OK. This goes back to a point mentioned earlier. It’s a matter of demonstrable, objective, scientific reality that the foetus conceived by a man and a woman is human – in the strictly biological sense of “human”. That is, it has human DNA. It is made up of human cells. It belongs to the species homo sapiens. Etc, etc.

But the point that you make here is that there can be other senses of “human”. For example, we often make a distinction between humans and animals. Strictly speaking, this is not correct; humans are animals. And yet it’s a meaningful use of the word “human”; it calls attention to the characteristics of humanity which are unique to humanity, and not shared by other animals.

Consider the concept of “human rights”, which is obviously relevant to the issue of abortion. Your right to, say, freedom of conscience, or freedom of expression, or freedom of assembly necessarily entails my obligation to respect that right. And why, fundamentally, am I obliged to respect your right to conscience, expression, etc? Is it because we share the same DNA? How does that follow? No, a more credible account is that you have a right to conscience, etc, because you have capacities that are not shared by other living beings – dogs, earthworms, cabbages, athlete’s foot fungus, the influenza virus. You have capacities for reflection, for communication, for imagination, for empathy, for emotion, for abstract thinking, for creativity, for forming relationships which distinguish you from species which have these capacities only in a limited form or not at all. These capacities claim our respect; this is what makes you “human” in the philosophical sense of a person whose rights command our respect.

But this requires careful thought. If the capacities for reflection, for forming relationships, etc are what constitutes humanity in this sense, are the profoundly disabled correspondingly less human according to the degree of their disability? Go too far down that road, and the cries of “Nazi!” start to become justified. And yet, in many respects, the (unhandicapped) foetus is closer to those capacities that the profoundly disabled are, since the foetus is actively developing all of these capacities, while a profoundly disabled person is not, cannot and never will.

The second problem with this view of the matter is that we lack most or all of these capacities for quite a long period after birth; the newborn infant is a wriggling bundle of instincts. If our humanity depends on us actually having developed these capacities, then we are all subhuman for at least the early months of our lives. In fact, we don’t fully develop all of these capacities until well into adolescence. (And, arguably, some of us descend into subhumanity again at the end of our lives.)

In short, if the lack of these capacities justifies abortion, it seems also to justify infanticide and the destruction of the bewildered and demented. That’s not a conclusion we can be very comfortable with, but it’s hard to avoid it.

It seems to me, then, that, important as these capacities are, the fact that we are ordered towards these capacities, that we are developing them, that they are characteristic of our natures, is of more moral significance than the fact that we actually have them fully developed at a particular point in time. Which means, I think, that this is not a helpful avenue to explore when seeking a moral justification for abortion.

Peregrinus wrote:

Airzone wrote:

In terms of ethics, and not right and wrong, I see that one way of considering the ethical implications is to look at the impact upon all stakeholders

... but I’m not sure I follow your opening words – “ In terms of ethics, and not right and wrong, . . .” Are you suggesting that there is an ethical analysis which doesn’t proceed by asking what is right and wrong behaviour in this (or any) situation? If you are not asking the “right or wrong” question, what question are you asking?

I quote from the home page of the St. James Ethics Centre
What is ethics?
The central question of ethics is:
"What ought one to do?"
Whenever you are faced with this question, you are dealing with ethics.
In seeking to answer the question of "What ought one to do?" we are left with some enduring truths:
■ Ethics is about relationships
■ It's about struggling to develop a well-informed conscience
■ It's about being true to the idea of who we are and what we stand for
■ It's about having the courage to explore difficult questions
■ It's about accepting the cost

When I stated "In terms of ethics, and not right and wrong ..." I simply stated that I was analysing the question in terms of ethics, and not analysing the question in terms of right and wrong. Ethics is not about right and wrong and I suggest that is a common error adopted by some when discussing ethics. It results in conflict along the age old lines of "I'm right, you're wrong." Ethics is about questioning and searching for better outcomes. So, no, I am not asking what is the right or wrong answer to the question. I am asking what are the implications for the stakeholders and what are the possible solutions and which solution is better for each stakeholder. The result is that one solution is better for one set of stakeholders while another solution is better for another group of stakeholders.

There is no "yes" or "no", no right or wrong answer because each of us has a different set of values. According to my analysis and my current understanding, as you reiterate, I believe abortion is ethical in some cases. Which instance depends upon the details and how they impact each stakeholder. If anyone disagrees with my analysis, I'm fine with that. I suspect my views will not be required in a practical sense and I treat this question entirely as a hypothetical.

Ethics is a useful process which helps us make better decisions, but there are no guarantees for anyone of anything!

Thanks for clarifying that, Airzone.

I would pick you up slightly, though, on one point. According to the SJEC homepage, while considering ethical questions reveals “some enduring truths”, e.g. that ethics is about relationships, the ethical question we are considering always comes down to “what ought one to do?”. And a question which includes “ought” can always be rephrased in terms of right/wrong – “what is it right to do?”. I think, then, that at bottom ethics is fundamentally about right and wrong.

There are a couple of variations on “what is it right to do?”:

- What is it [objectively] right to do?

- What is it right [for me] to do?

And no doubt others are possible. What is right? is therefore not a one-dimensional question with only one possible interpretation. I think your analysis in which you seek to explore what one ought to do in terms of how a particular action would affect the interests of different stakeholders is a valid and useful one, but it’s still an exploration of right and wrong.

I agree that your exploration – and mine – of this issue is “not required in a practical sense” and “hypothetical” as long as we are not ourselves faced with the question of whether to have an abortion. (And, as a bloke, I never will be.) A woman who faces that question directly may (or may not) be interested in our explorations, or find them helpful, but ultimate she is going to make her decision based on what she thinks she ought to do, not on what you or I think she ought to do. All we can do is help her – to the extent that our thoughts are helpful to her – to consider and reflect on that question.

But that’s not nothing. So discussion of this issue, while hypothetical in the sense that it isn’t directed towards answer the question with respect to a specific intended abortion, is still a contribution to making real-world ethical decisions.

Nevertheless, it does seem to me that our views – everyone’s views – are more relevant to the question of whether society should permit/encourage/discourage abortions, either through the law or through other mechanisms, since this is necessarily a decision which must be taken and implemented collectively, rather than individually. I’ve made the point already that “should a hypothetical woman abort?” is a significantly different question from “should the law permit abortion?”. And the latter question faces us, as citizens in a democracy, and demands an answer in a way that the former question does not.

The range of opinion that seems to be emerging in this discussion goes from “abortion is never ethical” (my position, and I think Christine’s) to “abortion may be ethical, but by reference to circumstances that probably don’t exist in the majority of abortions actually performed in Australia” (Kookaburra’s position, I think) to arry’s position, which I think is less well-defined. (I don’t say that to criticise him; he himself says that he is “just tossing around ideas”, which is a good and useful thing to do.) My apologies to anyone who feels that I have misrepresented their position.

Nobody – so far – has been willing to take a stand on the position that abortion is never unethical if it is freely chosen by the woman concerned, and that abortion as a convenient method of family planning is ethically unproblematic. Yet that is, in reality, the position which the law in Australia, and many other western democracies, accommodates.

Are we all happy with that, given that of the most abortions permitted would be, in the view of many or most participants in this discussion, be unethical?

Peregrinus wrote:

... I would pick you up slightly, though, on one point. According to the SJEC homepage, while considering ethical questions reveals “some enduring truths”, e.g. that ethics is about relationships, the ethical question we are considering always comes down to “what ought one to do?”. And a question which includes “ought” can always be rephrased in terms of right/wrong – “what is it right to do?”. I think, then, that at bottom ethics is fundamentally about right and wrong.

I disagree that "ought to" can replace right/wrong. The meaning is clearly different. I take the position that better or worse is appropriate in ethics, but not the absolutes of right or wrong. Even when better or worse is used, it must be limited and not global. For example, it is better to say "It is ethically better/worse for most mothers in Australia to stay at home and look after their children full time." than "It is ethically right/wrong that all mothers should stay at home and look after their children". Note I have also limited the benefit to a limited group and not applied it to everyone. We cannot say "Abortion is ethically wrong." This is too general. To make ethical comments we should generally be targeted.

To the best of my knowledge Australian law does not state that. No woman acts freely in such situations, there are many other (stakeholders) involved parties. The words "Nobody" and "never" worry me and the words "ethically unproblematic" make me suggest you employ simpler words!

Peregrinus wrote:

Are we all happy with that, given that of the most abortions permitted would be, in the view of many or most participants in this discussion, be unethical?

I do not agree with your given nor that many or most participants have the view you outline. It may be true or may not be true, but in fact, it does not add or subtract from my original argument. So, I am perfectly content to let my previous post stand as is and not to comment further on your deduction.

Is it ok to tweet your live abortion?

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23livetweetingabortion

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?ar ... 117&page=3

I think this justification sits well with all of the points presented so far;

A woman has the right to control her own body. Therefore, she has the right remove that baby from her body. If that results in the baby dieing, so be it, if it results in the baby living so be it. She does not have the right to directly kill the baby, but she does have the right to remove it from her body. If the baby cannot survive without being inside her body, that is a consequence of her removing it from her body however it does not give the baby a right to remain in her body because her body belongs to her, not the baby and certainly not the government. When you think about it, the government saying, 'you may not have an abortion' is an infringement on the woman because it is forcing them to keep something in their body which they do not wish to keep in their body. I cannot think of another precedent that allows for that to occur.

I understand it would result in the loss of life, but I don't think that trumps her right to have control over her own body.

Thoughts?

Deleted by Hunter

arry,



So in effect, you are saying the woman must give birth either vaginally, or by self adminsitered cesarean, and if the child survives out side the womb it has a right to life. But at the same time you say the woman does not have the right to dismember the fetus to remove it from her body, nor to administer toxins that kill the child in utero?

Hunter

It takes two to tango and I'm sure there are instances where the male thought birth control was being used only to find out later that the female had not properly used her oral contraceptives or had lied about using birth control of some sort.

There is an old saying that if birth control is left to your wife, you'll have children when she decides to. Several years ago one of my young coworkers was bragging "my boys can swim" as his wife had gotten pregnant while using the birth control pill. i rained on his parade when i told him he really needed to talk to his wife. he asked why and I siad that in this old bulls experience, such things were more apr to occur when the wife decided it was time to have a child and ceased taking the oral contraceptive. In this instance the old bull was right again as he found out after talking to his wife.

Unless a woman was raped, any pregnancy could be considered her choice by way of sexual relations enjoyed, so a developing baby/foetus is not like a wart or other inconvenient virus.
A pregnancy is the result of deliberate actions knowingly taken by the woman, and provided she has reasonable intelligence she should be aware that this was a likely outcome of her choice of behaviour.
Contraceptives are out there and easily used, however, ridiculously the relationship between sex and pregnancy is often forgotten.
When newborn babies are left on doorsteps or in wheelybins, even complete strangers do all in their power to save them so how can we dismiss the same child's life a few weeks before its birth with words such as " if that results in the baby dying so be it", That's not a normal human reaction and its not dying its being killed.

In answer to your question kookaburra, if the fetus is 3 months old, and is unable to survive outside the womb, then it is more ethical (from a consequentialist perspective) to remove the fetus with an abortion procedure than have the woman give birth because the end result is the same (the baby dies) and the former is less traumatic on the woman's body.

1/3 of women have had an abortion Christine so I do wonder how you choose to define 'normal'.

I agree the relationship between sex and pregnancy is often forgotten, which is why we need to see more sex education classes in schools informing students of the consequences of their choices. I'm all for teaching people about the consequences of their actions, but I'm also for giving them the information to make their own choices. If we saw greater sex education in schools, greater support and acceptance of young mothers, and greater promotion of contraception than perhaps we would see the abortion rate drop.

arry,

Do you have a source for your claim that 1/3 of women have had abortions?

If we go to a Venn diagram what defines the universe of women where a subset of one third of them have had abortions.

Give that this is an Australian forum kookaburra, and that I was talking in the present, it would be logical to understand the context of the statement was present day Australia. But as you have chosen not to do that, I will re- state:

1/3 of Australian women have chosen to have an abortion in contemporary times.

You are correct in the sense that some sources do not claim that statistic to be quite so high. It seems 1/4 to 1/5 is a less disputed statistic.

Here is a government source for your perusal supporting those statistics:

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... _Australia

arry
You can prove anything with statistics. Are they the same women having a abortions over and over?

Even more people have probably driven when under the influence, exeeded the speed limit, and gone through red lights. I have.
More people have probably tried to cheat on their taxation by misrepresenting the truth. I have.
That doesn't mean those activities were commendable and should not be avoided.

Leaving another human being to die is not normal behaviour, I have seen even animals trying to assist in these situations.

I think women are only able to go ahead with an abortion if they disassociate from the reality of what is happening.

If you read my response carefully, I didn't say the statistics were an ethical justification, I just said that they were a challenge to your argument that abortion was not 'normal'. Going through a red light and having an abortion are not ethically equivalent so i don't think that argument proves abortion is wrong.


When a woman has an abortion, she is not 'leaving' another human being to die. There is no chance the fetus will survive. She is making the decision to remove it from her body, knowing it will die as a result. Women who have abortions usually understand this concept, that is why they choose to have an abortion in the first place. I don't think too many women go into have an abortion not knowing that the end result is going to mean the baby's death.

I think in an ideal world, abortion wouldn't happen. But we don't live in an ideal world, and we cannot compromise women's control over their own bodies. As I said, perhaps if there were more sex education, protected sex and support for young mothers in our society, we would see less individuals feeling that it is necessary to choose abortion. But the way I see it, giving individuals other options is ethical, but making such laws that remove their ability to control their own body in such a way is not.

Even if you don't agree that abortion is ethical Christine, perhaps you can at least agree that having legal access to abortion is preferable to illegal abortion, where women go underground and have 'backyard abortions' where many die. Perhaps a pragmatic approach of allowing it because the consequences of not doing so are far worse would sit better with you ethically?

Yes, I do agree with you about that arry.
Of course I don't want anyone to die in a backyard abortion, or a road accident, or a suicide, or in a domestic, or terrorist attack, but contraception is not rocket science and we could do better than resort to abortion in the vast majority of instances.

I agree.

arry,

You seem to be waffling.






So which is it?

Good point. Since removing the baby from her body results in the baby dieing anyway, then she has a right to kill the baby. Thank you for pointing that out.

Oh dear ! this issue goes to the very heart of humanity and there is no clear cut answer in my view . Women have always needed to have some control over their fertility .Their very survival and their children has depended on the ability to provide adequately for their young . The poor houses and institutions authorised to care for children were places of unspeakable cruelty in centuries past .
Today there are families who are experiencing huge problems in providing care and there are not enough foster families in this country to provide the care these children deserve...and this is just in Australia.
Birth control doesnot always succeed and some religious beliefs prohibit the practice . I find it tragic that there is a need for abortion but the fact is that women will always seek abortion as an option if they feel there is no other solution, even after counselling.

I think you’re confusing two questions that need to be kept separate.

In your OP, you ask for views on whether “it is up to each individual woman to decide whether it is ethical (for her) to have an abortion”.

Now you suggest that “a woman has a right to control her own body”.

That doesn’t answer the question that you yourself raised. If anything, it comes before it. Unless a woman has the right to control her body (to the point of getting an abortion) she doesn’t need to ask whether an abortion would be ethical.

If:

- a woman does have the right to control her own body (in the sense of living in a place where she is free to have an abortion if she wants one),

then

- she is faced with the possibility of having an abortion,

and

- she must decide whether or not it is ethical do so

When we have freedom to do any particular act, we must always decide whether it is ethical to do that act. An act is not ethical merely because it is possible, or permitted.

To take a simple example, in Australia we generally enjoy freedom of speech. Nevertheless it is clear that I can use that freedom in ways which are unethical – by lying, by deceiving, by defrauding, by defaming, by hurting, etc.

To argue that an abortion is ethical because a woman has the right to control her own body is simply to assume your conclusion. You assert, without any attempt at argument or justification, that a woman’s right to control her body trumps all other considerations, even the loss of someone else’s life. But that is the very thing that you need to argue for, and justify.

And, even if you do that, and persuade me that a woman does have the right to control her own body (you probably won’t have to work too hard to persuade me of it, by the way), you still haven’t done anything at all to answer the question, would it be ethical of her to have an abortion? But that is actually the question to which she needs an answer.

Sure, ultimately it has to be her answer, not yours or mine. But that is true for every ethical issue everyone faces; in the end, we have to accept the ethical responsibility for our own actions, which means taking our own ethical decisions. But on this board we have no hesitation in discussing, hypothetically, whether lying, or organ donation, or derision, or stealing, or racial discrimination, or a host of other things are or would be ethical. So we can certainly discuss whether an abortion is or would be. And it’s a question an awful lot of people face, so it needs to be discussed.