in practice, such definitions are often made on a cultural basis--nevertheless is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
He wasn't asking a question, though. He was stating that legal and ethical definitions of personhood are culturally, not medically, set; again, I feel that this should have been obvious even though his language was a bit loose and he said "beginning of life".Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
EDIT:
See, this is exactly where the cultural definitions come in. You think that the point of gestation is the obvious point to put a "bright line", but that's merely a personal and arbitrary judgment call on your part. Someone else might just as reasonably think that the obvious place to put the bright line is at birth, or at conception, or at implantation, or at whatever point the fetus can survive outside the womb (26 weeks at the absolute earliest, I think), or any other point really.Quote:
To add something beyond the niggling... Gestation (around 8 weeks iirc) is when all the internal organs are in place and limbs and genitalia are nearly fully formed. This is also the point where a we start calling it a fetus rather than embryo. If there is a need for a bright line, it probably ought to be there.
Indeed. And my point is that this is incoherent, as neither can define the term "living human being" without a biological grounding. Whatever society is doing when it creates this definition, it has nothing to do with what defines a human life. I guess I'm just annoyed at the intellectual dishonesty of the whole thing.Quote:
My point was that something which is biologically alive, and a part of the human species, still isn't necessarily legally or ethically a living human being.
And I was being rhetorical with the species bit, you know?
Actually, I don't really care nor do I necessarily agree with that definition. That just seems like the most reasonable stage to declare it "human" rather than just a ball of cells, to use your definition.Quote:
You think that the point of gestation is the obvious point to put a "bright line"
Okay, sorry. I should have picked up on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
Regardless, even if you don't care about or agree with that definition, your mere assessment of it as the most reasonable is subjective and arbitrary. It's just what "seems right" (or seems reasonable I guess) to you personally. I'm sure you realize that... my point is, there's no escaping this sort of arbitrariness when it comes to placing the "bright line". Hence the rightness of atmosfear's comment that the line's placement is culturally rather than medically or biologically determined.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
I don't necessarily agree that there needs to be a bright line, which is why I said "if there is a need..." Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in the issue. But anyway, the issue clearly isn't about when life begins; it's about when we grant the baby human rights. We already have precedence here so I don't see why abortion is a special issue (aside from some people's begging for special pleading). My whole point was that if we do rule on this legally, using social definitions is a horribly stupid thing to do, since as everyone seems to agree, they're all arbitrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
It's all well and good to say that it's stupid to use social definitions since they are arbitrary and change with regularity, but what else do we have to go by to define where humanity begins?
So as coq says, what should we use? There's nothing else. You have talked about using scientific definitions, but as I said in my previous post, that doesn't in the slightest bit remove the need to make an arbitrary decision about where to place the line. Science can identify various points in embryonic/fetal development but it can't tell us which one marks the beginning of personhood because personhood is itself a socially constructed and defined concept, not a scientific one. THERE IS NO WAY to define a point at which it begins in any way that isn't arbitary and subjective. The definition is always going to be culturally determined. So no, using social definitions isn't a horribly stupid thing to do. It's the only thing we can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt
I've always maintained that people should be forcibly put on contraceptives at the age of 12, and should have to apply to be taken off. Then again, I favor a police state so. . .
This is pretty nasty, of course there should be a limitation. Why doesn't this hoe just get the ring?
Anyways, I believe law should intervene, maybe some jail time or something. She is killing fetuses out of laziness, it's horrible. I mean, i'm for abortion rights, but this is taking it a few steps further.