Abortion Limit in the UK up to Six Months?

Not to mention society's lack of interest when the child is born. This was quoted in The Dallas Morning News this week: "We seem to worship what we cannot see, but as soon as that baby's born, it's 'Oh no, government doesn't want to be intrusive.'" (State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-Antonia, contrasting the level of attention paid to fetuses with the level of care the government provides once they're born) I refer mainly to child abuse. In Dallas, Texas there were 15,000 cases of reported child abuse or neglect in 2003 alone.

I found this on NPR: "Partial Birth Abortions: Separating Fact from Spin."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5168163

My main concern is this:

"In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development."

I do feel that this procedure should be limited to women who have been raped or whose life and health is at risk if they carry the baby to term.

The point of all of this is to care for life, potential or actual, as best we can and to do the right thing, as best we can in each individual situation.

It depends whether the 'abortion' causes pain to the baby. If it's done without pain, there are no direct ethical reasons for it being wrong (babies don't see themselves as beings existing in time, they don't have conscious future interests or plans). There are however some indirect consequences, one might argue that human life is 'cheapened' if the parents arbitrarily get to decide that they don't want the baby anymore. It could lead to parents becoming careless.

If there's pain involved, then clearly the matter changes. In that case, only a threat of equal importance to the well-being of the mother would justify it. But then again, by the same reasoning factory farming should be illegal. So much for double standards..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

It depends whether the 'abortion' causes pain to the baby. If it's done without pain, there are no direct ethical reasons for it being wrong
If there's pain involved, then clearly the matter changes. . So much for double standards..

---

This standard does not apply to lab animals and I don't see how it matters. The baby has no say in its own existence so why entertain what it might feel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

It depends whether the 'abortion' causes pain to the baby. If it's done without pain, there are no direct ethical reasons for it being wrong (babies don't see themselves as beings existing in time, they don't have conscious future interests or plans). There are however some indirect consequences, one might argue that human life is 'cheapened' if the parents arbitrarily get to decide that they don't want the baby anymore. It could lead to parents becoming careless.

If there's pain involved, then clearly the matter changes. In that case, only a threat of equal importance to the well-being of the mother would justify it. But then again, by the same reasoning factory farming should be illegal. So much for double standards..

---

There's only no direct ethical reason if you take Jeremy Singer to be the grand arbiter of human morality.

Although, you're already aware that I'm a firm supporter of deontological moral systems, in particularly rights based legalism, that have more clearly defined ethical borders. A human being existing independent of another human being seems legal bounds enough to consider them a morally relevant person. Playing the subjective weighing game of which human beings are morally relevant, conscious, or whatever other subjective values Singer deems important for determining moral value, is more subject to abuse and causing harm. To make an utilitarian argument for this, if we expand rights to the most vulnerable amongst us, we can then be sure to limit any unintended harm.

Edit: Note that I am making a distinction here between pre-independent cellular being. Since then we have issues of rights of the mother at odds with rights of the fetus, and in that case the rights of the mother win out. I think the rights of the mother do not extend to an infant that can exist in an incubator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

There's only no direct ethical reason if you take Jeremy Singer to be the grand arbiter of human morality.

---

Right, it's the view of utilitarianists like Peter Singer (or Jeremy Bentham); other moral philosophers disagree, but I think they're being inconsistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Although, you're already aware that I'm a firm supporter of deontological moral systems, in particularly rights based legalism, that have more clearly defined ethical borders. A human being existing independent of another human being seems legal bounds enough to consider them a morally relevant person. Playing the subjective weighing game of which human beings are morally relevant, conscious, or whatever other subjective values Singer deems important for determining moral value, is more subject to abuse and causing harm. To make an utilitarian argument for this, if we expand rights to the most vulnerable amongst us, we can then be sure to limit any unintended harm.

---

[my emphasis]

I kind of agree with your last sentence here. Utilitarianism has two levels, one is the very abstract 'ivory tower' level, and the other is about general policies based on utilitarian reasoning. That's why most utilitarianists aren't directly oppesed to the principle of 'human rights', though they surely would contest certain applications of it when it clearly clashes with utilitarian reasoning.

Now, you use the term 'person' to suggest moral relevance, but obviously you're not using it in Kant's sense (who sees rationality as the defining criterium), since babies aren't rational. In what sense ARE you using it, then? What exactly is it that determines moral value? After all, we do need SOME relevant criteria for justification, or else any policy is arbitrary.

You're justification of 'basic human rights' is very abstract, and clearly speciesist. It leads to inconsistencies regarding our treatment of animals. It is the very equivalent of sexism or racism applied to species. You're asserting some transcendental property to all members of a group, regardless of specific circumstances. In any other domain, such reasoning is bigoted.

I think I've used the example before: An architecture bureau needs a new architect. The boss of the bureau gets two application dossiers, one from a woman and one from a man. If he tosses the woman's dossier away, justifying it by 'on average, women are worse at 3-D imagination, therefore I choose the male', he clearly is guilty of sexism. (The thing about spatial vision is true actually.) The very same bias occurs when humans grant 'rights' to clearly non self-aware infants while denying any 'rights' to adult, healthy chimpanzees (healthy at least before they're subjected to cruel testings for cosmetics or new drugs). The boss of the architecture bureau should look at the relevant criteria in the dossiers, and just like that, the same reasoning should apply in ethical reasoning.

I'm clearly off topic by now, sorry for the long post. I wanted to elaborate my reasoning now in detail since I won't have internet next week. I do see your point regarding 'preventing unintended harm', and I alluded to it briefly (as the 'indirect consequences'). I just think you need to go one level deeper than mere 'human beings -> persons -> absolute rights', or else you'll undoubtedly run into contradictions, some of them merely trivial, others having serious consequences for the well-being of non-human animals.

Abortions and contraception could be related as similar by the view that it disrupts the natural swing of things. Every view will have their own little twists. It's like some reformed religions allow abortions while others don't. Depending on the timing of the abortion depends on whether it is a ball of cells or living. I find some leave it last minute for multiple reasons:
1. Denial - Refusing to believe that it could happen to you.
2. Age - If you are younger you may want to either do it sooner to prevent a parent from finding out or keeping it longer from conflicting messages.
3. Options - Abortion, Adoption, Keeping, Giving it to the father. With all these possibilities especially if you are uncertain as to whether which is right or parents saying one thing, you thinking another and the father of the child another.
4. Timing - If it comes at the wrong time of your life then you need time to think whether complications are worth it if the person is older or how well the child is raised if they are younger.

I agree with abortion whether to be able to abort at 6 months I hold no judgement having never been in a situation with such an occurrence.

Quote:

---

you're boss

---

[[Edited to remove a personal remark. But there is some irony that this was in a comment with regards to intelligence.]]