Sadly I’m not sure that we can do that in this country right now, in the fervour of an election year party where past debates on s59, Civil Unions and Prostitution Reform have already spiked the punch of many Christian fundamentalists. This High Court decision will give groups like Right to Life and Family First the impression that their moral outrage is justified, when actually it’s sexist, factually dubious and frequently ignores the real consequences of outlawing abortion. I can already imagine the offensive placards, the pictures of fetuses being emailed to MPs, the harassment women will face outside abortion clinics, the abuse of all those innocent statistics, and the cyber-squatting aimed at those who express their support for a woman’s right to choose. A respectful debate seems unlikely.
The ironic thing is that I don’t think any of the people on this thread who could be pigeon-holed as “pro-life” have even brought God/Jesus into the discussion.
It’s the pro-choice people who stereotype every pro-lifer as a Bible-basher who turn this into a religious discussion and try to circumvent the actual issues.
The notion that every life is precious surely isn’t a “religious” principle?
[lprent: I'd actually have to agree (with a bit of surprise) that the thread has been reasonably good. I had to intervene in only one commentator whose behavior was starting to troll.]
I post comments that respond specifically to other pro-abortion comments raised in this thread, and they get seriously edited by Iprent.
Sadly, this is just business as usual when it comes to the abortion debate.
People aren’t actually willing to engage in honest discussion and debate, and when someone dares to present reasoning which exposes the serious flaws in the pro-choice/pro-abortion ideology they are silenced.
It seems that the liberals have become the conservative establishment, and it is those of us who were formerly labeled as ‘conservatives’ who are now actually the progressives, seeking a new and better way.
[lprent: Quit whining. It isn't the 'tolerant left'. It is the intolerant bastard sysop who doesn't like trolling you have to worry about. Go and read the Policy.
No trolling == No moderation]
“The real question is whether it is acceptable for the state to infilict the morals of one group upon another.”
That’s a good point, and I agree with it in regards to abortion which is why I oppose abortion – because abortion inflicts the morality of certain adults upon unborn children, and that’s just not the libertine way.
“If you’re against abortion then kindly don’t have one…”
“If you’re against the War in Iraq, then kindly don’t go…”
“If you’re against torture, then kindly don’t be a part of it..”
“If you’re against suicide, then kindly don’t kill yourself…”
What a pathetic argument. I’m almost insulted by the sheer stupidity of it, but then this is the Standard. Its agrument construed of the typical garbage of “women have rights: don’t repress them!”. This isn’t about a woman’s right to abortion, or anything else: Right to Life’s case was about…the right to life.
The first and foremost human right is the right to life. Pro-life groups are convinced that the unborn have a right to life. It’s not about anything else, despite what feminists might believe/want us to swallow. If a woman can have an abortion, without affecting the life of the unborn, hell, I’m all for it.
Its ridiculous to say “If you’re against abortion then kindly don’t have one…”, because its far greater than that. Pro-life groups aren’t fighting the battle for themselves, they’re fighting for those who are most innocent – who can’t speak up for themselves, who can’t post blogs, or argue in cafes about whether they have a right to live or not – they are sticking up for the unborn.
For me, being pro-life is one of the hardest things to be. Not because its a difficult or illogical stance to take but because it is a stance that directly contradicts society’s values. But its the same in the battle against the death penalty, torture, domestic violence and murder – the battle will always be uphill but in the end, its bloody worth it.
The ironic thing is that I don’t think any of the people on this thread who could be pigeon-holed as “pro-life’ have even brought God/Jesus into the discussion.
That’s because those of you arguing the “pro-life” angle are too scared of ridicule to do so yourselves. It reminds me of the “intelligent design” argument. I just wish you would have the honesty to admit your views on abortion are derived from your faith rather than trying to dance around the issue. “God” is aporetically present as a glaring lacuna in your arguments. Do you think we are too stupid to see that?
“I just wish you would have the honesty to admit your views on abortion are derived from your faith rather than trying to dance around the issue.”
Faith has nothing to do with it.
I am not opposed to abortion because some priest or book told me to be pro-life.
Instead I am pro-life because I have carefully examined the evidence, weighed the arguments on both sides of the debate, and used my intellect and my reason to come to the most logical, sound and truly human position.
[lprent: Really - have a look at my notes on your comment at 9:50 last night. Explain what your responsible position is in the two cases I postulated.]
It seems that the concept that someone can be pro-life based purely on the empirical evidence and sound philosophical reasoning is just too hard a concept for some pro-choice/pro-abortion supporters to get their head around.
Maybe this is because it blows apart their narrow world view, and it is a threat to all the unfounded prejudices that they have unquestioningly embraced along with it.
That’s because those of you arguing the “pro-life’ angle are too scared of ridicule to do so yourselves. . .
I just wish you would have the honesty to admit your views on abortion are derived from your faith rather than trying to dance around the issue. “God’ is aporetically present as a glaring lacuna in your arguments. Do you think we are too stupid to see that?
I won’t answer that last question.
Speaking for myself, I’m certainly not scared of being ridiculed about anything. But — and I’ll repeat myself for your benefit, Robinsod — being pro-life is not a religious thing. It’s a human thing.
It’s looking at an ultrasound and saying “Hey, that was me once. I’m so grateful my mother didn’t abort me. I want every unborn baby to become a born baby. I think they all have a right to life.”
Hoolian,
For me, being pro-life is one of the hardest things to be. Not because its a difficult or illogical stance to take but because it is a stance that directly contradicts society’s values.
As you say, though, it’s worth the suffering and sideways glances and angry, judgemental responses from people who say you shouldn’t judge them (which you actually weren’t doing in the first place).
Iprent, you invited me to respond to your interventions last night at 9:50pm, so I will…
“The obvious question here and through the rest of your varied arguments which you don’t consider rape – it isn’t exactly a free choice”
Which is why I started my comment at 9:50pm last night with this statement:
“Excluding the situation of rape, this analogy bears no resemblance to pregnancy…”
In other words, the only time that one could try and use Thompson’s Violinist analogy to support abortion is in the situation of pregnancy after rape.
The vast majority of abortions are not happening because of rape, so therefore in the vast majority of cases, Thompson’s violin analogy is not valid.
And when it comes to a situation of rape, the flaw in Thompson’s analogy is that it does not consider the serious physical and emotional risks that abortion exposes women to.
So a more correct version of Thompson’s violin analogy would be this:
You are attached to a famous violinist against your will, but if you remove the tubes and detach the violinist you will be exposing yourself to serious physical health risks and serious psychological risks.
However, if you remain attached to the violinist for nine months, and then part company with the violinist at that point, then you are not exposed to anywhere near the same level of risk.
“And here you don’t consider the case where adequate precautions were taken in anti-contraception, and failed. None of them are 100% effective including various surgeries.”
Yes, as you acknowledge, no contraceptive measure is 100% effective, and they do often fail, but this doesn’t change the fact that having sexual intercourse with another person is the most effective way of creating a new human being.
Everyone with half a brain knows this, and I would suggest that most people know that no contraceptive measure is 100% effective, so therefore anyone making the FREE choice to have sex, even when contraception is used, must be aware that there is still a possibility that their free choice could result in the creation of a new human life (intended or not).
The issue then becomes, is it actually fair and just to then turn around and say:
“Yes, I was aware that sex is the most effective way of creating a new human life, and yes, I was also aware that I could still get pregnant even after using contraceptive measures, and yes I still freely chose to have sex anyway, but now I don’t actually want to go along with the responsibilities that are part and parcel of the act I freely chose to engage in”.
When you freely engage is sex with another person, one of the ramifications of that decision that you must consider is that you may well end up creating another human life – and at the point, then any further decisions after that must surely be made in consideration of the rights of the new human life that your prior free decision to have sex resulted in creating.
[lprent: so in the case I was describing, even with cut fallopian tubes, the wife should not have sex? That seems a bit extreme? It has in fact happened in the Hawkes Bay recently from memory.
Actually I just looked at this with my programmers eye. What you are describing is that sex is for conception. I'd suggest that a simpler design solution to that would be to emasculate all males at puberty after collecting sperm samples. Then use standard insemination techniques for conception. Works on other animals.
I'll volunteer after every other human male does it.
Anyway I'll let others carry on that discussion if they wish.]
“Quit whining. It isn’t the ‘tolerant left’. It is the intolerant bastard sysop who doesn’t like trolling you have to worry about. Go and read the Policy.”
LOL
Yes, but none of my comments last night are Trolling.
If you look at each one of them, it is a response to a specific point raised by a previous poster, they were not intended to bait anyone, and they certainly were not disrupting the flow of the conversation – they were simply participating in it by responding to points that had already been raised.
According to good old Wikipedia, for something to be considered Trolling it must be:
“…controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[ or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
While some parts of my posts last night may have been considered controversial by some people here, they certainly weren't intended that way, and that probably has more to do with the fact that some of the ideas I proffered maybe new to some people here, and are contrary to their personal views.
[lprent: I run a loose definition of trolling (ie mine). I view filling up a thread with consecutive comments that no-one else is responding to, and are largely assertions as blocking out other commentators. In fact I view them as being a single comment, and the length as making it a post. The comments section is meant for dialogue, not for posting views.
Start a blog or use a different site, and link to it to it in your comments. Then other commentators can look at your short comment text and decide if they want to jump to the more considered and probably better written view. That will happen far more than you'd expect, and people stop skipping any comment written by you. Also I don't get pissed off while I'm scanning comments]
The Dumb Ox
June 12, 2008 at 9:43 am
“The real question is whether it is acceptable for the state to infilict the morals of one group upon another.’
That’s a good point, and I agree with it in regards to abortion which is why I oppose abortion – because abortion inflicts the morality of certain adults upon unborn children, and that’s just not the libertine way
Sorry theres a jump in your reasoning there that you havent explained.
I’m not trying to wind anyone up here but in some respects society treats killing in a different way to other things they dislike.
Take treatment of animals for example, not ok to beat them, torture them, rape them, but kill them and serve them up for dinner? no problem what so ever.
The simple fact is once you die that is the end of it, if you took a bullet to the back of the head unaware it was coming, would you even feel a thing? of course there is many people around you, family, friends partners, they would be mighty upset. We also like not living in fear of being killed.
How ever none of these apply to foetus’. The is no pre death trauma, no expectation that it wont be killed, and there is nothing more than a purely physical\parasitic realtionship with the mother.
I just think its a bit precious to assign so many rights to a foetus.
The thing I genuinely dislike about this issue is that people seem to feel compelled to take increasingly absurd and often offensive rhetorical positions to support their belief.
There’s simply no way to argue against people whose only essential claim is `it’s just not right’ (which is what the pro-life argument boils down to) because people who take this line (though I don’t include all pro-lifers in this) are simply impervious to reason, and any and all arguments will be met with `it’s just not right’.
Trying to argue a `purely physical/parasitical relationship’ between mother and child is one such example of an untenable position, and one which is unsupported by science to boot. While I disagree with his end position and much of his reasoning, The Dumb Ox is correct in saying that this isn’t an accurate representation of pregnancy.
On the other hand, the `fact’ that abortion is more dangerous than carrying a baby to full term has been raised a number of times by The Dumb Ox and others without a shred of supporting evidence. For one thing this is a counterfactual; for another thing, it’s something upon which there exists expert consensus, viz. that it’s not – medical practitioners support abortion explicitly in order to prevent greater harm which could be caused by a full-term pregnancy. These are two of many examples.
Just saying something is so doesn’t make it so, and if this discussion is going to continue, I’d like to reiterate Lynn’s call for actual factual evidence, or at least rational debate based on logic rather than `I sez’.
“How ever none of these apply to foetus’. The is no pre death trauma, no expectation that it wont be killed, and there is nothing more than a purely physical\parasitic realtionship with the mother.”
Yes, but killing another human person is not immoral just because it might hurt them, or cause pain of loss to their family, or even because they may experience pre-death trauma.
Instead killing is immoral because killing an innocent person takes away their right to life, and no one has the right to rob another person of their right to life.
That right belongs to the individual, not to wider society, not to their family and not to the individual’s mother.
Besides that, a person who has no family to mourn them, and who is sleeping or is unconscious, is in exactly the same position as an unborn child because they have no awareness that they are about to be killed, and no family member exists to be sad about their death.
Yet I doubt that you would suggest that it would be okay to kill them because of that fact.
“it’s just not right’ (which is what the pro-life argument boils down to)”
I don’t think that’s a fair comment at all.
Yes, some pro-lifers may argue this way, but that’s not what the pro-life argument is based on at all.
Instead the pro-life position is based on sound philosophical propositions, and legitimate scientific and medical facts and research.
Not every pro-lifer is going to be aware of this, which is why some of them argue based purely on the ‘it’s just not right’ basis – which, as you say, lacks reason.
But don’t confuse the actions of some, with the actual pro-life position, which is based very much on sound logic and fact.
“On the other hand, the `fact’ that abortion is more dangerous than carrying a baby to full term has been raised a number of times by The Dumb Ox and others without a shred of supporting evidence.”
There is actually a lot of independent research showing that abortion leads to very real, and very serious risks for women who undergo it.
I’m not sure if the moderators will allow me to, but here are references to just some of the many independent studies (in other words they aren’t commissioned or conducted by pro-lifers).
Increased risk of serious mental health issues:
- David Fergusson, Christchurch School of Medicine, 2006 (women aged 15-18 more than double the risk for suicide if they abort)
- Longitudinal study of entire female population of Finland, 2005 (post abortive women had a suicide rate 6 times higher than that of non-abortive women)
- Southern Medical Journal, 95, 834-841 (154% more likely to commit suicide)
- Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137-142 (34% more likely to suffer serious anxiety)
- Coleman, P. K., Journal of Youth and Adolescence (5 times more likely to seek help for psychological or emotional issues)
Increased risk of Endometriosis:
- Burkman, et al., “Morbidity Risk Among Young Adolescents Undergoing Elective Abortion” Contraception, 30:99-105 (1984);
- “Post-Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 68(5):668- 690, (1986)
“Increased risk of reproductive, and liver cancers:”
- M-G, Le, et al., “Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast or Cervical Cancer: Preliminary Results of a French Case- Control Study, Hormones and Sexual Factors in Human Cancer Etiology, ed. JP Wolff, et al., Excerpta Medica: New York (1984) pp.139-147;
- F. Parazzini, et al., “Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Invasive and Intraepithelial Cervical Neoplasia,” British Journal of Cancer, 59:805-809 (1989);
- H.L. Stewart, et al., “Epidemiology of Cancers of the Uterine Cervix and Corpus, Breast and Ovary in Israel and New York City,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 37(1):1-96;
- I. Fujimoto, et al., “Epidemiologic Study of Carcinoma in Situ of the Cervix,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 30(7):535 (July 1985);
- N. Weiss, “Events of Reproductive Life and the Incidence of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer,” Am. J. of Epidemiology, 117(2):128-139 (1983);
- V. Beral, et al., “Does Pregnancy Protect Against Ovarian Cancer,” The Lancet, May 20, 1978, pp. 1083-1087;
- C. LaVecchia, et al., “Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Women,” International Journal of Cancer, 52:351, 1992.
Like I said, these are just some of the many research papers showing that abortion exposes women to serious risk factors, and in order to try and avoid the ire of the moderator (please sir, may I have some more?) I will cease and desist on this post!
[lprent: If they are online - just link to them. Do this sort of thing in the comment box:
<a href='www.thestandard.org.nz?p=2184'>Behind the secrecy</a>
The 'a' tag is the anchor point. 'www.thestandard.org.nz?p=2184' is the net reference. 'Behind the secrecy' is what you want to display. '/a' is the closing tag.
If they aren't online, then there is a low probability of anyone reading them. Life is too short to locate hardcopy.]
Scribe: Actually, it’s a distraction designed to muddy the waters with the emotive and the symbolic, like the images you link to above. I’m inclined to argue that this is because your position is founded on emotion, rather than logic. That’s fine – fair enough too – but please be so good as to identify it as such.
`Anecdote’ is not the same as `evidence’. Anyone can roll out case studies which support their position. It usually doesn’t help promote rational discourse.
I thought it was an interesting coincidence that such a story would come out the same week as this judgement.
My logic, which I thought I had clearly outlined, is that everyone has an inherent right to life. Is that founded on emotion?
You obviously think some don’t have a right to life. Just come out and say it, and preferably list those who you think aren’t entitled to that right. We’ve established the unborn are on the list. Disabled? Terminally ill? Incontinent?
Ox: Thank you. It’s a list which is mostly useless for the sort of discussion we’re having here but it does provide a starting point for anyone prepared to undertake serious study of the matter.
“Yes, some pro-lifers may argue this way, but that’s not what the pro-life argument is based on at all.”
I explicitly disclaimed just this point in the following sentence, though I admit I could’ve been clearer.
“There is actually a lot of independent research showing that abortion leads to very real, and very serious risks for women who undergo it.”
Yes, but until now you hadn’t produced any of it.
Now, here’s where it breaks down. You might be an obstetrician, but I’m not, I’m a political scientist. I’d guess it’s a fair bet that we don’t have any actual practicing obstetricians participating in this thread. What this means is that we need to take our cues from someone, and my point above was not that there isn’t evidence, or even that the evidence wasn’t presented, but that it’s evidence which apparently hasn’t satisfied the medical community (particularly the Royal Australian and NZ College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists) that the negative aspects of abortion on a woman’s health outweigh the negative aspects of carrying an unwanted child to term. I have no doubt that abortion is harmful, but I’m not convinced it’s necessarily more harmful than the alternative, and neither are the experts. This is the orthodox `balance of harm’ argument which holds that a woman is entitled to an abortion when the procedure would cause significantly less harm to her than continuing the pregnancy. (Leaving aside the more complex and important discussion as to whether and at what point unborn babies have rights).
Miller J’s finding is that the law needs to be (much) more strictly interpreted, but explicitly endorses the principle that the balance of harm can in many cases legitimately entitle a woman to an abortion. The typical pro-life position is to ban abortions except in very rare cases, which completely denies the `balance of harm’ argument. You seem to support this position, which casts your arguments about the harm caused by the procedure into a dim light, since the logical conclusion of that position is that a pregnancy should continue, no matter the potential harm to the mother. This argument was less formally expressed above as “Its about the control of women and the reversal of their meager rights.”
So my question would be, `if the evidence that almost all abortions should be declined on medical grounds is so good, why isn’t the RANZCOG convinced?’ Surely, if the evidence were so compelling, doctors would refuse to perform the procedure in cases where a legitimate balance of harm was not demonstrated?
Scribe: “I thought it was an interesting coincidence that such a story would come out the same week as this judgement.”
No coincidence at all, people are alert to the topic and it’ll sell papers.
“My logic, which I thought I had clearly outlined, is that everyone has an inherent right to life. Is that founded on emotion?”
No. I’d argue that the bit where you presume a baby which is not independently viable has a right to life is founded on emotion. Beyond that point I agree with you. Until that point the baby has a right to whatever its mother wants to give it. This should include life. This point – at which a baby becomes entitled to a right to life – is of course very debatable, but I believe my position is founded on some actual biological sense, whereas yours is an absolutist position.
The thing is that rights are defined by the responsibilities they place upon others. The rights of an unborn baby are defined by the mother’s responsibilities. If you want to take over those responsibilities, you can – but not before the point of independent viability. If that point changes, then so does my position.
“You obviously think some don’t have a right to life.”
Some whats? Some babies before the point of independent viability? Indeed, they life and die by their mothers’ will. It’s also daftto call this `might is right’; it’s just biology. This isn’t to say that they’re not people, either; (as I mentioned before, my wife is pregnant; I’ve seen that little person on the screen and it’s definitely a person). But that isn’t the same as being an independently viable person. This is a pretty simple and clear delineation.
“Just come out and say it, and preferably list those who you think aren’t entitled to that right. We’ve established the unborn are on the list.”
No, we haven’t. Don’t misrepresent my position; I’ve resisted all sorts of temptation to misrepresent yours.
“Disabled? Terminally ill? Incontinent?”
Reduction to absurdity does you no favours in trying to look rational.
This point – at which a baby becomes entitled to a right to life – is of course very debatable, but I believe my position is founded on some actual biological sense, whereas yours is an absolutist position.
I think your position is actually much more contrary to biology than mine. At a very early stage in the pregnancy, certainly before 12 weeks, the baby simply grows. I think the very latest point at which one can make a case for abortion on demand from a purely biological standpoint is when the baby has been formed and the process changes from development to growth.
But that isn’t the same as being an independently viable person. This is a pretty simple and clear delineation.
Such comments are dangerous, I reckon, because some disabled people are not independently viable and some terminally ill people are also in the same category.
It’s probably not something you intended; I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But can you see how such ideas can lead to a pretty slippery slope?
I’d like to quickly point out that reconigising a right is not the same as recognising it as incontravenable. Even viable fetuses might not have enough of a right to live if killing them would save the mother when otherwise both she and the fetus would have died. A right to live is not the same thing as a right to kill someone who is keeping you alive, and all this “but the child ALWAYS has the right to live” talk is too absolutist for such a complicated issue.
Is abortion generally not the greatest of ways to deal with a pregancy? Sure. But that doesn’t mean there’s never other factors that justify it. That doesn’t mean that abortion of a zygote or an embryo is the same as abortion of a non-viable or viable fetus.
Our current law could easily be legally enforced to the letter if we replaced the term “unborn child” with “viable fetus”. And whatever we do, it needs to be grounded in medical science, not just pro-choice or pro-life advocacy. The current law does not meet that criteria, and if we are to start enforcing it that will cause problems.
“Surely, if the evidence were so compelling, doctors would refuse to perform the procedure in cases where a legitimate balance of harm was not demonstrated?”
Not if the doctors are unaware of the research, or if the establishment have embraced an ideology that favors abortion and is not prepared to properly consider the evidence, etc.
As far as the establishment is concerned, an abortion is a far more cost-effective and immediate way of dealing with a crisis-pregnancy than the other alternatives are.
Never underestimate the power of financial incentive, or the fact that something is a quick-fix, to actually sway the way people think and act.
Just because a majority of doctors do, or don’t do something, it doesn’t mean that they are right.
The majority of doctors during the Civil War thought that bloodletting was the best way to deal with disease and illness.
The doctor who invented the inhuman lobotomy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.
Just because something is happening a certain way, or it has majority support, it doesn’t make it the right thing to be doing.
Surely, if the evidence were so compelling, doctors would refuse to perform the procedure in cases where a legitimate balance of harm was not demonstrated?
Hate to say this, but at the rural hospital I work, the doctor who performs the terminations is only interested in whether the paperwork is completed. Nobody questions the original assessment of the certifying doctor.
Dr Pippa MacKay is already on record as saying that all she does is ask if the patient thinks she might get depressed. I do not consider this an adequate psychological assessment. This is particularly important as a recent study indicates a substantial increase in the incidence of depression post-abortion. While I have no problem with abortion for Maternal health reasons, it does not seem to me that Dr. MacKay’s criteria meets this standard in any way.
Dr Pippa MacKay is already on record as saying that all she does is ask if the patient thinks she might get depressed. I do not consider this an adequate psychological assessment.
Your comment made me wonder. Is there overwhelming evidence to suggest a woman who takes a pregnancy to term becomes depressed? My hunch is no, there isn’t, but I’d gladly read a study to the contrary.
So why is there this apparent acceptance in some medical circles that women who say they’re likely to get depressed are credible?
As you point out, MacDoctor, there is a recent study, conducted here in New Zealand, that abortion is actually WORSE for a woman’s mental health. Dr Fergusson’s calls for more research in the area have been ignored by the Health Ministry and the Government.
Scribe: If you’re going to misrepresent my position I don’t see the purpose in continuing.
“some disabled people are not independently viable”
The sense in which I’ve been using `independently viable’ throughout this entire thread is of a baby being viable without support from its mother. I quote myself:
“once the baby could realistically survive without its mother, it’s entitled to do so (in an incubation chamber, being cared for by a surrogate or by whatever other means). I believe this benchmark currently stands at about 26 weeks.”
( http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2159#comment-60045 )
By this definition what you suggest is logically impossible.
“It’s probably not something you intended; I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But can you see how such ideas can lead to a pretty slippery slope?”
Since you’ve done so for me, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn’t a wilful misunderestimation.
Ari: I’m sorry I never got around to replying to your earlier posts.
“reconigising a right is not the same as recognising it as incontravenable.”
This is absolutely true as well; a utility calculation has to come into play at some point, which is what the `balance of harm’ principle seeks to codify.
“The current law does not meet [medical] criteria, and if we are to start enforcing it that will cause problems.”
I’m not sure, I have faith in legal systems. What Miller J did is an example of the ongoing discourse on the matter. That said, I expect the question to be obviated by judicial or legislative change at some point.
Ox: Your line of argument here is completely bogus. Fisking time.
“Not if the doctors are unaware of the research,”
So the medical profession is ignorant?
“or if the establishment have embraced an ideology that favors abortion and is not prepared to properly consider the evidence, etc.”
So the medical profession is motivated more by ideology than by medical considerations?
“As far as the establishment is concerned, an abortion is a far more cost-effective and immediate way of dealing with a crisis-pregnancy than the other alternatives are.”
Ah, so the medical profession is motivated by money rather than by medical considerations?
“Never underestimate the power of financial incentive, or the fact that something is a quick-fix, to actually sway the way people think and act.”
Or the medical profession is motivated by doing what’s easy, rather than by medical considerations?
“Just because a majority of doctors do, or don’t do something, it doesn’t mean that they are right.”
Of course, but I never argued they were right, I argued they are best placed to judge the medical evidence. If you can name a medical body better-placed to make decisions on pregnancy and childbirth in NZ than the Royal Australian and NZ College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, I’d love to know who it is. Until you can, I’m going to believe their assessment of the evidence over alternatives (since I’m not an expert myself).
“The majority of doctors during the Civil War thought that bloodletting was the best way to deal with disease and illness.”
Irrelevant. I never argued the RANZCOG was right, nor does the question rest on whether they are.
“The doctor who invented the inhuman lobotomy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.”
Irrelevant for the same reason.
“Just because something is happening a certain way, or it has majority support, it doesn’t make it the right thing to be doing.”
Tautology.
In summation, your argument seems to be that abortion hasn’t been banned because the medical profession is ignorant, ideologically motivated, financially corrupt, lazy and deluded by a false sense of authority. My argument is that it hasn’t been banned because there’s a genuine medical need for it which the medical profession, legislators, the judiciary and society as a whole has recognised, assessed and enacted for the good of society. Ockham’s Razor time: which one seems like the bigger stretch?
MacDoctor: Yeah, I read this, too, and this is essentially what Miller J’s judgement seeks to remedy.
Of course I’d welcome further research on the matter. But even so: this wouldn’t justify an all-out ban on abortion, simply a tighter regulatory regime.
Between 10-19% of women suffer from post-natal depression although only 0.1% suffer from the very severe version called post-natal psychosis. So while it’s a fairly common problem overall, it is only rarely so severe that it is life-threatening. My point, of course, is not that potential severe post-natal depression is not a reasonable reason for an abortion; my point is that you can’t determine this by simply asking the mother – that is not medicine, that is playing games.
If the mother is at little risk of severe post-natal depression (and most are), then abortion puts the mother at increased risk. This is simply not ethical conduct for anyone, let alone a doctor.
An all-out ban on abortion would be very dangerous, putting many women at extreme risk. But the law needs to be adhered to not re-interpreted. Frankly, when we doctors start re-interpreting laws to suit our own agendas – everyone duck!
If you can name a medical body better-placed to make decisions on pregnancy and childbirth in NZ than the Royal Australian and NZ College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, I’d love to know who it is.
I know you talk about pregnancy and childbirth in NZ, but I wonder if you’re aware that the Royal College of Psychiatrists — the mental health experts — in the UK has warned about the negative consequences of abortions.
And just to expand on the idea of the money that’s involved with the abortion industry, and especially for the consultants, some of whom seem to be signing authorisations with little regard for the patient, here are some figures from 2003 (they were provided by the Health Ministry):
The Government spent a tick under $20 million directly on abortions — that takes in the costs of the procedures plus the consultants fees, which amounted to almost $4 million. In 2006, one consultant made more than $200,000 from abortion authorisations alone.
And that $20m figure doesn’t include the costs of ongoing treatment, hospitalisation costs after complications (which are common), the cost of transporting women to abortion clinics etc etc etc
MacDoctor: Right on. I didn’t intend to imply you were arguing for no abortions.
Scribe: I didn’t ask for evidence (I accept it exists); I asked for a more authoritative decision-making body in NZ. Thanks for the report nonetheless; information is useful.
The whole money thing is just the motive fallacy. It’s a red herring unless you’re arguing the medical profession is greedy. If you want to say that, go ahead and say it.
Money is certainly A motive (doctors are motivated by money just like everyone else!) However, the main motivation would be ideology, rather than money. The vast majority of doctors who are willing to get involved in abortion assessments are extremely pro-choice and believers in abortion-on-demand to a man (or woman). As usual, ideology is a dubious guide to medical ethics!
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
zANavAShi,
The ironic thing is that I don’t think any of the people on this thread who could be pigeon-holed as “pro-life” have even brought God/Jesus into the discussion.
It’s the pro-choice people who stereotype every pro-lifer as a Bible-basher who turn this into a religious discussion and try to circumvent the actual issues.
The notion that every life is precious surely isn’t a “religious” principle?
[lprent: I'd actually have to agree (with a bit of surprise) that the thread has been reasonably good. I had to intervene in only one commentator whose behavior was starting to troll.]
So much for the tolerant left.
I post comments that respond specifically to other pro-abortion comments raised in this thread, and they get seriously edited by Iprent.
Sadly, this is just business as usual when it comes to the abortion debate.
People aren’t actually willing to engage in honest discussion and debate, and when someone dares to present reasoning which exposes the serious flaws in the pro-choice/pro-abortion ideology they are silenced.
It seems that the liberals have become the conservative establishment, and it is those of us who were formerly labeled as ‘conservatives’ who are now actually the progressives, seeking a new and better way.
[lprent: Quit whining. It isn't the 'tolerant left'. It is the intolerant bastard sysop who doesn't like trolling you have to worry about. Go and read the Policy.
No trolling == No moderation]
“The real question is whether it is acceptable for the state to infilict the morals of one group upon another.”
That’s a good point, and I agree with it in regards to abortion which is why I oppose abortion – because abortion inflicts the morality of certain adults upon unborn children, and that’s just not the libertine way.
“If you’re against abortion then kindly don’t have one…”
“If you’re against the War in Iraq, then kindly don’t go…”
“If you’re against torture, then kindly don’t be a part of it..”
“If you’re against suicide, then kindly don’t kill yourself…”
What a pathetic argument. I’m almost insulted by the sheer stupidity of it, but then this is the Standard. Its agrument construed of the typical garbage of “women have rights: don’t repress them!”. This isn’t about a woman’s right to abortion, or anything else: Right to Life’s case was about…the right to life.
The first and foremost human right is the right to life. Pro-life groups are convinced that the unborn have a right to life. It’s not about anything else, despite what feminists might believe/want us to swallow. If a woman can have an abortion, without affecting the life of the unborn, hell, I’m all for it.
Its ridiculous to say “If you’re against abortion then kindly don’t have one…”, because its far greater than that. Pro-life groups aren’t fighting the battle for themselves, they’re fighting for those who are most innocent – who can’t speak up for themselves, who can’t post blogs, or argue in cafes about whether they have a right to live or not – they are sticking up for the unborn.
For me, being pro-life is one of the hardest things to be. Not because its a difficult or illogical stance to take but because it is a stance that directly contradicts society’s values. But its the same in the battle against the death penalty, torture, domestic violence and murder – the battle will always be uphill but in the end, its bloody worth it.
The ironic thing is that I don’t think any of the people on this thread who could be pigeon-holed as “pro-life’ have even brought God/Jesus into the discussion.
That’s because those of you arguing the “pro-life” angle are too scared of ridicule to do so yourselves. It reminds me of the “intelligent design” argument. I just wish you would have the honesty to admit your views on abortion are derived from your faith rather than trying to dance around the issue. “God” is aporetically present as a glaring lacuna in your arguments. Do you think we are too stupid to see that?
“I just wish you would have the honesty to admit your views on abortion are derived from your faith rather than trying to dance around the issue.”
Faith has nothing to do with it.
I am not opposed to abortion because some priest or book told me to be pro-life.
Instead I am pro-life because I have carefully examined the evidence, weighed the arguments on both sides of the debate, and used my intellect and my reason to come to the most logical, sound and truly human position.
[lprent: Really - have a look at my notes on your comment at 9:50 last night. Explain what your responsible position is in the two cases I postulated.]
It seems that the concept that someone can be pro-life based purely on the empirical evidence and sound philosophical reasoning is just too hard a concept for some pro-choice/pro-abortion supporters to get their head around.
Maybe this is because it blows apart their narrow world view, and it is a threat to all the unfounded prejudices that they have unquestioningly embraced along with it.
Robinsod,
That’s because those of you arguing the “pro-life’ angle are too scared of ridicule to do so yourselves. . .
I just wish you would have the honesty to admit your views on abortion are derived from your faith rather than trying to dance around the issue. “God’ is aporetically present as a glaring lacuna in your arguments. Do you think we are too stupid to see that?
I won’t answer that last question.
Speaking for myself, I’m certainly not scared of being ridiculed about anything. But — and I’ll repeat myself for your benefit, Robinsod — being pro-life is not a religious thing. It’s a human thing.
It’s looking at an ultrasound and saying “Hey, that was me once. I’m so grateful my mother didn’t abort me. I want every unborn baby to become a born baby. I think they all have a right to life.”
Hoolian,
For me, being pro-life is one of the hardest things to be. Not because its a difficult or illogical stance to take but because it is a stance that directly contradicts society’s values.
As you say, though, it’s worth the suffering and sideways glances and angry, judgemental responses from people who say you shouldn’t judge them (which you actually weren’t doing in the first place).
http://www.stuff.co.nz/706119a17217.html
Hoolian & Scribe good points
If one agrees with the “pro-choice” viewpoint on abortion why should the parents lose their choice to abort as soon as a child is born?
Alex (and others),
Right to Life, which brought this case to the High Court, simply wants the law to be followed. Is that too much to ask?
What other laws do you think can simply be flouted? Or do you want the law of common sense to apply, like Annette King said would apply to the EFA?
Iprent, you invited me to respond to your interventions last night at 9:50pm, so I will…
“The obvious question here and through the rest of your varied arguments which you don’t consider rape – it isn’t exactly a free choice”
Which is why I started my comment at 9:50pm last night with this statement:
“Excluding the situation of rape, this analogy bears no resemblance to pregnancy…”
In other words, the only time that one could try and use Thompson’s Violinist analogy to support abortion is in the situation of pregnancy after rape.
The vast majority of abortions are not happening because of rape, so therefore in the vast majority of cases, Thompson’s violin analogy is not valid.
And when it comes to a situation of rape, the flaw in Thompson’s analogy is that it does not consider the serious physical and emotional risks that abortion exposes women to.
So a more correct version of Thompson’s violin analogy would be this:
You are attached to a famous violinist against your will, but if you remove the tubes and detach the violinist you will be exposing yourself to serious physical health risks and serious psychological risks.
However, if you remain attached to the violinist for nine months, and then part company with the violinist at that point, then you are not exposed to anywhere near the same level of risk.
“And here you don’t consider the case where adequate precautions were taken in anti-contraception, and failed. None of them are 100% effective including various surgeries.”
Yes, as you acknowledge, no contraceptive measure is 100% effective, and they do often fail, but this doesn’t change the fact that having sexual intercourse with another person is the most effective way of creating a new human being.
Everyone with half a brain knows this, and I would suggest that most people know that no contraceptive measure is 100% effective, so therefore anyone making the FREE choice to have sex, even when contraception is used, must be aware that there is still a possibility that their free choice could result in the creation of a new human life (intended or not).
The issue then becomes, is it actually fair and just to then turn around and say:
“Yes, I was aware that sex is the most effective way of creating a new human life, and yes, I was also aware that I could still get pregnant even after using contraceptive measures, and yes I still freely chose to have sex anyway, but now I don’t actually want to go along with the responsibilities that are part and parcel of the act I freely chose to engage in”.
When you freely engage is sex with another person, one of the ramifications of that decision that you must consider is that you may well end up creating another human life – and at the point, then any further decisions after that must surely be made in consideration of the rights of the new human life that your prior free decision to have sex resulted in creating.
[lprent: so in the case I was describing, even with cut fallopian tubes, the wife should not have sex? That seems a bit extreme? It has in fact happened in the Hawkes Bay recently from memory.
Actually I just looked at this with my programmers eye. What you are describing is that sex is for conception. I'd suggest that a simpler design solution to that would be to emasculate all males at puberty after collecting sperm samples. Then use standard insemination techniques for conception. Works on other animals.
I'll volunteer after every other human male does it.
Anyway I'll let others carry on that discussion if they wish.]
“Quit whining. It isn’t the ‘tolerant left’. It is the intolerant bastard sysop who doesn’t like trolling you have to worry about. Go and read the Policy.”
LOL
Yes, but none of my comments last night are Trolling.
If you look at each one of them, it is a response to a specific point raised by a previous poster, they were not intended to bait anyone, and they certainly were not disrupting the flow of the conversation – they were simply participating in it by responding to points that had already been raised.
According to good old Wikipedia, for something to be considered Trolling it must be:
“…controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[ or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
While some parts of my posts last night may have been considered controversial by some people here, they certainly weren't intended that way, and that probably has more to do with the fact that some of the ideas I proffered maybe new to some people here, and are contrary to their personal views.
[lprent: I run a loose definition of trolling (ie mine). I view filling up a thread with consecutive comments that no-one else is responding to, and are largely assertions as blocking out other commentators. In fact I view them as being a single comment, and the length as making it a post. The comments section is meant for dialogue, not for posting views.
Start a blog or use a different site, and link to it to it in your comments. Then other commentators can look at your short comment text and decide if they want to jump to the more considered and probably better written view. That will happen far more than you'd expect, and people stop skipping any comment written by you. Also I don't get pissed off while I'm scanning comments]
The Dumb Ox
June 12, 2008 at 9:43 am
“The real question is whether it is acceptable for the state to infilict the morals of one group upon another.’
That’s a good point, and I agree with it in regards to abortion which is why I oppose abortion – because abortion inflicts the morality of certain adults upon unborn children, and that’s just not the libertine way
Sorry theres a jump in your reasoning there that you havent explained.
I’m not trying to wind anyone up here but in some respects society treats killing in a different way to other things they dislike.
Take treatment of animals for example, not ok to beat them, torture them, rape them, but kill them and serve them up for dinner? no problem what so ever.
The simple fact is once you die that is the end of it, if you took a bullet to the back of the head unaware it was coming, would you even feel a thing? of course there is many people around you, family, friends partners, they would be mighty upset. We also like not living in fear of being killed.
How ever none of these apply to foetus’. The is no pre death trauma, no expectation that it wont be killed, and there is nothing more than a purely physical\parasitic realtionship with the mother.
I just think its a bit precious to assign so many rights to a foetus.
The thing I genuinely dislike about this issue is that people seem to feel compelled to take increasingly absurd and often offensive rhetorical positions to support their belief.
There’s simply no way to argue against people whose only essential claim is `it’s just not right’ (which is what the pro-life argument boils down to) because people who take this line (though I don’t include all pro-lifers in this) are simply impervious to reason, and any and all arguments will be met with `it’s just not right’.
Trying to argue a `purely physical/parasitical relationship’ between mother and child is one such example of an untenable position, and one which is unsupported by science to boot. While I disagree with his end position and much of his reasoning, The Dumb Ox is correct in saying that this isn’t an accurate representation of pregnancy.
On the other hand, the `fact’ that abortion is more dangerous than carrying a baby to full term has been raised a number of times by The Dumb Ox and others without a shred of supporting evidence. For one thing this is a counterfactual; for another thing, it’s something upon which there exists expert consensus, viz. that it’s not – medical practitioners support abortion explicitly in order to prevent greater harm which could be caused by a full-term pregnancy. These are two of many examples.
Just saying something is so doesn’t make it so, and if this discussion is going to continue, I’d like to reiterate Lynn’s call for actual factual evidence, or at least rational debate based on logic rather than `I sez’.
L
Clarification: … to prevent greater harm to the mother. Clearly not to the baby.
L
Killing,
You raise some good points, worthy of comment.
“How ever none of these apply to foetus’. The is no pre death trauma, no expectation that it wont be killed, and there is nothing more than a purely physical\parasitic realtionship with the mother.”
Yes, but killing another human person is not immoral just because it might hurt them, or cause pain of loss to their family, or even because they may experience pre-death trauma.
Instead killing is immoral because killing an innocent person takes away their right to life, and no one has the right to rob another person of their right to life.
That right belongs to the individual, not to wider society, not to their family and not to the individual’s mother.
Besides that, a person who has no family to mourn them, and who is sleeping or is unconscious, is in exactly the same position as an unborn child because they have no awareness that they are about to be killed, and no family member exists to be sad about their death.
Yet I doubt that you would suggest that it would be okay to kill them because of that fact.
Interesting story that is possibly relevant to this discussion.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4581846a10.html
“it’s just not right’ (which is what the pro-life argument boils down to)”
I don’t think that’s a fair comment at all.
Yes, some pro-lifers may argue this way, but that’s not what the pro-life argument is based on at all.
Instead the pro-life position is based on sound philosophical propositions, and legitimate scientific and medical facts and research.
Not every pro-lifer is going to be aware of this, which is why some of them argue based purely on the ‘it’s just not right’ basis – which, as you say, lacks reason.
But don’t confuse the actions of some, with the actual pro-life position, which is based very much on sound logic and fact.
“On the other hand, the `fact’ that abortion is more dangerous than carrying a baby to full term has been raised a number of times by The Dumb Ox and others without a shred of supporting evidence.”
There is actually a lot of independent research showing that abortion leads to very real, and very serious risks for women who undergo it.
I’m not sure if the moderators will allow me to, but here are references to just some of the many independent studies (in other words they aren’t commissioned or conducted by pro-lifers).
Increased risk of serious mental health issues:
- David Fergusson, Christchurch School of Medicine, 2006 (women aged 15-18 more than double the risk for suicide if they abort)
- Longitudinal study of entire female population of Finland, 2005 (post abortive women had a suicide rate 6 times higher than that of non-abortive women)
- Southern Medical Journal, 95, 834-841 (154% more likely to commit suicide)
- Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137-142 (34% more likely to suffer serious anxiety)
- Coleman, P. K., Journal of Youth and Adolescence (5 times more likely to seek help for psychological or emotional issues)
Increased risk of Endometriosis:
- Burkman, et al., “Morbidity Risk Among Young Adolescents Undergoing Elective Abortion” Contraception, 30:99-105 (1984);
- “Post-Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 68(5):668- 690, (1986)
“Increased risk of reproductive, and liver cancers:”
- M-G, Le, et al., “Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast or Cervical Cancer: Preliminary Results of a French Case- Control Study, Hormones and Sexual Factors in Human Cancer Etiology, ed. JP Wolff, et al., Excerpta Medica: New York (1984) pp.139-147;
- F. Parazzini, et al., “Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Invasive and Intraepithelial Cervical Neoplasia,” British Journal of Cancer, 59:805-809 (1989);
- H.L. Stewart, et al., “Epidemiology of Cancers of the Uterine Cervix and Corpus, Breast and Ovary in Israel and New York City,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 37(1):1-96;
- I. Fujimoto, et al., “Epidemiologic Study of Carcinoma in Situ of the Cervix,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 30(7):535 (July 1985);
- N. Weiss, “Events of Reproductive Life and the Incidence of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer,” Am. J. of Epidemiology, 117(2):128-139 (1983);
- V. Beral, et al., “Does Pregnancy Protect Against Ovarian Cancer,” The Lancet, May 20, 1978, pp. 1083-1087;
- C. LaVecchia, et al., “Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Women,” International Journal of Cancer, 52:351, 1992.
Like I said, these are just some of the many research papers showing that abortion exposes women to serious risk factors, and in order to try and avoid the ire of the moderator (please sir, may I have some more?) I will cease and desist on this post!
[lprent: If they are online - just link to them. Do this sort of thing in the comment box:
<a href='www.thestandard.org.nz?p=2184'>Behind the secrecy</a>
The 'a' tag is the anchor point. 'www.thestandard.org.nz?p=2184' is the net reference. 'Behind the secrecy' is what you want to display. '/a' is the closing tag.
If they aren't online, then there is a low probability of anyone reading them. Life is too short to locate hardcopy.]
Scribe: Actually, it’s a distraction designed to muddy the waters with the emotive and the symbolic, like the images you link to above. I’m inclined to argue that this is because your position is founded on emotion, rather than logic. That’s fine – fair enough too – but please be so good as to identify it as such.
`Anecdote’ is not the same as `evidence’. Anyone can roll out case studies which support their position. It usually doesn’t help promote rational discourse.
L
Lew,
I thought it was an interesting coincidence that such a story would come out the same week as this judgement.
My logic, which I thought I had clearly outlined, is that everyone has an inherent right to life. Is that founded on emotion?
You obviously think some don’t have a right to life. Just come out and say it, and preferably list those who you think aren’t entitled to that right. We’ve established the unborn are on the list. Disabled? Terminally ill? Incontinent?
Ox: Thank you. It’s a list which is mostly useless for the sort of discussion we’re having here but it does provide a starting point for anyone prepared to undertake serious study of the matter.
“Yes, some pro-lifers may argue this way, but that’s not what the pro-life argument is based on at all.”
I explicitly disclaimed just this point in the following sentence, though I admit I could’ve been clearer.
“There is actually a lot of independent research showing that abortion leads to very real, and very serious risks for women who undergo it.”
Yes, but until now you hadn’t produced any of it.
Now, here’s where it breaks down. You might be an obstetrician, but I’m not, I’m a political scientist. I’d guess it’s a fair bet that we don’t have any actual practicing obstetricians participating in this thread. What this means is that we need to take our cues from someone, and my point above was not that there isn’t evidence, or even that the evidence wasn’t presented, but that it’s evidence which apparently hasn’t satisfied the medical community (particularly the Royal Australian and NZ College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists) that the negative aspects of abortion on a woman’s health outweigh the negative aspects of carrying an unwanted child to term. I have no doubt that abortion is harmful, but I’m not convinced it’s necessarily more harmful than the alternative, and neither are the experts. This is the orthodox `balance of harm’ argument which holds that a woman is entitled to an abortion when the procedure would cause significantly less harm to her than continuing the pregnancy. (Leaving aside the more complex and important discussion as to whether and at what point unborn babies have rights).
Miller J’s finding is that the law needs to be (much) more strictly interpreted, but explicitly endorses the principle that the balance of harm can in many cases legitimately entitle a woman to an abortion. The typical pro-life position is to ban abortions except in very rare cases, which completely denies the `balance of harm’ argument. You seem to support this position, which casts your arguments about the harm caused by the procedure into a dim light, since the logical conclusion of that position is that a pregnancy should continue, no matter the potential harm to the mother. This argument was less formally expressed above as “Its about the control of women and the reversal of their meager rights.”
So my question would be, `if the evidence that almost all abortions should be declined on medical grounds is so good, why isn’t the RANZCOG convinced?’ Surely, if the evidence were so compelling, doctors would refuse to perform the procedure in cases where a legitimate balance of harm was not demonstrated?
L
Scribe: “I thought it was an interesting coincidence that such a story would come out the same week as this judgement.”
No coincidence at all, people are alert to the topic and it’ll sell papers.
“My logic, which I thought I had clearly outlined, is that everyone has an inherent right to life. Is that founded on emotion?”
No. I’d argue that the bit where you presume a baby which is not independently viable has a right to life is founded on emotion. Beyond that point I agree with you. Until that point the baby has a right to whatever its mother wants to give it. This should include life. This point – at which a baby becomes entitled to a right to life – is of course very debatable, but I believe my position is founded on some actual biological sense, whereas yours is an absolutist position.
The thing is that rights are defined by the responsibilities they place upon others. The rights of an unborn baby are defined by the mother’s responsibilities. If you want to take over those responsibilities, you can – but not before the point of independent viability. If that point changes, then so does my position.
“You obviously think some don’t have a right to life.”
Some whats? Some babies before the point of independent viability? Indeed, they life and die by their mothers’ will. It’s also daftto call this `might is right’; it’s just biology. This isn’t to say that they’re not people, either; (as I mentioned before, my wife is pregnant; I’ve seen that little person on the screen and it’s definitely a person). But that isn’t the same as being an independently viable person. This is a pretty simple and clear delineation.
“Just come out and say it, and preferably list those who you think aren’t entitled to that right. We’ve established the unborn are on the list.”
No, we haven’t. Don’t misrepresent my position; I’ve resisted all sorts of temptation to misrepresent yours.
“Disabled? Terminally ill? Incontinent?”
Reduction to absurdity does you no favours in trying to look rational.
L
Lew,
This point – at which a baby becomes entitled to a right to life – is of course very debatable, but I believe my position is founded on some actual biological sense, whereas yours is an absolutist position.
I think your position is actually much more contrary to biology than mine. At a very early stage in the pregnancy, certainly before 12 weeks, the baby simply grows. I think the very latest point at which one can make a case for abortion on demand from a purely biological standpoint is when the baby has been formed and the process changes from development to growth.
But that isn’t the same as being an independently viable person. This is a pretty simple and clear delineation.
Such comments are dangerous, I reckon, because some disabled people are not independently viable and some terminally ill people are also in the same category.
It’s probably not something you intended; I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But can you see how such ideas can lead to a pretty slippery slope?
I’d like to quickly point out that reconigising a right is not the same as recognising it as incontravenable. Even viable fetuses might not have enough of a right to live if killing them would save the mother when otherwise both she and the fetus would have died. A right to live is not the same thing as a right to kill someone who is keeping you alive, and all this “but the child ALWAYS has the right to live” talk is too absolutist for such a complicated issue.
Is abortion generally not the greatest of ways to deal with a pregancy? Sure. But that doesn’t mean there’s never other factors that justify it. That doesn’t mean that abortion of a zygote or an embryo is the same as abortion of a non-viable or viable fetus.
Our current law could easily be legally enforced to the letter if we replaced the term “unborn child” with “viable fetus”. And whatever we do, it needs to be grounded in medical science, not just pro-choice or pro-life advocacy. The current law does not meet that criteria, and if we are to start enforcing it that will cause problems.
“Surely, if the evidence were so compelling, doctors would refuse to perform the procedure in cases where a legitimate balance of harm was not demonstrated?”
Not if the doctors are unaware of the research, or if the establishment have embraced an ideology that favors abortion and is not prepared to properly consider the evidence, etc.
As far as the establishment is concerned, an abortion is a far more cost-effective and immediate way of dealing with a crisis-pregnancy than the other alternatives are.
Never underestimate the power of financial incentive, or the fact that something is a quick-fix, to actually sway the way people think and act.
Just because a majority of doctors do, or don’t do something, it doesn’t mean that they are right.
The majority of doctors during the Civil War thought that bloodletting was the best way to deal with disease and illness.
The doctor who invented the inhuman lobotomy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.
Just because something is happening a certain way, or it has majority support, it doesn’t make it the right thing to be doing.
Surely, if the evidence were so compelling, doctors would refuse to perform the procedure in cases where a legitimate balance of harm was not demonstrated?
Hate to say this, but at the rural hospital I work, the doctor who performs the terminations is only interested in whether the paperwork is completed. Nobody questions the original assessment of the certifying doctor.
Dr Pippa MacKay is already on record as saying that all she does is ask if the patient thinks she might get depressed. I do not consider this an adequate psychological assessment. This is particularly important as a recent study indicates a substantial increase in the incidence of depression post-abortion. While I have no problem with abortion for Maternal health reasons, it does not seem to me that Dr. MacKay’s criteria meets this standard in any way.
MacDoctor,
Dr Pippa MacKay is already on record as saying that all she does is ask if the patient thinks she might get depressed. I do not consider this an adequate psychological assessment.
Your comment made me wonder. Is there overwhelming evidence to suggest a woman who takes a pregnancy to term becomes depressed? My hunch is no, there isn’t, but I’d gladly read a study to the contrary.
So why is there this apparent acceptance in some medical circles that women who say they’re likely to get depressed are credible?
As you point out, MacDoctor, there is a recent study, conducted here in New Zealand, that abortion is actually WORSE for a woman’s mental health. Dr Fergusson’s calls for more research in the area have been ignored by the Health Ministry and the Government.
Dumb Ox offers some reasons why above.
Scribe: If you’re going to misrepresent my position I don’t see the purpose in continuing.
“some disabled people are not independently viable”
The sense in which I’ve been using `independently viable’ throughout this entire thread is of a baby being viable without support from its mother. I quote myself:
“once the baby could realistically survive without its mother, it’s entitled to do so (in an incubation chamber, being cared for by a surrogate or by whatever other means). I believe this benchmark currently stands at about 26 weeks.”
( http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2159#comment-60045 )
By this definition what you suggest is logically impossible.
“It’s probably not something you intended; I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But can you see how such ideas can lead to a pretty slippery slope?”
Since you’ve done so for me, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn’t a wilful misunderestimation.
Ari: I’m sorry I never got around to replying to your earlier posts.
“reconigising a right is not the same as recognising it as incontravenable.”
This is absolutely true as well; a utility calculation has to come into play at some point, which is what the `balance of harm’ principle seeks to codify.
“The current law does not meet [medical] criteria, and if we are to start enforcing it that will cause problems.”
I’m not sure, I have faith in legal systems. What Miller J did is an example of the ongoing discourse on the matter. That said, I expect the question to be obviated by judicial or legislative change at some point.
Ox: Your line of argument here is completely bogus. Fisking time.
“Not if the doctors are unaware of the research,”
So the medical profession is ignorant?
“or if the establishment have embraced an ideology that favors abortion and is not prepared to properly consider the evidence, etc.”
So the medical profession is motivated more by ideology than by medical considerations?
“As far as the establishment is concerned, an abortion is a far more cost-effective and immediate way of dealing with a crisis-pregnancy than the other alternatives are.”
Ah, so the medical profession is motivated by money rather than by medical considerations?
“Never underestimate the power of financial incentive, or the fact that something is a quick-fix, to actually sway the way people think and act.”
Or the medical profession is motivated by doing what’s easy, rather than by medical considerations?
“Just because a majority of doctors do, or don’t do something, it doesn’t mean that they are right.”
Of course, but I never argued they were right, I argued they are best placed to judge the medical evidence. If you can name a medical body better-placed to make decisions on pregnancy and childbirth in NZ than the Royal Australian and NZ College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, I’d love to know who it is. Until you can, I’m going to believe their assessment of the evidence over alternatives (since I’m not an expert myself).
“The majority of doctors during the Civil War thought that bloodletting was the best way to deal with disease and illness.”
Irrelevant. I never argued the RANZCOG was right, nor does the question rest on whether they are.
“The doctor who invented the inhuman lobotomy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.”
Irrelevant for the same reason.
“Just because something is happening a certain way, or it has majority support, it doesn’t make it the right thing to be doing.”
Tautology.
In summation, your argument seems to be that abortion hasn’t been banned because the medical profession is ignorant, ideologically motivated, financially corrupt, lazy and deluded by a false sense of authority. My argument is that it hasn’t been banned because there’s a genuine medical need for it which the medical profession, legislators, the judiciary and society as a whole has recognised, assessed and enacted for the good of society. Ockham’s Razor time: which one seems like the bigger stretch?
L
MacDoctor: Yeah, I read this, too, and this is essentially what Miller J’s judgement seeks to remedy.
Of course I’d welcome further research on the matter. But even so: this wouldn’t justify an all-out ban on abortion, simply a tighter regulatory regime.
L
Scribe
Between 10-19% of women suffer from post-natal depression although only 0.1% suffer from the very severe version called post-natal psychosis. So while it’s a fairly common problem overall, it is only rarely so severe that it is life-threatening. My point, of course, is not that potential severe post-natal depression is not a reasonable reason for an abortion; my point is that you can’t determine this by simply asking the mother – that is not medicine, that is playing games.
If the mother is at little risk of severe post-natal depression (and most are), then abortion puts the mother at increased risk. This is simply not ethical conduct for anyone, let alone a doctor.
Lew
An all-out ban on abortion would be very dangerous, putting many women at extreme risk. But the law needs to be adhered to not re-interpreted. Frankly, when we doctors start re-interpreting laws to suit our own agendas – everyone duck!
Lew,
If you can name a medical body better-placed to make decisions on pregnancy and childbirth in NZ than the Royal Australian and NZ College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, I’d love to know who it is.
I know you talk about pregnancy and childbirth in NZ, but I wonder if you’re aware that the Royal College of Psychiatrists — the mental health experts — in the UK has warned about the negative consequences of abortions.
Here’s a report
And just to expand on the idea of the money that’s involved with the abortion industry, and especially for the consultants, some of whom seem to be signing authorisations with little regard for the patient, here are some figures from 2003 (they were provided by the Health Ministry):
The Government spent a tick under $20 million directly on abortions — that takes in the costs of the procedures plus the consultants fees, which amounted to almost $4 million. In 2006, one consultant made more than $200,000 from abortion authorisations alone.
And that $20m figure doesn’t include the costs of ongoing treatment, hospitalisation costs after complications (which are common), the cost of transporting women to abortion clinics etc etc etc
MacDoctor: Right on. I didn’t intend to imply you were arguing for no abortions.
Scribe: I didn’t ask for evidence (I accept it exists); I asked for a more authoritative decision-making body in NZ. Thanks for the report nonetheless; information is useful.
The whole money thing is just the motive fallacy. It’s a red herring unless you’re arguing the medical profession is greedy. If you want to say that, go ahead and say it.
L
Lew
Money is certainly A motive (doctors are motivated by money just like everyone else!) However, the main motivation would be ideology, rather than money. The vast majority of doctors who are willing to get involved in abortion assessments are extremely pro-choice and believers in abortion-on-demand to a man (or woman). As usual, ideology is a dubious guide to medical ethics!
It’s not about women’s rights, It’s about the right of the child inside her, to live.