Abortion

[MysticSang'ha]

Also, you had risk that you wouldn't have had otherwise. There's a small but non-zero chance that pregnancy will kill a woman. The bodily security argument doesn't need risk to be valid, but when risk is present (and it's definitely present in pregnancy), it strengthens the argument that it's unethical to deny the woman the choice to refuse that risk if that's how she feels.

Whether it's before or after fetal viability, which is where the debate took a turn. The disagreement occurred when the suggestion to induce labor was ethical or not based on the risk of health complications of the preterm newborn. My understanding is that Koldo and Dallas both believe women should remain pregnant post-viability, and I disagreed based on the argument in favor of autonomy and bodily security throughout her life, including any stage of pregnancy.

Not to speak for Koldo or Dallas, so if I misrepresented their views, feel free to correct me.

But yes, there was a risk of not only maternal mortality, but health complications for me when I was pregnant regardless of my history (since pregnancy does wreak havoc on a woman's body). I chose to take that risk. I don't believe a woman should be forced to take that risk. Hence my position stands on abortion before viability and induced labor post-viability while working with her doctor.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whether it's before or after fetal viability, which is where the debate took a turn. The disagreement occurred when the suggestion to induce labor was ethical or not based on the risk of health complications of the preterm newborn. My understanding is that Koldo and Dallas both believe women should remain pregnant post-viability, and I disagreed based on the argument in favor of autonomy and bodily security throughout her life, including any stage of pregnancy.

And my feeling is that viability makes absolutely no sense as a dividing line: it says that we can do what we want as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother, but once it doesn't need the mother anymore, that's when the mother's actions are constrained. It says "you only have to provide your body once it's no longer strictly needed."

But yes, there was a risk of not only maternal mortality, but health complications for me when I was pregnant regardless of my history (since pregnancy does wreak havoc on a woman's body). I chose to take that risk. I don't believe a woman should be forced to take that risk. Hence my position stands on abortion before viability and induced labor post-viability while working with her doctor.

I was also thinking of a friend like mine: she had no signs that there was anything wrong with her pregnancy until the day her complications started. Then, within the span of a few hours, she went from everything being fine to an ER doctor telling her that if they didn't induce, both she and the fetus would die. If she lived far from a hospital, she probably would have died.

What's the risk that a complication-free pregnancy will suddenly become life-threatening? It's probably low, but as that example shows, it's not zero. There's a slight potential for something like that to happen to any pregnant woman, and she won't know whether it will happen until it actually does happen... so even a "low-risk" pregnancy still carries risks.

 

[Koldo]

If you're that picky, you could look at other living donor transplants where the donor does not "lose" so much of the organ they are donating. Try bone marrow transplants, blood or plasma donations, etc. as other options for Penguin's question. Because it's not so much as the specifics, but the ethics behind what should be expected out of a donor.

It is not about being picky. We ought to compare apples to apples, and not apples to oranges.

To make these scenerios you mentioned compatible with the one we are talking about, we have to keep in mind certain points:

1) Parental relationship between mother ( or father ) and child.
2) Donor decides to no longer continue the procedure after he/she willingly accepted it. [ The procedure has already started. ]
3) Receipt's life depends heavily on this specific donor.
4) The donor is not putting herself/himself under a considerably higher health problem risk.
5) The donor is not withdrawing consent due to an abrupt reaction, but rather as a result of carefully thinking through.

Should a donor be forced into donation no matter how dire the circumstances are for the recipient?

Am i in favour of forcing women to remain pregnant until the end?
What would this mean? To tie a woman on a chair if she wants to induce labor? Most certainly that is not what i want.

 

[Koldo]

Temporarily, yes. She's also donating the use of other systems, since her body has to provide all the things the fetus needs and remove all of the fetus' waste products.

Thank you for bending my words.

If kidney donation were only temporary, do you think this would make it ethical to remove someone's kidney against their will?

But tell you what: as Mystic suggested, let's go with a different sort of donation, then: bone marrow, which grows back. When you donate bone marrow, you only lose it temporarily. If you've consented to be a bone marrow donor and then change your mind, should the bone marrow be taken against your will?

Read my reply to her just above this post.

 

[Koldo]

This goes back to something I touched on when I first brought up the analogy: relevant difference. The differences you're bringing up aren't relevant to the ethics of the situation.

I perceive them as being particularly relevant.

 

[Koldo]

Because there are several issue at play. The most simplistic explanation is that a person has the right of control over their body and their possessions. However, there are exceptions when there is a strong enough interest. For example, if you have a house in the snowy woods and my choice is either break in or freeze to death, then the court will deny you legal recourse for my taking, save that which was not reasonably necessary. This is because there is a governmental interest in me not dying. As a person, not born, the government has less of an interest, because it is a future interest. Thus, why it is completely constitutional for the state government to make third trimester abortions illegal. However some people see this issue differently. But the real question is when does the government have enough of a compelling interest to deny a woman her rights. We constantly see the denial of rights for a government interest. But one must establish reasoning for why.

BTW, the organs are different because the donation requires an affirmative step whereas in abortion, the abortion is the affirmative step. It does not really turn on loss.

Let me clarify one thing:

We are not talking about late-term abortion. We are talking about inducing labor at late-term. If the fetus is born, it becomes a person, don't you agree?

 

[Koldo]

Whether it's before or after fetal viability, which is where the debate took a turn. The disagreement occurred when the suggestion to induce labor was ethical or not based on the risk of health complications of the preterm newborn. My understanding is that Koldo and Dallas both believe women should remain pregnant post-viability, and I disagreed based on the argument in favor of autonomy and bodily security throughout her life, including any stage of pregnancy.

Not to speak for Koldo or Dallas, so if I misrepresented their views, feel free to correct me.

You did not. That's correct.

 

[Curious George]

It is not about being picky. We ought to compare apples to apples, and not apples to oranges.

To make these scenerios you mentioned compatible with the one we are talking about, we have to keep in mind certain points:

1) Parental relationship between mother ( or father ) and child.
2) Donor decides to no longer continue the procedure after he/she willingly accepted it. [ The procedure has already started. ]
3) Receipt's life depends heavily on this specific donor.
4) The donor is not putting herself/himself under a considerably higher health problem risk.
5) The donor is not withdrawing consent due to an abrupt reaction, but rather as a result of carefully thinking through.

There is no court that will force specific performance of donating organs. If you agree to donate a kidney or any other organ you can withdraw consent for any reason or none at all.

It has nothing to do with life or death scenario, it has everything to do with the affirmative step. The problem isn't whether or not doing something is ethical but whether or not forcing someone to do something is ethical.

 

[Curious George]

Let me clarify one thing:

We are not talking about late-term abortion. We are talking about inducing labor at late-term. If the fetus is born, it becomes a person, don't you agree?

yes. I agree.

 

[Curious George]

Let me clarify one thing:

We are not talking about late-term abortion. We are talking about inducing labor at late-term

As opposed to allowing the mother to stay pregnant?

 

[Koldo]

There is no court that will force specific performance of donating organs. If you agree to donate a kidney or any other organ you can withdraw consent for any reason or none at all.

It has nothing to do with life or death scenario, it has everything to do with the affirmative step. The problem isn't whether or not doing something is ethical but whether or not forcing someone to do something is ethical.

I will quote myself:

"Am i in favour of forcing women to remain pregnant until the end?
What would this mean? To tie a woman on a chair if she wants to induce labor? Most certainly that is not what i want."

 

[Koldo]

As opposed to allowing the mother to stay pregnant?

I don't get what you meant to say here.

 

[Curious George]

I will quote myself:

"Am i in favour of forcing women to remain pregnant until the end?
What would this mean? To tie a woman on a chair if she wants to induce labor? Most certainly that is not what i want."

I would take "forcing women to remain pregnant until the end" to mean forcing a woman to produce a baby vs. allowing her to get an abortion. Certainly inducing labor and birthing a viable fetus constitutes "the end." But, I think I understand your take on the question part. In such a case you would say that the inducement is the affirmative action. Thus, not allowing a woman to induce is different than forcing a person to donate.

However, the question, whether the state is requiring an induced labor, preventing an induced, or preventing an abortion, still turns on the states interest in the child. If the interest is strong enough- and some believe it is then the state can disregard the woman's rights, if the state interest is not strong enough then they must defer to the woman's choice.

 

[DallasApple]

I have been pregnant before and I understood what he was saying.

"Losing" a body probably wasn't what I would have said. I would have said my body was being utilized. Blood pressure, hormones, nutrient allocation, fat stores, etc. all went to support two entities - mother and fetus. Not just the woman. If anything is lost, it's independence of health. That Big Mac won't just impact my thighs, but will feed the fetus through the umbilical cord. So, what is essentially lost is the autonomy and independent direct consequence of my actions when pregnant.

I understand that.But at some point you choose "dualality"..At some point you can not "inflict" crual and and unusual results due to desiring autonomy back.

As I mentioned before it is a 'burden" that I believe a woman has the responsibility to take at some point..

 

[Curious George]

I don't get what you meant to say here.

I think I understand the situation-

I had thought you were talking forced pregnancy vs. forced inducement vs. abortion (past viability).

Often people against late term abortions will counter suggest that the right to abort ceases at viability. Because at this point, the mother can be given the option of inducement or C section if she wishes to take affirmative action to not be pregnant. Thus, Women are given the option to either take no action or birth the baby. Others suggest that the right to abort continues to exist because even at viability the state does not retain enough of an interest to disregard the woman's rights.


I thought this is what you were talking about.

Your statement confused me: So when you said you were not talking about abortion but about inducing labor- I thought you were suggesting the scenario where the mother and fetus were at substantial risk and the mother and the state wanted to step in and force inducement.

Thus I asked as opposed to.... The idea not allowing inducement did not make sense in my head- so I asked if you were not talking about inducement vs. abortion were you talking solely about inducement vs. allowing the mother to stay pregnant.

 

[DallasApple]

And to be honest with all ya'll I respect your opinions..But as I typed a couple of my posts I was holding my now 3 month old infant grand daughter..it makes me sick and disgusted anyone would say she should have been "delivered" 3 months early and would still be in the hospital and upon release be blind ,brain damaged permanently...and many other things because her mother "wanted her body back"..for me? that's for sociopaths.

Im pro choice..but I'm not pro choice no matter how much your born fetus now "person" has to suffer .Im also against murdering a viable fetus after birth..or refusing it aid after birth..

So have at it...

 

[Curious George]

And to be honest with all ya'll I respect your opinions..But as I typed a couple of my posts I was holding my now 3 month old infant grand daughter..it makes me sick and disgusted anyone would say she should have been "delivered" 3 months early and would still be in the hospital and upon release be blind ,brain damaged permanently...and many other things because her mother "wanted her body back"..for me? that's for sociopaths.

Im pro choice..but I'm not pro choice no matter how much your born fetus now "person" has to suffer .Im also against murdering a viable fetus after birth..or refusing it aid after birth..

So have at it...

would you support abortion after viability?

 

[DallasApple]

would you support abortion after viability?

No...

 

[Walkntune]

I am not really for the manipulation of enforcing morality through a political system.

 

[Curious George]

I am not really for the manipulation of enforcing morality through a political system.

Then you are left with instability.