Controversy Squared

My post-hospital blog entry stirred up rather a commotion, and led aebrahim and jesus_x to write responses. Those who followed the original controversy may be interested in their takes, and the ensuing discussion.

And, in case people think things are still too quiet, I just want to have a quick rant about abortion law.

<deathly silence>

The current law in the UK is that abortion is legal at under 24 weeks if two doctors consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children. Millions of abortions are performed legally each year.

Now, there is a proposal to change the limit from 24 weeks to 12. This is apparently because medical advances mean that babies born prematurely at 24 weeks can now be kept alive.

Er, hello? How does an increase in doctor’s knowledge change the essential nature of the humanity of an unborn child? Either an 18-week-old foetus is a person or it isn’t – it doesn’t start becoming one just because doctors get cleverer and technology has improved!

It’s also been reported that people are rethinking their view on abortion because of new pictures which have been published, showing a baby in a womb much more clearly.

Er, hello? How does a set of pretty pictures change the essential nature of the humanity of an unborn child? People who are changing their minds because of this should feel ashamed – their attitude was just the same as that of the western world’s towards genocide in Africa. “If we can’t see it happening, we don’t need to worry about it.”

Grr!

28 thoughts on “Controversy Squared

  1. it’s like the “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” It sure does! And if a baby dies in utero it’s still a baby even if nobody is there to see him.

  2. arielb: Most defintions of the word sound require vibrations to be transmitted to some kind of hearing organism or device. A tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it indeed transmits vibrations through the air, the ground, and nearby water, but it makes no sound.

  3. I have to disagree with Greg the First on what is a sound – dictionary.com only says a sound is “capable” of being heard, not that it must be heard.

    One could also ask if a blind man turns a lamp on (don’t ask why) does is produce light? Barring a faulty lamp, the answer would have to be yes – one could prove this by considering the “lost” electrical potential energy and the principle of conservation of energy.

    This also raises the question of whether if a man does something and there’s no woman present to object, is he still wrong? (Sorry – couldn’t resist).

    Asa, I agree that humans’ knowledge (including technology and snapshots) doesn’t change unborn babies’ status.

    But maybe these converts were wrong about that status and this new knowledge has led to a better understanding. If (hypothetically) this were the case, I think it’d be better for them to acknowledge they were wrong and change their actions accordingly. If you think one should be ashamed of being wrong, realising one’s mistake, then repenting, then we disagree.

    I’d like to draw a parallel with slavery (tenuous, I know). Let’s assume the slave drivers didn’t know their slaves were sentient humans. When this was… “discovered”… abolishing slavery was the only acceptable choice. New knowledge led to more rights – I think this is what is happening with abortion.

  4. Let me cut to the chase without much of these ‘intellectual masterbation’. Abortion is just plain wrong. It is tantamount to killing. No political, religous affiliation is needed to support this argument.

    Any which way you look at it it is nothing but JUST PLAIN MURDER.

    Hem

  5. I pride myself on honesty, so why not say it like it is: yes, it’s murder. This doesn’t make it unnecessary.

    If the most humane thing to do is terminate a life, then so be it. This is the process by which I’ve always judged the necessity of abortion.

    In that light, there’s nothing wrong with this decision. In the case of siamese births, for instance, doctors don’t assume that in the case where one twin is too weak to survive and will endanger the other that the weak twin isn’t a human being! They have to make a call based on the chances of either surviving.

    I don’t have a problem with the discussion of abortion. I intensely dislike the issue being framed as “alive / not alive”. It’s dishonest. Pro-choice proponents would do considerably better in countries where the argument is still essentially religious (like the States) if they were more honest about their beliefs.

    – Chris

  6. Greg: this is my blog, not Asa’s :-)

    What really gets me is that people think they can alter their view without admitting they were wrong originally, and that therefore, by their own terms, they’ve colluded in the murder of creatures they now themselves believe are human.

    So yes, I think that if they are changing their minds, they need to be ashamed of their previous position. Otherwise they aren’t really changing their minds at all. Their new view could be better summed up as “an 18-week-old foetus is still not a human, but politically it’s expedient to prevent people from killing one anyway.” Which is really even more sick.

    “Let’s assume the slave drivers didn’t know their slaves were sentient humans.”

    Oh, come on! Does anyone really argue that?

  7. Chris said: “If the most humane thing to do is terminate a life, then so be it.”

    But that doesn’t say much – I’m sure both sides agree on that. They differ on what level of humanity to ascribe to the foetus.

    In the extreme, if you think it’s just a scrap of flesh, then any distress to the mother at all is grounds for abortion on demand. If you think it’s just as human as you or I, then extreme circumstances are required before abortion should be permitted. But both decisions are based on “the humane thing to do” within the frame of reference of the decider.

  8. I don’t have a problem with the concept of life beginning at conception. That’s the point. I truly believe than an eight-week-old foetus is a living human being. But when it comes down to it, if that living human being is going to both cause and be born into a world of suffering it is preferable to put him / her (not *it*) out of his / her misery up to a certain point.

    I don’t have the experience to judge where that line is. I’d have to research it / experience it. What I do know, though, is that the issue *is* legalised murder in my mind, exactly the same as euthanasia, and that I would prefer for the debate to be based that way even if it repulses the mushy middle.

    As an adult voter of no strong faith, I would prefer for issues not to be framed around religious concepts such as the existence of the immortal soul, just as those of faith would prefer for the argument to be around something other than raw statistics.

    Many people are prepared to acknowledge that in certain circumstances it must be necessary to discard normal values as regards the sanctity of human life (in wartime, for instance). I consider this one of those times. Forget arguing about whether a foetus is a valuable member of society or not, and start focusing on whether the addition of that valuable member to society is going to have a catastrophic effect on the parent(s).

    So yeah. I don’t have a problem with being deemed pro-murder. If a mercy killing is going to improve things for those involved, I believe that I support this.

    – Chris

  9. I’ve always had a problem with people saying it is better to kill someone than to have them born into a world of suffering.

    What we are doing is making an assumption for someone else that their life is not worth living. What if we did that in other areas of life?

    Oh that bum over there looks like he’s had a hard life. BANG!

    Oh that old person doesn’t have a lot of friends and had horrible back pain. BANG!

    Oh that stock broker just lost a bunch of money and everyone is mad at him. BANG!

    I understand that Thumper is saying that it is better to a certain point. Still, making the assumption for someone else (the baby) is a very large responsibility, one that I would not want to be held accountable for.

    I see Euthenasia as a little different since the person gets to choose for his/herself. If a child is born and having a terrible life and decides to end it, that seems like a lot better than us guessing whether or not their life will be worth living.

  10. In most well-known euphanasia cases the euphanasee (?) was incapable of articulating his / her point, actually.

    Anyway, I’m just framing the debate. Whether or not mercy killing is justifiable is another matter, but it’s important to make sure that the argument is on terms which both sides can relate to.

    – Chris

  11. Thumper said: “Forget arguing about whether a foetus is a valuable member of society or not, and start focusing on whether the addition of that valuable member to society is going to have a catastrophic effect on the parent(s).”

    Well, let’s get rid of the (s) for a start. A baby can never have a catastrophic effect on the father because, if the parents really do not want the child, they can put it up for adoption. And as for the mother, in the vast, vast majority of the current abortion cases, the baby may well be inconvenient for the mother, but it is certainly not life-threatening.

    The problem with the “catastrophic effect” argument is that people seem to think “I’ll have to wear horrible clothes for six months”, “It’ll ruin my figure” and “It’ll damage my career” are catastrophic effects. How selfish can you get?

  12. I consider it pretty feasible that a couple could wish to remain together and childless. Were they unable to afford to raise a child, it would have an adverse affect on the father.

    Although I don’t have the figures to back it up, I’d assume that the majority of late abortions are given for reasons other than “I’d have to wear horrible clothes for six months”. I don’t think two doctors would sign off on that. Of course I haven’t got figures to back that up at the minute, but it seems like a poor argument to me.

    – Chris

  13. “I consider it pretty feasible that a couple could wish to remain together and childless.”

    Well, we all know a simple way to do that, don’t we? :-)

    And, if the woman gets pregnant unexpectedly, and the parents really don’t want or can’t afford to keep the child, they can put it up for adoption.

    Having said that, in this day and age, there should be sufficient state support that no-one should have to give a child up for adoption merely because they can’t afford to keep it.

  14. This is the point where I indicate that childbirth is a little more complicated than coughing at the right time. If I may bring your attention to the point you were making at the start of this thread, you stated that the level of technical sophistication in a culture should not affect their judgement in this issue. What would you advocate in a country where childbirth carries a significant risk for the mother?

    – Chris

  15. Chris said: “What would you advocate in a country where childbirth carries a significant risk for the mother?”

    The same thing as for other countries – people who don’t want the risk of conceiving a child shouldn’t have sex. For everyone, the factors which go into that decision will be different. I’d be the first to say that it’s tragic that a factor for some people will be the risk of dying in childbirth.

    The highest maternal mortality rate in the world is in Sierra Leone. There, one in fifty births results in the death of the mother. Shocking though that statistic is, even there, is that really high enough to permit abortion on demand? (One would also need to factor in the death rate of badly-performed abortions!)

    In contrast, there were 2,500 maternal deaths in the entire developed world in 2000. So such concerns should have no effect on UK law.

  16. The same thing as for other countries – people who don’t want the risk of conceiving a child shouldn’t have sex.

    I’d rather that the argument didn’t stray into contraception at the moment. Birth control is a complicated enough subject without bringing the entire reproductive cycle into it.

    I’d be the first to say that it’s tragic that a factor for some people will be the risk of dying in childbirth.

    I dislike this phrase, expecially as in this case it isn’t true (I was the first one to bring up death in childbirth). In this case your initial point made clear your believe in the absolute sanctity of human life, so there definitely is a choice to be made here. I called for the mother. You appear to be calling for the child.

    The highest maternal mortality rate in the world is in Sierra Leone. There, one in fifty births results in the death of the mother. Shocking though that statistic is, even there, is that really high enough to permit abortion on demand?

    I don’t believe death in childbirth is necessarily the most important factor, but were the law to ban birth control this figure would certainly increase (and I would dare to suggest that the increase would be dramatic in countries where such solutions had been previously available, such as in the liberal West).

    (One would also need to factor in the death rate of badly-performed abortions!)

    The death rate from legally induced abortion was 0.6 per 100,000 abortions in 1997 in the US.

    In contrast, there were 2,500 maternal deaths in the entire developed world in 2000. So such concerns should have no effect on UK law.

    I’m certain legislation has been passed on lesser figures than those. At any rate, those figures are taken from a developed world which largely permits adults to have access to sophisticated birth control techniques.

    This still ignores the social aspects of raising an unwanted child. While I have no problem with the fostering system, I fear that were it to be employed as a primary solution to unwanted conception (secondary only to abstinence) it would get very out of hand.

    Not to mention the social stigma associated with adoption, which already pressures many families in deprived areas to raise unwanted children within the extended family unit (increasing the burden on all).

    – Chris

  17. I’d rather that the argument didn’t stray into contraception at the moment.

    You don’t believe the issue of contraception is related to the issue of abortion? I’d say there’s a pretty close link…

    I called for the mother. You appear to be calling for the child.

    You misunderstand me. I’m not “calling for” either. I’m saying that one of the factors people need to consider when having sex is that it might produce children, and therefore that (in some countries) there’s a significant risk to the mother. If that risk is unacceptable to the couple, they shouldn’t have sex.

    If you go skydiving, there’s a risk your parachute might not open, and you might die. Depending on where you do it and who with, this risk varies. You assess the risk and, if you think it’s too high, you don’t skydive. It’s exactly the same.

    The death rate from legally induced abortion was 0.6 per 100,000 abortions in 1997 in the US.

    I’m sure it is. But we were discussing the situation in countries of the world such as Sierra Leone, where there is a significant maternal death risk. I’m sure that there, because third world countries have poorer medical facilities, the figure would be much higher, and would need factoring in.

    I fear that were it to be employed as a primary solution to unwanted conception (secondary only to abstinence) it would get very out of hand.

    They seem to manage perfectly well in, say, Ireland, where abortion is illegal and therefore the number performed is much, much lower. Regardless, are you really going to use the potential for social problems as arguments in favour of abortion?

  18. You don’t believe the issue of contraception is related to the issue of abortion? I’d say there’s a pretty close link…

    Oh yes, of course I do. But it is impractical to arbitrarily extend the debate to include related topics. Can’t discuss everything at once.

    If that risk is unacceptable to the couple, they shouldn’t have sex.

    I personally think that’s a tad unfair, but at any rate it’s still straying into another area (not conceiving in the first place).

    But we were discussing the situation in countries of the world such as Sierra Leone, where there is a significant maternal death risk. I’m sure that there, because third world countries have poorer medical facilities, the figure would be much higher, and would need factoring in.

    I’d need to see some figures. I have a hard time believing that the abortion mortality rate (where “abortion” covers any termination of life from conception onwards) would be higher than 2%.

    They seem to manage perfectly well in, say, Ireland, where abortion is illegal and therefore the number performed is much, much lower.

    What do you mean by “they seem to manage perfectly well”? That everyone in Ireland is happy? That society hasn’t fallen apart because there are no abortions?

    Regardless, are you really going to use the potential for social problems as arguments in favour of abortion?

    Yes. Imperfect worlds require imperfect solutions. If birth control (and other mercy killing) makes the world a less miserable place or those who need to make use of it, I don’t have a problem with it.

    That’s why I dislike the debate as being constantly framed as “we know that murder is abhorrent and unforgivable, but a foetus isn’t really a person”. If pro-lifers were all honest with themselves they’d just admit that it is cold-blooded death and adjust their sense of values to fit reality, rather than kidding on that it isn’t really a person being killed.

    – Chris

  19. They seem to manage perfectly well in, say, Ireland, where abortion is illegal and therefore the number performed is much, much lower.

    Well, it would stand to reason that the number of reported abortions is much lower in a country that has ruled abortion illegal.

    I wonder how many women travel to the UK or other parts when they find themselves in this predicament.

  20. it’s still straying into another area (not conceiving in the first place).

    But you can’t divorce the two. It would of course be ridiculous for me to advocate “have as much sex as you like, without any consideration of the consequences” and then “but if you accidentally get pregnant, you’ve got to keep the baby”.

    I have a hard time believing that the abortion mortality rate (where “abortion” covers any termination of life from conception onwards) would be higher than 2%.

    According to this page (and, admittedly, this isn’t the WHO) the highest world abortion death rate is Bangladesh, at 2.4%. I don’t want to generalise too much, but it does seem that, at least in third world countries, having an abortion is of the same magnitude of risk as having the child.

    If birth control (and other mercy killing) makes the world a less miserable place or those who need to make use of it, I don’t have a problem with it.

    Can it ever be a “mercy killing” if you haven’t consulted the person being killed? Is it right to kill X to make the world a less miserable place for Y? Particularly if Y is doing the killing? “Wow, those people in Country Z have a terrible life. Let’s bomb them and put them out of their misery.”

  21. It would of course be ridiculous for me to advocate “have as much sex as you like, without any consideration of the consequences” and then “but if you accidentally get pregnant, you’ve got to keep the baby”.

    And I’m aware that nothing operates in a vacuum. However, change has got to be incremental. It is quite easy to wash your hands of the difficult bits of the birth control debate if you take it for granted that all conceptions are wanted.

    Can it ever be a “mercy killing” if you haven’t consulted the person being killed? Is it right to kill X to make the world a less miserable place for Y? Particularly if Y is doing the killing? “Wow, those people in Country Z have a terrible life. Let’s bomb them and put them out of their misery.”

    I didn’t say I had all the answers. It is important, however, to put birth control in that context for examination. You’re quite right to make the comparison to death due to military intervention, as this too is preventable and yet considered necessary by many. The point is that I’m prepared to accept that abortion is no less murderous than shooting down an enemy plane; the argument is when to justify this.

    (and again comparing to your abstinence thing, I’m sure it wouldn’t be necessary to have wars if people weren’t nasty to each other.)

    – Chris

  22. It is quite easy to wash your hands of the difficult bits of the birth control debate if you take it for granted that all conceptions are wanted.

    I’m not even going that far. I’m asserting that the “woman’s right to choose” is the right to choose whether to have sex or not. (If she doesn’t have that choice, that is definitely a whole different debate :-)

    I didn’t say I had all the answers

    If you are saying that it’s OK for Y to kill X to make Y’s life less miserable, then I suggest that you don’t have any of the answers ;-)

  23. There is something severely lacking from this discussion, and that is the emotional health of the persons involved with abortion. According to this study, “After controlling for several socio-demographic factors, women whose first pregnancies ended in abortion were 65% more likely to score in the ‘high-risk’ range for clinical depression than women whose first pregnancies resulted in a birth.” This also only accounts for the women, I’ve met several men who were deeply wounded by another having an abortion.

    There are so many problems with abortion, irrespective of any moral standpoint. I’ve heard so many people say that they just didn’t know what it was going to be like (both the procedure and the aftermath). I’m not necessarily advocating that we remove the ability for people to have abortions, but instead to educate people.

  24. Kristen: thanks for chipping in. Perhaps this is what you end up with when guys talk about moral subjects – a lack of emotion.

    When I was reviewing the Marie Stopes site (linked from one of the comments above) I found the number of references to “procedure”, “it”, “contents of the womb”, and other euphemisms was really chilling. And how’s this for irony:

    “As the centres are very small, we ask you to limit the number of people accompanying you and we are unable to accommodate young children.” [Abortion – Your Questions Answered]

    Unless they are the subjects of the “procedure”, presumably…

  25. kudos to gerv

    the mozilla community has recently been embroiled in theological debate. gervase markham, a christian mozilla dev, made a comment that touched off a massive controversy regarding the nature of god, prayer, christianity in general, etc. it’s been rece…

  26. I’m not even going that far. I’m asserting that the “woman’s right to choose” is the right to choose whether to have sex or not.

    That’s avoiding the issue entirely. If you truly believe that abortion is utterly inexcusable due to the possibility of abstaining from intercourse, I am puzzled as to why you started a thread on abortion.

    If you are saying that it’s OK for Y to kill X to make Y’s life less miserable, then I suggest that you don’t have any of the answers ;-)

    If you believe that killing is always absolutely morally wrong then you’re rather short of solutions as well.

    According to this study, “After controlling for several socio-demographic factors, women whose first pregnancies ended in abortion were 65% more likely to score in the ‘high-risk’ range for clinical depression than women whose first pregnancies resulted in a birth.”

    What are the figures like for mothers who give their firstborn up for adoption?

    I’ve heard so many people say that they just didn’t know what it was going to be like (both the procedure and the aftermath). I’m not necessarily advocating that we remove the ability for people to have abortions, but instead to educate people.

    I’m totally in favour of this. I don’t believe that people are going to change their minds in droves because they suddenly realise that foetuses are human beings. People still drown kittens.

    Perhaps this is what you end up with when guys talk about moral subjects – a lack of emotion.

    I find that passively denying a teenaged rape victim a right to rid herself of an unwanted impregnation is likely to bring a lot of people’s emotions to the surface. Moral relativism is not the same as having no morals.

    – Chris

  27. If you truly believe that abortion is utterly inexcusable due to the possibility of abstaining from intercourse, I am puzzled as to why you started a thread on abortion.

    That’s a bit of a non-sequitur, isn’t it? Anyway, the thread began with a comment on the moral bankruptcy of those who are changing their mind on the issue for terrible reasons.

    I find that passively denying a teenaged rape victim a right to rid herself…

    Step down off your high horse, dude. As I said, “If she doesn’t have that choice, that is definitely a whole different debate”.