"Scores of healthy foetuses die every year because most hospitals do not give pregnant women what the NHS says is the best test for Down's syndrome.
Dr Anne Mackie, the head of NHS screening programmes, estimated 146 babies a year in England who do not have any abnormality are lost as a result of efforts to detect children with the genetic condition."
The good doctor calls this situation "scandalous and disgraceful." Read the whole story, and you'll get no suggestion that it is in any way unacceptable to abort a baby with Downs. You'll also get no suggestion that it is in any way unacceptable to abort a baby for any other reason.
According to pro-choice rhetoric, it's perfectly fine and morally neutral to abort a child for any reason. You can do it because his timing is inconvenient ("I'm not ready" or "I need to finish school first"), because your chosen method of birth control failed, or because he won't ever be able to live up to your hopes and dreams ("I'm too poor" or a birth defect).
But if the fetus is indeed nothing but a pre-life or potential person, then what does it matter if you accidentally abort one that didn't actually have anything wrong? ("Well, turns out that mole wasn't cancerous.")
If it's a tragedy because a valuable and precious member of the human race died, then every abortion is a tragedy. If it's a tragedy because some mother's heart was broken, then it's always a tragedy.
And if we can't see how we all seem to instinctively know abortion is wrong, that's a tragedy.
-------
related:
America’s Schizophrenic Stance on Abortion
19 comments:
The choice movement is essentially libertarian: Most pro-choicers believe that the woman should have absolute sovereignty over her own body.
So from a pro-choice perspective the issue is what gives anybody (other than the potential mother to be) the right to determine what is mortally acceptable within their own bodies.
I think we all recognise that when you trust people to decide what's best for themselves it can sometimes lead to nasty places. That doesn't mean that it's "fine" by me. Other people can be awful and stupid at times but what else can we do other than to trust people to know what's best for themselves?
On the other hand, when government starts to regulate what people can and cannot do with their bodies we go to a potentially worse place.
Given that the purpose of a test is to *test* and not to kill, I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a doctor to be outraged that a test is not functioning as intended. A test which kills is something that deprives people of their choice to be a parent or not - it's just as bad as the anti-abortion agenda which seeks to force the opposite.
One thing I find ironic is that Christians who are happy to have government over-rule women's choices are often outraged when government tries to over-rule decisions made by the family.
You cannot tell a woman what to do with her womb any more than I can tell you what to do with your kids.
Pro-choicers are the least libertarian people around.
I'm actually pretty libertarian. I don't give a crap what you want to do to yourself. It's the other body, the one inside her body, that concerns me. When another human being, especially a helpless one, becomes involved, society has to step in with laws designed to protect the weak.
"You cannot tell a woman what to do with her womb ..."
We'll see. We'll see.
Chris, can you explain to me how forcing somebody to carry a baby to term is more "libertarian" than allowing a family / individual to decide for themselves if they want to do it.
Usually "libertarians" believe that it's no business of government to regulate what people do with their body, but perhaps you are thinking of some different flavour of libertarian, perhaps the rare kind who thinks that government ought to legalise and enforce their own private morality?
D
As I said before, I'm usually libertarian about what you do with your body. But when there is another person taking up residence inside your body, we have to be mindful of that person's rights too.
Should a mother never have the right to terminate a pregnancy? Would you want this to be enforced by law, government, possibly even a punishment for the mother or the surgeon?
If you said yes to any of the above then you are definitely not a libertarian.
What you are advocating sounds to me more like a classic authoritarian position which is that the mother is forbidden from doing anything to her own body which might cause the death of a developing [ embryo / foetus / baby / person ].
My position:
The individual is sovereign over their own body. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why somebody may not wish to go through with a pregnancy. It's up to an individual's conscience if they want to abort a pregnancy.
And what if you think that's wrong... well show the world a better example and some people might come round to your way of thinking, but don't try to legislate your morality on everybody else.
I'm well aware that my position on abortion is not libertarian. That's because libertarians are idiots on this issue.
As the saying goes, your rights end at the end of my nose. The mother's rights end when they infringe on the rights of the baby.
"There are plenty of legitimate reasons why somebody may not wish to go through with a pregnancy."
None of which matter one iota. Any reason why it's ok to abort a baby can be applied to a two-month-old. Either it's ok to kill the two-month-old, or it's not ok to abort the baby.
"don't try to legislate your morality on everybody else."
Ah, that old canard. We legislate morality all the time. On this issue, your morality happens to be the rule. One day, hopefully, it'll be mine.
I'm well aware that my position on abortion is not libertarian. That's because libertarians are idiots on this issue.
At last some honesty!
Your positions on most of the the social / moral issues you mentioned in this blog seem to be classic authoritarianism.
Like most authoritarians you consider people with different moral values to be "idiots".
Ah, that old canard. We legislate morality all the time. On this issue, your morality happens to be the rule. One day, hopefully, it'll be mine.
My "morality" is not a rule - I'm arguing that government should make no rules about what people do with their own bodies.
None of which matter one iota. Any reason why it's ok to abort a baby can be applied to a two-month-old. Either it's ok to kill the two-month-old, or it's not ok to abort the baby.
That's just your dogma, and it's also nonsense.
I will give you a perfectly good reason for somebody to have an abortion. Supposing a woman had a drunken one-night stand and then the next day she realises that she really does not want to have a baby. She has big ambitions and a baby does not figure in them. She goes out to the pharmacist and obtains a hormone pill which causes an artificial miscarriage.
Could you seriously argue that this hypothetical woman should be forced to bring the baby to full term? Are you going to force her to have a baby she does not want? Are you seriously saying that dislodging a blastocyst is equivalent to murdering a 2 year old child... or even a 16 year old child?
We can deal with some more complex scenarios later, I deliberately picked an easy one to start off with. I promise you, we can get to the really messy ones once you offer me a rationale for the more clear-cut cases.
Honesty? FakeDobson, I was openly admitting from the beginning that my position on abortion isn't "libertarian."
"Like most authoritarians you consider people with different moral values to be "idiots". "
That's really just on abortion, and it's only those with really bad arguments -- which is actually most pro-choicers.
"Either it's ok to kill the two-month-old, or it's not ok to abort the baby.
That's just your dogma, and it's also nonsense."
Feel free to demonstrate.
"I will give you a perfectly good reason for somebody to have an abortion."
I really expected something better than a drunken one-night-stand when you wrote this.
"Could you seriously argue that this hypothetical woman should be forced to bring the baby to full term? "
Yes. She made a decision. She has to live with it. The other person in this equation should not be punished because of her irresponsibility.
"Are you seriously saying that dislodging a blastocyst is equivalent to murdering a 2 year old child... or even a 16 year old child?"
Perhaps you can tell me what you see as the difference.
Honesty? FakeDobson, I was openly admitting from the beginning that my position on abortion isn't "libertarian."
At least we agree on that!
I really expected something better than a drunken one-night-stand when you wrote this.
What do you mean by "better". As you know millions of doses of drugs like Plan B are prescribed every year. This is the most common kind of abortion. Don't you think it's worthy of discussion?
Yes. She made a decision. She has to live with it. The other person in this equation should not be punished because of her irresponsibility.
So you are saying that a drunken one night stand is a "decision"? Why is it significant that this is a "decision" anyway?
Are you saying that preventing a blastocyst from properly implanting in the uterus lining is equivalent to punishment or even murder?
Are you saying that a blastocyst is equivalent to a person? Is it even possible to "punish" a blastocyst?
I'm sure you are aware that as many as 15% of recognised pregnancies spontaneously abort within the 1st 12 weeks. The human species wastes an awful lot of embryos.
If you believe in creationism (which I do not), you could even argue that God does not particularly care about embryos.
@fakeDobson,
By "better," I mean I thought you'd offer an example that could invoke at least a little sympathy. Abortion as birth control isn't very popular even with the general populace, much less social conservatives.
I think it's a travesty to kill another human being simply for being inconvenient.
"Are you saying that a blastocyst is equivalent to a person?"
Yes. That is a human being in the earliest stage of life and is due every right due you.
"I'm sure you are aware that as many as 15% of recognised pregnancies spontaneously abort within the 1st 12 weeks."
I'm sure you're aware that everyone dies. I'm sure you also know Christians believe God is ultimately responsible for every one of those deaths. That does not make murder ok, and the existence of miscarriages does not make abortion ok. Natural death happens, but we do not have the privilege of choosing who lives and dies.
By "better," I mean I thought you'd offer an example that could invoke at least a little sympathy.
Why does how much sympathy *you* feel matter in this situation? Surely what matters is how the woman, or possibly her family feels. Can you explain why you think that your sympathy is relevant to whether a woman has a legal obligation to bring a conception to birth?
Would it have made any difference if the situation was one which evoked your sense of sympathy?
Abortion as birth control isn't very popular even with the general populace, much less social conservatives.
Thousands of doses of the morning-after pill are prescribed every week in the UK and the USA. This is clearly a very "popular" form of contraception, which technically is also a kind of abortion since it works by (amongst other things) preventing the implantation of a fertilised egg.
Additionally the various formulations of tri-monthly hormone injection contraceptives and even the IUD work by preventing implantation.
If taking a morning-after pill is equivalent to murder then surely having an IUD is equivalent to mass-murder?
"Are you saying that a blastocyst is equivalent to a person?"
Yes. That is a human being in the earliest stage of life and is due every right due you.
Any biologist would confirm that a blastocyst is a mamallian life-stage. That's not what I asked: I asked you if a blastocyst is "equivalent to a person".
I think most reasonable people would agree that even though a blastocyst has the potential to become a person it is not yet a person. It does not think, feel or have a personality. It's a clump of cells which have yet to differentiate.
Yes, a blastocyst is a living thing - but to say that all stages of human life are equally deserving of protection seems to be grossly wrong:
Suppose given your limited time you can save one life today: You can prevent the abortion scenario I described before or you can save a 1 year old child. In this unlikely situation most people would agree that the toddler's life is more worthy of saving than the blastocyst.
There's absolutely no ambiguity here, since a toddler can think, feel and suffer. You can end it's "punishment". The blastocyst cannot feel pain or suffer. It's obvious that these two hypothetical lives are not morally equivalent.
Just in case you are unconvinced, here is a blastocyst:
http://bit.ly/1adgkn
And here are some adorable toddlers:
http://bit.ly/4tPjWD
Yes, these are the same species, however most reasonable people would agree that killing a toddler is murder, killing a blastocyst is inconsequential.
fakeDobson,
You're kind of all over the place here; I'm going to have to focus in on a few things.
"Thousands of doses of the morning-after pill are prescribed every week..."
And in the US at least a great deal of energy was spent convincing the general public this doesn't constitute abortion. I agree with you that it is, and as such I think it should not be legal -- the same for any birth control that prevents implantation.
"Person" has somehow become a fluid term. Various groups have been excluded from personhood over the years, including blacks and Jews. We talk about human right, not persons', and that blastocyst is a human being.
That I would, if I had to choose, save a one-year-old whose family knows, loves, and would miss him over a blastocyst says no more about his value than the fact that I (and you) would save said one-year-old before most adults.
I agree with you that it is, and as such I think it should not be legal -- the same for any birth control that prevents implantation.
Previously you suggested "Abortion as birth control isn't very popular" - yet here I think you've conceded that since the "daily" contraceptive pill taken by millions of women amounts to the exact same thing. It's very popular.
We talk about human right, not persons', and that blastocyst is a human being.
Why must all stages of human life be given full human rights? We give adults and children human rights because they are thinking beings who are capable of choosing and suffering. We would not want beings like ourselves to suffer.
As I said before, a human blastocyst is just a bunch of cells, incapable suffering or independent life. It's also virtually identical to a rat blastocyst. Should we give rat blastocysts human-rights too?
And lets cut to the chase: Is abortion murder? If so, should the people who make and take contraceptive pills be treated like murderers?
"Previously you suggested 'Abortion as birth control isn't very popular'"
Yep. It's not. Polls show this. As I pointed out before, people have gone to great lengths to convince the general public that Plan B isn't abortion.
"Why must all stages of human life be given full human rights?"
I think that's certainly the safest default position. You're going to have to justify refusing full human rights to any particular stage of life. And be careful they can't be applied to you.
"Is abortion murder?"
Yes. Is it first degree murder? Probably not.
Why does this vex you so?
Yep. It's not. Polls show this.
A much better indication of popularity is the huge sales of oral contraceptive products. If a huge number of people choose to buy a product I think we can safely call it popular.
It's easy to make a poll show anything you want. Last month I saw a poll on FOX which claimed that most Americans think Barrack Obama is a Kenyan.
As I pointed out before, people have gone to great lengths to convince the general public that Plan B isn't abortion.
The method by which oral contraceptives work is disclosed in virtually every high-school biology text-book. There's no conspiracy.
I think that's certainly the safest default position. You're going to have to justify refusing full human rights to any particular stage of life. And be careful they can't be applied to you.
You are arguing a "slippery-slope" fallacy. The burden of proof is on you since you need to show that oral contraception really will lead to other kinds of human rights violations.
This is like the time you argued that legalizing homosexual marriage was a slippery-slope to population implosion. The argument does not work unless the fears are plausible.
Yes. Is it first degree murder? Probably not. Why does this vex you so?
It's troubling because it equates the killing of a thing which has never been conscious with the killing of a person who is conscious and wants to live.
It's also against common sense, since you are accusing millions of good people the most serious crime of all. It's a failure of moral perspective.
"The method by which oral contraceptives work is disclosed in virtually every high-school biology text-book."
If that were true, that wouldn't change anything. Most people don't know what's written in high school biology books. Do a web search; it won't take you long to find sites that describe plan B as simply "preventing pregnancy." That's how it was billed from the beginning. They're counting on people not thinking carefully about it.
"Slippery slope" is not necessarily a fallacy, but it can be misapplied. One can debate causality, but it's hard to deny that since Roe our society has become more comfortable with euthanasia and infanticide as it has accepted abortion.
And your objection does not qualify as meeting the challenge.
"This is like the time you argued that legalizing homosexual marriage was a slippery-slope to population implosion."
You're not a very close reader, are you. I did not claim that; I specifically denied that position. And in this, I never once claimed my position on abortion was libertarian. You just don't pay very close attention.
"It's troubling because it equates the killing of a thing which has never been conscious with the killing of a person who is conscious and wants to live."
Is it murder to kill someone who's no longer conscious and/or doesn't want to live?
it won't take you long to find sites that describe plan B as simply "preventing pregnancy." That's how it was billed from the beginning. They're counting on people not thinking carefully about it.
The information is freely available, however I take back what I said about the information being in "every" biology text book. The ones which have had the sex-ed chapter removed by conservatives do not usually contain this information.
it's hard to deny that since Roe our society has become more comfortable with euthanasia and infanticide as it has accepted abortion.
Last time I looked infanticide is illegal pretty much everywhere.
Do a thought experiment - take the countries which have the most liberal family planning vs the countries which try control it. I'm pretty sure that you will conclude that the former group have the overwhelmingly better human rights record. The evidence does not back your slippery-slope argument.
"It's troubling because it equates the killing of a thing which has never been conscious with the killing of a person who is conscious and wants to live."
Is it murder to kill someone who's no longer conscious and/or doesn't want to live?
This still seems like a failure of moral perspective to me: You are equating blastocyst with an unconscious adult.
You never explained why the moment of conception is so special to you. You give full rights to a zygote but not to an ovum. Outwardly these two types of cell look identical.
I think sooner or later you will have to admit that the only way to rationalise your moral claims is if you believe that the zygote has some kind of "soul" which is magicked into existence at the moment of fusion.
I guess if you believe in the Christian doctrine of souls, then it's the soul which maketh the man and not it's anatomical features. I'm sure you agree that this is belief is not widely accepted outside of Christianity.
D
"You never explained why the moment of conception is so special to you."
While I do believe in a soul (no surprise, I'm sure), that's not why I oppose abortion or think unborn children deserve protection at conception. That is the moment a new human being, complete with a unique genetic code, is created. Every difference between that tiny little creature and you is simply a question of degree.
It is a human being. Therefore, if you want to make exceptions, you have to give the grounds for a distinction between it and a more developed person.
You seem to enjoy talking about blastocysts, but I doubt you change your stance when the child is more developed. In this country, it's legal to kill a child up to the last minute before it's born. But wait that last minute and it magically becomes a "person." How do you justify any of that?
Every difference between that tiny little creature and you is simply a question of degree.
But it's a pretty enormous degree, right? The "tiny little creature" has very little in common with a baby other than a genome. Its appearance and functions are closer to that of a rat zygote than to a baby.
As I said before, if you fail to perceive the enormity of this degree then it's an obvious failure of perspective.
It is a human being. Therefore, if you want to make exceptions, you have to give the grounds for a distinction between it and a more developed person.
As I said before, I don't think you could call a single-cell a "person". Person is a very vague term and therefore leads us into a Sorites paradox if we try to use it as if it were specific.
One grain of sand on its own is not a heap. Sure it's made of the same stuff but to call it a heap seems instinctively wrong to most people. Even so, the difference between a grain and a heap is simply a question of degree.
You seem to enjoy talking about blastocysts, but I doubt you change your stance when the child is more developed. In this country, it's legal to kill a child up to the last minute before it's born. But wait that last minute and it magically becomes a "person." How do you justify any of that?
I'm not convinced that your interpretation of law is correct, but were it true I'd refer you back to my previous statements: Simply that it's impossible to tell when this magic property of personhood exists.
The law is a crude instrument. Set the limit too high and you risk killing things which almost certainly are "persons", set it too low and you risk creating a crazy reigeme where you treat a single-celled life as if it were a person. Whichever way you set it it will always be wrong for some.
Post a Comment