andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2004-01-19 09:00 pm
andrewducker) wrote2004-01-19 09:00 pm
Abortion
Taking some of the thoughts brought up by the post yesterday, I'm going to try and sum up some of my thoughts on the matter.
(Disclaimer 1: when I say "everyone", I'm bearing in mind that there are bound to be some people that feel likewise and actually mean "nearly, but not quite everybody)
(Disclaimer 2: Legalised abortions are necessary, because otherwise women have illegal ones, in pretty much the same numbers, only the women die in much larger amounts. Which I think we can all agree is a bad thing)
Everyone agrees that killing babies that are out of the womb is wrong.
Most people are fine with contraception, the prevention of the sperm and egg coming together to form a zygote.
In between it comes down to a clash between the right of the mother to self-determination versus the right of the zygote/foetus not to die.
For some people the answer is simple - at any point after conception the foetus is alive and has the same rights as any other person, including the right not to be killed. To them all abortion is wrong.
For others the answer is equally simple in the opposite direction. If the foetus is inside the mother it's not alive yet, and therefore has no right to life. Abortion at any point is therefore fine.
For the rest of us, it's a little trickier - it rests on some measure of life/sentience. If, for instance, at 25 weeks gestation a baby is born prematurely, is it alive and does it have the right to life? If so, then presumably it would have the same right while inside the mother. Could you remove it's right to life by putting it back inside the mother (one imagines a ceasarian taking place with the baby being alive and then pre-natal once again as the baby is raised and lowered).
The simplest measure in the last case is time - after all the complexity and intelligence of the foetus increases over time in a very well understood manner. Deciding on how many weeks old a foetus needs to be before it's "really alive" is left as an exercise for the reader.
[Poll #235527]
*feels nervous about hitting 'post'*
*awaits the end of the world*
(Disclaimer 1: when I say "everyone", I'm bearing in mind that there are bound to be some people that feel likewise and actually mean "nearly, but not quite everybody)
(Disclaimer 2: Legalised abortions are necessary, because otherwise women have illegal ones, in pretty much the same numbers, only the women die in much larger amounts. Which I think we can all agree is a bad thing)
Everyone agrees that killing babies that are out of the womb is wrong.
Most people are fine with contraception, the prevention of the sperm and egg coming together to form a zygote.
In between it comes down to a clash between the right of the mother to self-determination versus the right of the zygote/foetus not to die.
For some people the answer is simple - at any point after conception the foetus is alive and has the same rights as any other person, including the right not to be killed. To them all abortion is wrong.
For others the answer is equally simple in the opposite direction. If the foetus is inside the mother it's not alive yet, and therefore has no right to life. Abortion at any point is therefore fine.
For the rest of us, it's a little trickier - it rests on some measure of life/sentience. If, for instance, at 25 weeks gestation a baby is born prematurely, is it alive and does it have the right to life? If so, then presumably it would have the same right while inside the mother. Could you remove it's right to life by putting it back inside the mother (one imagines a ceasarian taking place with the baby being alive and then pre-natal once again as the baby is raised and lowered).
The simplest measure in the last case is time - after all the complexity and intelligence of the foetus increases over time in a very well understood manner. Deciding on how many weeks old a foetus needs to be before it's "really alive" is left as an exercise for the reader.
[Poll #235527]
*feels nervous about hitting 'post'*
*awaits the end of the world*
no subject
I'm not talking LEGAL right. I'm talking moral right, emotional right. Honestly, I'm just talking about doing what is right. So many problems would be far more easily resolved if the people involved just did the right thing.
I'll give you the legal right thing - but in that case, a woman should NOT have the legal right to chase a man for child maintenance payments. If he plays no part in the decision process other than to be an unwitting sperm donor, why the hell should a man then have to pay for that for the rest of his life? I mean, seriously - what's the difference between a bloke who donates sperm via a sperm bank, and one who's condom bursts on a one night stand? Why should one be pursuable through the courts for payments, and the other not?
For that matter - define 'parent'....
no subject
If she gets pregnant she has to deal with the physical and emotional consequences of an unplanned pregnancy and then either a termination or an unplanned child. A termination can have serious long term consequences, including permanent sterility and continuing a pregnancy can have serious long term consequences including disability and death.
Fair enough that if you didn't plan to be a father you should have no obligation to actually be a father in the sense of sticking around and raising the child.
But I do think child support is a good principle from the point of view that if a man makes the decision to have sex then he, as well as the woman, should have some share of the risks involved.
If nothing else, from a pragmatic point of view, having two people actively seeking to avoid causing a pregnancy is more likely to be successful than just one.
It's not as if a man has no choices - he chooses to have sex and he chooses a method of contraception, presumably knowing its failure rate.
As to sperm donors, there's a specific agreement of non-liability made in advance in that case. And the motivations of the sperm donor are completely different to the motivations of someone having a one-night-stand.
A parent, in my view, is someone who raises a child. Being a genetic relative is not a necessary criteria.