Abortion Laws

[danieldemol]

If doctors could only perform abortions for free, and not make any money off it, would you get the same outcome? Abortion is big business and business models will try to maximize profit by increasing demand. If there is no profit, the approach is different.

Underlying What you are asking about is questioning the value of unchecked capitalism where profit is put ahead of human life in value as I see it.

One simply cannot have a system of un-checked capitalism and have people working without monetary incentive as it is self contradictory in my view.

I would suggest your question makes more sense in an unchecked capitalist US society which in an Australian context would be considered as far right fringe. In Australia we have different values and I would suggest you would be surprised at how much more we value human life.

Please remember this sub-forum is Down Under politics for Australia and New Zealand.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well I don't know what you have in mind by "social justification", but I would desire that a woman had a medical consultation post 22 weeks so as to ensure for example that she wasn't suffering from treatable mental dysfunction. It would seem undesirable to me if she could be treated and happy to continue her pregnancy to simply have killed a sentient fetus for nothing, and since you have her there consulting a trained medical professional anyway may as well have their professional opinion on whether there are any treatable issues in my view.

LOL.

You are basically making MP Bates' point for her if that is your explanation.

You realise in your scenario any woman with a "treatable mental dysfunction" can legally have a termination without an assessment for such a condition up until 21 weeks and 6 days in Queensland? The medical practitioner or nurse would be protected under the 2018 legislation for not conducting such an assessment.

 

[danieldemol]

LOL.

You are basically making MP Bates' point for her if that is your explanation.

You realise in your scenario any woman with a "treatable mental dysfunction" can legally have a termination without an assessment for such a condition up until 21 weeks and 6 days in Queensland? The medical practitioner or nurse would be protected under the 2018 legislation for not conducting such an assessment.

That sounds like enough spare room before sentience begins to kick in for my comfort.

 

[GoodAttention]

That sounds like enough spare room before sentience begins to kick in for my comfort.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or what you are advocating for, but it seems others do so I'll leave you to it.

 

[danieldemol]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or what you are advocating for, but it seems others do so I'll leave you to it.

What I'm trying to convey is that in my view there is no concious suffering associated with the death of the foetus prior to 22 weeks so I don't see why it matters if they are aborted prior to that time, but if I'm still not making sense then fair enough I guess.

 

[GoodAttention]

What I'm trying to convey is that in my view there is no concious suffering associated with the death of the foetus prior to 22 weeks so I don't see why it matters if they are aborted prior to that time, but if I'm still not making sense then fair enough I guess.

No, I understood that point (eventually).

What I can't understand is how you jumped from discussing "treatable mental dysfunction" and medical consultation, to talking about 22 weeks and no suffering.

 

[danieldemol]

No, I understood that point (eventually).

What I can't understand is how you jumped from discussing "treatable mental dysfunction" and medical consultation, to talking about 22 weeks and no suffering.

So I'm saying that because abortion has consequences once the foetus is capable of concious suffering it makes sense to me not to induce that suffering due to something temporary and treatable such as a mental condition without which the mother would otherwise be happy to continue the pregnancy.

 

[GoodAttention]

So I'm saying that because abortion has consequences once the foetus is capable of concious suffering it makes sense to me not to induce that suffering due to something temporary and treatable such as a mental condition without which the mother would otherwise be happy to continue the pregnancy.

Right...

So would you agree a woman could have a "treatable" mental health condition at any time during the pregnancy?

If you said yes (which is the correct answer), and based on your reasoning, shouldn't you then be advocating for every woman who is seeking a TOP to be assessed, regardless of the age of the pregnancy given, as you say, she could have been "otherwise be happy to continue to pregnancy"? This conclusion should be met regardless of any argument for foetal sentience/sufferring if the priority of your argument is in fact womens health.

Again if you answered yes, then you are, in part, supporting what MP Ros Bates is also, in part, advocating for, which goes to the heart of what is meant by "any/no reason" for a woman to access a termination of pregnancy (TOP).

This last point is extremely important since, and as I keep trying to explain to you, the 2018 legislation reduces the role of the medical practitioner or nurse to "technical", meaning they are there to provide the service only at the direction of the pregnant woman, and NOTHING further. These practitioners/nurses could argue it would be "beyong their scope of practice" to be assessing any woman who is seeking a TOP for any underlying health condition, and that it would, in fact, be creating an unnecessary barrier for the woman to be able to access a TOP within a timely manner.

 

[Valjean]

So I'm saying that because abortion has consequences once the foetus is capable of concious suffering it makes sense to me not to induce that suffering due to something temporary and treatable such as a mental condition without which the mother would otherwise be happy to continue the pregnancy.

The fœtus lacks the features that would support a claim for moral consideration.

 

[danieldemol]

Right...

So would you agree a woman could have a "treatable" mental health condition at any time during the pregnancy?

Yes, but we can't force women or anyone else to access mental health services unless they are a source of sufficiently demonstrable harm to others in my view, and prior to the foetus gaining concious pain awareness the women are not doing that the way I see it.

 

[danieldemol]

The fœtus lacks the features that would support a claim for moral consideration.

To me concious pain awareness is sufficient for ethical consideration, you obviously do not share that premise.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes, but we can't force women or anyone else to access mental health services unless they are a source of sufficiently demonstrable harm to others in my view, and prior to the foetus gaining concious pain awareness the women are not doing that the way I see it.

Exactly.

Hence why the access to abortion services should be based on a “social justification” rather than be complicated by a “medical” one.

This is what Robbie Katter and the LNP leader are against, since the legislation doesn’t require any “reasoning” at all. Ros Bates is being smart by questioning the 22 week cut-off, since she wants medical justification as part of the process.

I hope at the very least I have explained what is meant by “social justification” and why I am against your opinion that abortion should instead solely be a decision between a woman and a medical practitioner.

 

[Valjean]

To me concious pain awareness is sufficient for ethical consideration, you obviously do not share that premise.

Did I mention what features I considered sine qua non?

 

[danieldemol]

Did I mention what features I considered sine qua non?

Is 'sine qua non' Italian? Google wants me to download an Italian add on pack to translate it and I'm trying to decide if I need to.

 

[danieldemol]

I hope at the very least I have explained what is meant by “social justification” and why I am against your opinion that abortion should instead solely be a decision between a woman and a medical practitioner.

Clear as mud in my view

 

[Valjean]

Is 'sine qua non' Italian? Google wants me to download an Italian add on pack to translate it and I'm trying to decide if I need to.

It's a common Latin expression for an essential feature; a thing without which the subject or object under discussion wouldn't exist.

Clear as mud in my view

There are both religious and social arguments for abortion. Violating the commandment not to kill is a religious justification. Enabling a woman to continue with her education, career and life goals, or saving 18 years of public expense supporting an unemployed mother, are social justifications.

 

[danieldemol]

It's a common Latin expression for an essential feature; a thing without which the subject or object under discussion wouldn't exist.

So plugging that back into context it appears you are asking, "Did I mention what features I considered essential to the subject of ethical consideration?"

You did not give a comprehensive list of essential features, however my thinking goes like this;
- You know that a foetus has the feature of concious awareness of pain post #22 weeks.
- You stated, "The fœtus lacks the features that would support a claim for moral consideration"
- Therefore you have implicitly ruled out the feature of concious awareness as a feature that would support a claim for ethical consideration.

Could you please point out where I went wrong in my thinking?

There are both religious and social arguments for abortion. Violating the commandment not to kill is a religious justification. Enabling a woman to continue with her education, career and life goals, or saving 18 years of public expense supporting an unemployed mother, are social jujustifications.

I suspect your idea of social justification may not be in line with @GoodAttention
Idea of social justification since they appear to have argued that these should not be sufficient to approve an abortion pre-21 weeks and 6 days and I can't personally see any reason why they would be insufficient in that time frame other than due to religious justification.

As for the social justification you mentioned, I believe that given she has 21 weeks and 6 days to decide she wants to continue her education, and that after that child care costs are subsidised in an Australian context it may make less sense to abort post 22 weeks. There may still be cases where it makes sense to abort, but the mother could at least be informed of what her financial options are prior to post 22 week abortion in my view.

As for public expense supporting unemployed mothers one would not kill a baby at 1 day past birth to save 18 years of public expense, and a post 22 week foetus has concious awareness, so let's not put profits ahead of the suffering of those with concious pain awareness too lightly in my view. Give her a post #22 week mental health check to confirm there is nothing treatable to save either poor or wealthy mothers who normally would want their foetuses killing them off due to a temporary patch of depression or whatever it is doctors deem treatable please.

 

[GoodAttention]

So plugging that back into context it appears you are asking, "Did I mention what features I considered essential to the subject of ethical consideration?"

You did not give a comprehensive list of essential features, however my thinking goes like this;
- You know that a foetus has the feature of concious awareness of pain post #22 weeks.
- You stated, "The fœtus lacks the features that would support a claim for moral consideration"
- Therefore you have implicitly ruled out the feature of concious awareness as a feature that would support a claim for ethical consideration.

Could you please point out where I went wrong in my thinking?


I suspect your idea of social justification may not be in line with @GoodAttention
Idea of social justification since they appear to have argued that these should not be sufficient to approve an abortion pre-21 weeks and 6 days and I can't personally see any reason why they would be insufficient in that time frame other than due to religious justification.

As for the social justification you mentioned, I believe that given she has 21 weeks and 6 days to decide she wants to continue her education, and that after that child care costs are subsidised in an Australian context it may make less sense to abort post 22 weeks. There may still be cases where it makes sense to abort, but the mother could at least be informed of what her financial options are prior to post 22 week abortion in my view.

As for public expense supporting unemployed mothers one would not kill a baby at 1 day past birth to save 18 years of public expense, and a post 22 week foetus has concious awareness, so let's not put profits ahead of the suffering of those with concious pain awareness too lightly in my view. Give her a post #22 week mental health check to confirm there is nothing treatable to save either poor or wealthy mothers who normally would want their foetuses killing them off due to a temporary patch of depression or whatever it is doctors deem treatable please.

The idea of social justification is one that runs in contrast with medical justification, which i will attempt to summarise as follows.


(1) Is access to TOP services provided without hindrance or prejudice by the legal system?

YES - The 2018 Queensland legislations does exactly this up until 22 weeks gestation.

(2) Is the role of medical practitioner minimised and protected since that they are required to act on the direction of the woman only?

YES - The 2018 Queensland legislation specifically allows TOP for "any and/or no reason" whatsoever, meaning a medical practitioners consultation is not required, except for the assessment of gestation and consent to the procedure.

(3) Is access to TOP services a genuine reflection of the community, and therefore can be validly described as being underpinned by society?

ABSO*******LUTELY - Parliament in Queensland is elected by the people (with compulsory voting), with the legislation passed decisively by the elected representatives in 2018. The fact that the voting did not occur along party lines strengthens the social aspect of this act, with each member voting by representing their constituents only.

 

[Valjean]

So plugging that back into context it appears you are asking, "Did I mention what features I considered essential to the subject of ethical consideration?"

You did not give a comprehensive list of essential features, however my thinking goes like this;
- You know that a foetus has the feature of concious awareness of pain post #22 weeks.
- You stated, "The fœtus lacks the features that would support a claim for moral consideration"
- Therefore you have implicitly ruled out the feature of concious awareness as a feature that would support a claim for ethical consideration.

Could you please point out where I went wrong in my thinking?

Morally, I'm primarily consequentialist, the morality of an action is generally determined by the harm vs benefit of an action.

I believe ethical or moral obligation rests on personhood. Persons are self aware and have self-interest. They anticipate futurity and have an interest in continuing to exist. They're capable of happiness and pleasure, or pain and suffering.

My opinions on abortion primarily rest on the personhood of the fœtus and my belief that a young fœtus -- say, 22 weeks, to use your example -- Lacks self-awareness, does not anticipate futurity, has no interest in continuing existence, and lacks the capacity to suffer. Such a fœtus is not a person.I suspect your idea of social justification may not be in line with @GoodAttention

Idea of social justification since they appear to have argued that these should not be sufficient to approve an abortion pre-21 weeks and 6 days and I can't personally see any reason why they would be insufficient in that time frame other than due to religious justification.

The opposition to abortion here in the states rests overwhelmingly on religion and "team politics". It's deontological. Social considerations, whatever they may be, don't usually figure into the evangelicals' black-or-white moral judgement on the matter -- and it's this demographic that's mostly driving the brouhaha over here.

What I find confusing is when people oppose abortion except in cases of incest or rape. If the objection be religious, abortion is a crime against the fœtus. How does the origin of the fœtus affect its claim for moral consideration? In this case, the permission to abort rests on the social justification of maternal psychological distress, which seems to me the same or weaker than many of the justifications the religious deny.

 

[Madsaac]

I think the laws should be whatever the health professionals say are safe and what women want. Simple