The Other Abortion Question

[John]

The other angle one could take is a sort of "designer baby" attitude and the moral disapprobation that goes with it. Trendy middle class couples want their perfect baby and would rather not have their life-style compromised by having to provide extra care for 'less that perfect' children. I'm not sure this is a fair caricature. Life is short and if you are keen to make a family I could not criticise a couple for not wanting their (hopefully) limited number of children (2.4?) to get the best start possible.

Yes, I can see that argument and to be fair to Shakespeare he says he isn't against abortion but just wants people to make informed choices rather than ones based on assumptions that may not be true. The designer baby argument was present within the wider subject matter of the film as it was examining whether there were links between eugenics and current screening and abortion practices.

Whilst I understand the disabled lobby's argument that this sort of abortion makes their disability somehow "less than human", I would still encourage us as a species to avoid the most obvious problems. No one can guarantee any level of care so the basic fitness of a person to be able to face changing economic and environmental uncertainties is indicated.

I think people need to make their own judgements and while I might start from an assumption that abortion is possibly the most appropriate route in certain extreme cases I wouldn't start from that assumption in general or cases of what might be regarded as more "common" disabilities such as Down's Syndrome, to pick just one example.

[chaz wyman]

The other angle one could take is a sort of "designer baby" attitude and the moral disapprobation that goes with it. Trendy middle class couples want their perfect baby and would rather not have their life-style compromised by having to provide extra care for 'less that perfect' children. I'm not sure this is a fair caricature. Life is short and if you are keen to make a family I could not criticise a couple for not wanting their (hopefully) limited number of children (2.4?) to get the best start possible.

Yes, I can see that argument and to be fair to Shakespeare he says he isn't against abortion but just wants people to make informed choices rather than ones based on assumptions that may not be true. The designer baby argument was present within the wider subject matter of the film as it was examining whether there were links between eugenics and current screening and abortion practices.

Whilst I understand the disabled lobby's argument that this sort of abortion makes their disability somehow "less than human", I would still encourage us as a species to avoid the most obvious problems. No one can guarantee any level of care so the basic fitness of a person to be able to face changing economic and environmental uncertainties is indicated.

I think people need to make their own judgements and while I might start from an assumption that abortion is possibly the most appropriate route in certain extreme cases I wouldn't start from that assumption in general or cases of what might be regarded as more "common" disabilities such as Down's Syndrome, to pick just one example.

Down's children give much love and are a joy to most parents that have avoided the prejudices of the early 20thC and before. It is really only in the last generation or two where this 'condition' was not considered abhorrent. So that is a great example. When I was a boy - they were "SPASTICS" and all lived wretched lives in "Homes".

However children tend to outlive their parents and so there are no guarantees for provision of care. Part of the advice for the considering parent ought to be the vicissitudes of the future, which are unpredictable. Down's syndrome kids are nearly always the progeny of older parents which makes it doubly difficult to make provision for them should they not be able to care for themselves. In the West (esp in the UK) we are lucky enough (for the time being) to be able to hope for continuing care for our children beyond the length of our lives, but this is very recent indeed. I would not want to bring a Down's child into this world as I think it highly likely that the UK is on the way down.

[John]

However children tend to outlive their parents and so there are no guarantees for provision of care. Part of the advice for the considering parent ought to be the vicissitudes of the future, which are unpredictable. Down's syndrome kids are nearly always the progeny of older parents which makes it doubly difficult to make provision for them should they not be able to care for themselves. In the West (esp in the UK) we are lucky enough (for the time being) to be able to hope for continuing care for our children beyond the length of our lives, but this is very recent indeed. I would not want to bring a Down's child into this world as I think it highly likely that the UK is on the way down.

I think the issue of on going care is a very important one and prospective parents need to look at the situation from their own context. Part of the issue is undoubtedly the quality of the assistance parents, and later on the adult with a disability, can rely on from others - either the state, support groups, their own family etc., - and it's maybe a sad reflection of the state of our society that the support often isn't adequate so people are forced to make decisions based on harsh economics.

I have to admit that both times my wife was pregnant she didn't have an amniocentesis as we decided that we'd take our chances but maybe we're fairly lucky in that we're belong to decent sized families who are all pretty close so it never occurred to us that we'd be on our own. That assumption was never put to the test though as both babies were perfectly healthy bundles of grief - but only in the way all babies and children are I would absolutely understand if someone didn't want to take that risk though.

[chaz wyman]

However children tend to outlive their parents and so there are no guarantees for provision of care. Part of the advice for the considering parent ought to be the vicissitudes of the future, which are unpredictable. Down's syndrome kids are nearly always the progeny of older parents which makes it doubly difficult to make provision for them should they not be able to care for themselves. In the West (esp in the UK) we are lucky enough (for the time being) to be able to hope for continuing care for our children beyond the length of our lives, but this is very recent indeed. I would not want to bring a Down's child into this world as I think it highly likely that the UK is on the way down.

I think the issue of on going care is a very important one and prospective parents need to look at the situation from their own context. Part of the issue is undoubtedly the quality of the assistance parents, and later on the adult with a disability, can rely on from others - either the state, support groups, their own family etc., - and it's maybe a sad reflection of the state of our society that the support often isn't adequate so people are forced to make decisions based on harsh economics.

I have to admit that both times my wife was pregnant she didn't have an amniocentesis as we decided that we'd take our chances but maybe we're fairly lucky in that we're belong to decent sized families who are all pretty close so it never occurred to us that we'd be on our own. That assumption was never put to the test though as both babies were perfectly healthy bundles of grief - but only in the way all babies and children are I would absolutely understand if someone didn't want to take that risk though.

How old are your bundles of joy?

[John]

8 and 12 so it was a little while ago since we last had to think about such things.

[artisticsolution]

One is not the same as many - ask anyone who is loosing their teeth.

Hi Chaz,

In the case of abortion, I think it is a weak argument to say that many abortions is merely distasteful. That is like saying, I don't like hideousness, or sloppiness, or ill mannered people, people with no teeth etc. It is a shallow value judgment based on personal preference and does not get to the real issue of "is abortion moral or ethical? Is it wrong or right?"

I was thinking more along the lines of the legality of the issue. If it is legal to have an abortion, then why is it distasteful to have more than one? What business is it of ours to judge.

I just noticed that I am going off topic in ala's thread. Sorry ala. I do like your "Other" question but I am afraid that the living trump the unliving in the case of "forced life" as it is an issue of consequences of natural impulses.

[chaz wyman]

One is not the same as many - ask anyone who is loosing their teeth.

Hi Chaz,

In the case of abortion, I think it is a weak argument to say that many abortions is merely distasteful. That is like saying, I don't like hideousness, or sloppiness, or ill mannered people, people with no teeth etc. It is a shallow value judgment based on personal preference and does not get to the real issue of "is abortion moral or ethical? Is it wrong or right?"

I did not just say that though. Multiple abortions are also very harmful to the woman, and compromise her fertility for the time she might want to have a child.
It is also (or is normally) very traumatic if not mentally then also physically.


I was thinking more along the lines of the legality of the issue. If it is legal to have an abortion, then why is it distasteful to have more than one? What business is it of ours to judge.

Law and taste are not the same. In the UK we have a say as we have to pay. We ought to have the right to advise against careless use of NHS resources.

I just noticed that I am going off topic in ala's thread. Sorry ala. I do like your "Other" question but I am afraid that the living trump the unliving in the case of "forced life" as it is an issue of consequences of natural impulses.

[artisticsolution]

Law and taste are not the same. In the UK we have a say as we have to pay. We ought to have the right to advise against careless use of NHS resources.

Hi Chaz,

I think this is also a weak argument as alot of practices which are unnecessary cost taxpayers money. Extreme sports, reckless use of food, drink and drugs, mental illness due to abusive parents, etc. Why only point the finger at the woman who chooses to have many abortions? Also, I think it is her business if she wants to ruin her health. Others ruin their health by simply taking too many tylenol. Why not admonish them?

[chaz wyman]

Law and taste are not the same. In the UK we have a say as we have to pay. We ought to have the right to advise against careless use of NHS resources.

Hi Chaz,

I think this is also a weak argument as alot of practices which are unnecessary cost taxpayers money. Extreme sports, reckless use of food, drink and drugs, mental illness due to abusive parents, etc. Why only point the finger at the woman who chooses to have many abortions? Also, I think it is her business if she wants to ruin her health. Others ruin their health by simply taking too many tylenol. Why not admonish them?

Rubbish - we argue against all of those too. Cigs and booze are taxed to the max. I do not blame people with mental illness whatever the cause.

Why not admonish them?? I'd advice anyone to avoid taking too much of any drug, just the same. But I think having a team of scarce medical staff stick a vacuum cleaner up you noo-noo is an extreme form of contraception.

So do I take it you would recommend 7 abortions?

PS: I give up. I just don't think abortion is comparable to any of these other cases. I can't get away from the fact that there is another potential life involved and having know the stress and angst suffered by women of my acquaintance, I just think it is reckless, careless and disturbing to know that, (although a tiny number), any woman can repeat this process again and again. Everyone I know who has been involved in a decision to abort a pregnancy has engaged in a solemn and heartfelt decision, and it is an insult to their feelings if this is done in a cavalier way.
I'm not sure how many, if any women, we are talking about. That is the trouble with hypotheticals!!

[artisticsolution]

C:So do I take it you would recommend 7 abortions?

AS: What gave you this idea? I would not recommend any abortion. However, if a woman chose to have one or many it is none of my business. Just as it is none of my business how anyone wishes to live their life. Take drugs, don't take drugs....abort don't abort....I have no say over another person's body as long as no harm comes to another person. I do understand the argument of prolifer's when they say a fetus is a child, because I do think there is a point in gestation where a fetus changes from a few cells into a human being. I just happen to think that because this human being is attached to another human being then it does not come first...the host body comes first as they are full fledged human beings who are already alive.

It is a weak argument to argue that a persons "feelings" should be taken into account when discussing this issue, as most all have strong feelings on the issue of abortion. I have a theory it is because we are conditioned to believe a woman "should" act in a certain way to suit our traditions and desire of what is aesthetically pleasing to our senses. But then that is a shallow thought process at it's core.

It just seems to me the only way to settle this legal issue is with a compromise. Still, I think the issue of women being free agents over their bodies gets the short end of the stick even with compromise.

C:PS: I give up. I just don't think abortion is comparable to any of these other cases.

AS: And yet you wanted to compare it to loosing teeth?

C:I can't get away from the fact that there is another potential life involved and having know the stress and angst suffered by women of my acquaintance, I just think it is reckless, careless and disturbing to know that, (although a tiny number), any woman can repeat this process again and again.

AS: If abortion is reckless with many, it is reckless with one. Look, I don't care if you are pro life or pro choice, I make no judgments about personal preference in this instance, except to state the obvious, which is pro choice might be facilitating the death of the unborn and pro lifer's might be facilitating the enslavement of women by not allowing them to be free agents of choice. The thing I take issue with is all this tip toeing around the truth. It's legal there...good...you came to a solution/compromise.

Obviously there are still issues though, if you think something that is legal is wrong if it is done more than once. Do you think it should be a law that women can only have 1 abortion? Do you think the law goes too far by making taxpayers pay for it? Where do you think the law should draw the line. Do you think there could ever be a perfect solution?

C:Everyone I know who has been involved in a decision to abort a pregnancy has engaged in a solemn and heartfelt decision, and it is an insult to their feelings if this is done in a cavalier way.

AS: Please let's keep emotional appeal out of this discussion. Of course women are going to be upset, they know what they are aborting could become a child one day. That has nothing to do with the legality of an issue nor whether or not an issue is morally or ethically wrong. If abortion is right/legal, then why isn't right no matter how many times it is performed? I think truth be told, most people are more pro life than not, on a subconscious level. But then on a conscious level, when our intellect rules, I think most reasonable people would say that there is no reason a fetus should take precedence over an adult, esp. if that adult woman was going to lose her life carrying an infant to full term.


One last question to think about regarding the question of "if something is wrong once, is it wrong many times?" ...

If someone murders once, are they less guilty of murder than the one who murders multiple times?

[chaz wyman]

C:So do I take it you would recommend 7 abortions?

AS: What gave you this idea? I would not recommend any abortion. However, if a woman chose to have one or many it is none of my business. Just as it is none of my business how anyone wishes to live their life. Take drugs, don't take drugs....abort don't abort....I have no say over another person's body as long as no harm comes to another person. I do understand the argument of prolifer's when they say a fetus is a child, because I do think there is a point in gestation where a fetus changes from a few cells into a human being. I just happen to think that because this human being is attached to another human being then it does not come first...the host body comes first as they are full fledged human beings who are already alive.

It is a weak argument to argue that a persons "feelings" should be taken into account when discussing this issue, as most all have strong feelings on the issue of abortion. I have a theory it is because we are conditioned to believe a woman "should" act in a certain way to suit our traditions and desire of what is aesthetically pleasing to our senses. But then that is a shallow thought process at it's core.

It just seems to me the only way to settle this legal issue is with a compromise. Still, I think the issue of women being free agents over their bodies gets the short end of the stick even with compromise.

C:PS: I give up. I just don't think abortion is comparable to any of these other cases.

AS: And yet you wanted to compare it to loosing teeth?

Yes of course to show how ridiculous it was to say that one abortion is the same as 25. That is a sound comparison.

C:I can't get away from the fact that there is another potential life involved and having know the stress and angst suffered by women of my acquaintance, I just think it is reckless, careless and disturbing to know that, (although a tiny number), any woman can repeat this process again and again.

AS: If abortion is reckless with many, it is reckless with one.

Absolutely not. ANyone can make a mistake. You are falling down on the idiotic one os the same as many. That is bullshit!

Look, I don't care if you are pro life or pro choice, I make no judgments about personal preference in this instance, except to state the obvious, which is pro choice might be facilitating the death of the unborn and pro lifer's might be facilitating the enslavement of women by not allowing them to be free agents of choice. The thing I take issue with is all this tip toeing around the truth. It's legal there...good...you came to a solution/compromise.

The fact is that our opinions make a difference in the UK, and are used to formulate LAWS. So, where you might sit in your ivory tower and wash your hands saying it's nothing to do with me if you want, I think such laws and ethical formulations are of great concern. But you are contradicting yourself, as usual, when you say on the one hand it has nothing to do with you and yet you can demand that a certain point is reached when it is your concern - the moment you have decided that the Foetus has become a 'human'.


Obviously there are still issues though, if you think something that is legal is wrong if it is done more than once. Do you think it should be a law that women can only have 1 abortion? Do you think the law goes too far by making taxpayers pay for it? Where do you think the law should draw the line. Do you think there could ever be a perfect solution?

No I said exactly what I wanted to say , and not what you wanted me to have said to sort your own adversarial position.
When you read back and consider exactly what I did say then you can attack my point of view if you think it wrong.


C:Everyone I know who has been involved in a decision to abort a pregnancy has engaged in a solemn and heartfelt decision, and it is an insult to their feelings if this is done in a cavalier way.

AS: Please let's keep emotional appeal out of this discussion.

FUCK NO.

Of course women are going to be upset, they know what they are aborting could become a child one day. That has nothing to do with the legality of an issue nor whether or not an issue is morally or ethically wrong.

It has everything to do with it. If an abortion could be done without emotion it would not attract ANY moral, ethical or legal interest. Human passion is at the heart of all human activity and thought.



If abortion is right/legal, then why isn't right no matter how many times it is performed?

I stated several reasons why it was not desirable, I did not say it should be illegal - if you want that argument send SoB a text - he wants such women put in prison.

I think truth be told, most people are more pro life than not, on a subconscious level. But then on a conscious level, when our intellect rules, I think most reasonable people would say that there is no reason a fetus should take precedence over an adult, esp. if that adult woman was going to lose her life carrying an infant to full term.

Relevant how?


One last question to think about regarding the question of "if something is wrong once, is it wrong many times?" ...

If someone murders once, are they less guilty of murder than the one who murders multiple times?

That would depend on the circumstances of each crime. You might be aware that murderers rarely receive exactly the same sentence. Have you not heard of mitigation?
Compare a 15 year old who has been raped with a 30 year old woman on her 10th abortion who disdains contraception and enjoys the attention she gets from the nice doctors in hospital.
DUH.

[artisticsolution]

C:Yes of course to show how ridiculous it was to say that one abortion is the same as 25. That is a sound comparison.

AS: I never said it was the same...you did. All I asked you to do was explain to me the difference without using the shallow aesthetic as a scapegoat for your emotions. Are you even capable of doing that? If abortion is wrong 25 times ...why is it not wrong once? Can you answer that without resorting to a shallow answer based only in the aesthetics?

Your answer thus far is akin to "because when it is just once I can look away and my sensitivities are not compromised. When it is 25 times, I can't seem to ignore it." My point is.. if you allow 25 women to have an abortion once...it's still 25 abortions. What difference does it make if it is 25 abortions from 25 women or 25 abortions from one woman or a thousand and one abortion a year from an undisclosed amount of women? A life is a life is a life. It is still murder in the eyes of some people. And for some people it is not. What makes your declaration that one abortion is fine but 25 is not? Why is your opinion worth more than any other pro choice or pro life person? Your argument is weak because it boils down to aesthetics and nothing more. Please do not respond if you can't come up with a better argument. You are boring me.

C:ANyone can make a mistake. You are falling down on the idiotic one os the same as many. That is bullshit!

AS: Yes anyone can. And if they can make one mistake, they can make 25. Who made you judge to decide when and if someone is making a mistake?

C:The fact is that our opinions make a difference in the UK, and are used to formulate LAWS. So, where you might sit in your ivory tower and wash your hands saying it's nothing to do with me if you want, I think such laws and ethical formulations are of great concern. But you are contradicting yourself, as usual, when you say on the one hand it has nothing to do with you and yet you can demand that a certain point is reached when it is your concern - the moment you have decided that the Foetus has become a 'human'.

AS: There is no point I make such a decision. I don't know when a life becomes a life...just as none of us can know. We can only give opinions. What I am suggesting is a compromise. You seem to be suggesting that we set a quota as to how many abortions a woman can have. How idiotic! So if she meets her quota and gets pregnant she must have the baby, even though she was told on the 25 time she could die? Even if she was raped on the 25 time?
what you are really saying is that you 'feel' abortion is wrong but you can't admit to it so you will "allow" women to have one out of the kindness of your heart.

AS:Of course women are going to be upset, they know what they are aborting could become a child one day. That has nothing to do with the legality of an issue nor whether or not an issue is morally or ethically wrong.

C:It has everything to do with it. If an abortion could be done without emotion it would not attract ANY moral, ethical or legal interest. Human passion is at the heart of all human activity and thought.


AS: Passion is an aesthetic value judgement. Don't you get it? What makes your passionate value judgment more important than anothers? Values change and then change back again throughout the course of history. They are shallow. Passion made Hitler come up with good reasons why he must kill the Jews for a better world. When I hear you say it's okay for a mom to abort one but it is not okay for her to abort 25, I think of the people who seemed to have said, "It is okay for Hitler to kill a few Jews,( I will look away for the betterment of mankind ) but it is not okay to kill millions."

It is shallow thinking.

[chaz wyman]

C:Yes of course to show how ridiculous it was to say that one abortion is the same as 25. That is a sound comparison.

AS: I never said it was the same...you did.
No I did not. I said that making some comparisons is ridiculous and made a comparison to prove the point about DRAWING A DISTINCTION.. Have you lost your sense of irony?

Compare:
boy kills a spider.
Hitler kills a race.
Think about it!

It's all just killing isn't it?



C:ANyone can make a mistake. You are falling down on the idiotic one os the same as many. That is bullshit!

AS: Yes anyone can. And if they can make one mistake, they can make 25. Who made you judge to decide when and if someone is making a mistake?

DUH!

C:The fact is that our opinions make a difference in the UK, and are used to formulate LAWS. So, where you might sit in your ivory tower and wash your hands saying it's nothing to do with me if you want, I think such laws and ethical formulations are of great concern. But you are contradicting yourself, as usual, when you say on the one hand it has nothing to do with you and yet you can demand that a certain point is reached when it is your concern - the moment you have decided that the Foetus has become a 'human'.

AS: There is no point I make such a decision.

Read back!


AS:Of course women are going to be upset, they know what they are aborting could become a child one day. That has nothing to do with the legality of an issue nor whether or not an issue is morally or ethically wrong.

C:It has everything to do with it. If an abortion could be done without emotion it would not attract ANY moral, ethical or legal interest. Human passion is at the heart of all human activity and thought.


AS: Passion is an aesthetic value judgement. Don't you get it?

That is true and laws are made to even out and objectify those emotion based opinions - to say that feelings are irrelevant is stupid.
I've got Kayla telling me this is nothing to do with law, and you telling me it has nothing to do with feelings. I suggest two things; One I think you cannot have any discussion about ethics without law AND emotion. Beacuse what humans feel about an issue makes it relevant to the attention of ethical and legal judgement; 2)why not have the conversation with Kayla. Because iof you cannot draw a simple distinction between one and many; and reject the value of human feeling then I terminate this conversation as pointless.

What makes your passionate value judgment more important than anothers?
Nothing, of course. What makes your dispassionate pretended objectivity more relevant than my opinion?
Values change and then change back again throughout the course of history. They are shallow. Passion made Hitler come up with good reasons why he must kill the Jews for a better world. When I hear you say it's okay for a mom to abort one but it is not okay for her to abort 25, I think of the people who seemed to have said, "It is okay for Hitler to kill a few Jews,( I will look away for the betterment of mankind ) but it is not okay to kill millions."

You make my point for me. There is nothing more important than emotions and without them there is no morality.

It is shallow thinking.

No emotions are the most deep. What are you a robot?

[artisticsolution]

I pretty much agree with most of what you said and realized that we may have been saying the same thing differently. I would only take issue with these last 2 lines.

C:There is nothing more important than emotions and without them there is no morality.

AS:Not necessarily. Just because there are lack of emotions does not mean there isn't morality and just because emotions are present doesn't mean there isn't immorality or visa versa. However, you have touched upon something I have always questioned and that is why people usually assume the negative first. Let's take nihilism for example, most people would say that nihilism is akin to being immoral, but why does that have to be? Just because someone does not care does not mean that they sway toward destruction. That would mean they cared about destroying things and would make them something other than a nihilist. I would think is someone was a nihilist they could choose to follow good just as easily as following bad. I mean if they don't care then what is the difference, right? I never understood why nihilism makes us think of someone who is depressed in that respect. Neutral is the word that seems more honest, I think.

C:No emotions are the most deep. What are you a robot?

AS: No emotions are not the most deep. Honesty is. I am not without emotion, and have much compassion for this issue, but that is just an aesthetic value and has no basis in what is right and wrong for society. I would put my personal preference aside in order to come to a reasonable compromise.

[chaz wyman]

I pretty much agree with most of what you said and realized that we may have been saying the same thing differently. I would only take issue with these last 2 lines.

C:There is nothing more important than emotions and without them there is no morality.

AS:Not necessarily. Just because there are lack of emotions does not mean there isn't morality and just because emotions are present doesn't mean there isn't immorality or visa versa.

I have to disagree entirely. There are simply no moral rules for issues that are not based on how people feel about human conduct - especially abortion. If you can think of an area of morality that is not concerned with how people feel about about it then let me know. Passion is the motivation for all human behaviour. It is the reason we get up in the morning and the reason we argue and debate about how to live a good life.
Without emotion we are nothing.
I agree that laws concerning ethical questions are made under 'rational' conditions. But this is simply makes my point in the sense that the law is designed to mediate between moral interests all of which are based on the impassioned motivations of those that give a damn.
I'm trying to think of a moral code that is not primarily motivated by how people feel - but I just cannot. maybe you can?

However, you have touched upon something I have always questioned and that is why people usually assume the negative first. Let's take nihilism for example, most people would say that nihilism is akin to being immoral, but why does that have to be? Just because someone does not care does not mean that they sway toward destruction. That would mean they cared about destroying things and would make them something other than a nihilist. I would think is someone was a nihilist they could choose to follow good just as easily as following bad. I mean if they don't care then what is the difference, right? I never understood why nihilism makes us think of someone who is depressed in that respect. Neutral is the word that seems more honest, I think.

I never considered a nihilist position as destructive, just a rejection of the imposition of rules by others. Anarchism and nihilism both have their good points.


C:No emotions are the most deep. What are you a robot?

AS: No emotions are not the most deep. Honesty is.

Honest is an abstraction based on a comparison of differing views. It does not come more superficial than that.

I am not without emotion, and have much compassion for this issue, but that is just an aesthetic value and has no basis in what is right and wrong for society. I would put my personal preference aside in order to come to a reasonable compromise.

Clearly we look at the definition of emotion completely differently.
I'm using it in the sense considered by Hume who positions it as the key motivating force of human action.

But what you say about compromise seem to be a balance of different opinions based on hoe people feel about an issue - i.e. emotion is at the heart of all debates concerning morality.