Abortion.What do you think about it?

Questions of life and death

The rational approach to the abortion debate starts by asking when independent life begins

Roy Hattersley
Monday June 26, 2006
The Guardian


The arguments in favour of examining the workings of the Abortion Act are far too important to be left to the Catholic church. For, on the evidence of recent pronouncements, the British hierarchy is unwilling to set out the moral imperatives that should determine policy on the subject. On the BBC's Today programme last week, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, kept repeating that public opinion supported the view that the 24-week limit on legal termination should be revised. And the Most Reverend Peter Smith, Archbishop of Cardiff, claimed that pictures of a foetus apparently "walking in the womb" had "touched people's hearts". The date on which an unborn child can be destroyed is not a matter that can be decided by popular suffrage. It is a question of right and wrong.

Humanists should fill the moral vacuum. We put respect for human life at the heart of our creed and we pride ourselves in pursuing that central tenet of belief with uncompromising logic rather than reliance on mysticism or magic. The rules that should govern an ethically acceptable policy on abortion are not difficult to define. Metaphysics aside, it is reasonable to conclude that the new human being begins when the foetus is capable of independent life. Before that, an abortion is undesirable but tolerable. After that, it is only acceptable in the most extreme cases. They do not include the psychological trauma of the expectant mother. A civilised society does not kill one person in order to alleviate the distress of another, no matter how traumatic it may be.

That incontrovertible imperative leaves parliament and government with only one task to perform: discovering when independent life is viable. Over the past 20 years, medical science has increased its ability to cure or alleviate almost every known disease. And improved standards of living have contributed to undeniable improvements in health and longevity. It is very nearly inconceivable that the healthy development of the foetus is the one area that has remained at the level it had achieved when the working of the Abortion Act was last examined. That makes an irresistible case for re-examining the question of when we should allow life to be extinguished. Indeed the arguments in favour of a re-examination are so compelling that the opponents of an inquiry regularly ignore them.

Melissa Dear of the Family Planning Association argues that further study is not necessary because "only a small minority of women have an abortion after 20 weeks ... and for those there are good reasons". One of those reasons is, in her estimation, the fact that the prospective mothers "may not have realised that they were pregnant". How can that possibly be a justification for killing a potential, or an actual, human being?

The other day, as part of a radio discussion, a young lady raised the question of a child conceived by rape. Surely, she said, no one could argue against an abortion - no matter how late the date - in such circumstances. The logic of her argument is as disturbing as her lack of respect for life. I give her credit for not demanding the execution of the rapist. If she does not propose capital punishment for the perpetrator of the horrible crime, how can she justify the death penalty for one of its victims? The rational conclusion is desperately hard on the woman who has been violated. But unless the preservation of life comes first, we are savages.

No doubt the two archbishops claimed the support of public opinion because they did not want the argument about abortion to be polarised between the Protestant and Catholic churches. One of the attractions of Rome used to be its moral certainty - the absolute refusal to temper its argument according to the needs of good public relations. Last week it failed to make its case even when its beliefs could be supported by reason. The rational - I will not presume to call it the moral - argument about abortion is, I know, dismissed by some sections of society as primitive misogyny. But when they write their letters of complaint, note how many of them are prepared to deal with the central issues: when does independent life begin, and should we alter the date at which, in any circumstances, it is ended? If they fail to answer those questions, we will know for sure how strong was the case that the two archbishops failed to advance.

What does your signature mean, Walter?

Anyways, interesting article. But I think the author is a bit shortsighted and in the manner Boomerang implied. Forcing a mother to bring forth an unwanted child may be morally questionable as is. It certainly has fueled spirited debates for the past three or four decades at least. But should a mother indeed give birth to this child, then usually the two are condemned to spent life together for some eighteen years.

In all effect, the author of the article says: Well, certainly the rape is wrong, but should an innocent unborn suffer for it? But fails to add: Should the victim of the rape, the one living through the ordeal, be forced against her express desires not only to give birth to this child, but also to raise it, giving up time, love and money for a person who will inadervetendly remind her of her rape every day of her life?

There are deeper issues at stake here. The consequences of abortion, or the lack of it, will reverbrate through a woman's life for many years to come. No matter what choice has been made.

What does your signature mean, Walter?

Interesting comment in today's The Guardian (page 15/ online version).

(NB: that's re the UK and UK-law.)

Quote:

Questions of life and death

The rational approach to the abortion debate starts by asking when independent life begins

Roy Hattersley
Monday June 26, 2006
The Guardian


The arguments in favour of examining the workings of the Abortion Act are far too important to be left to the Catholic church. For, on the evidence of recent pronouncements, the British hierarchy is unwilling to set out the moral imperatives that should determine policy on the subject. On the BBC's Today programme last week, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, kept repeating that public opinion supported the view that the 24-week limit on legal termination should be revised. And the Most Reverend Peter Smith, Archbishop of Cardiff, claimed that pictures of a foetus apparently "walking in the womb" had "touched people's hearts". The date on which an unborn child can be destroyed is not a matter that can be decided by popular suffrage. It is a question of right and wrong.

Humanists should fill the moral vacuum. We put respect for human life at the heart of our creed and we pride ourselves in pursuing that central tenet of belief with uncompromising logic rather than reliance on mysticism or magic. The rules that should govern an ethically acceptable policy on abortion are not difficult to define. Metaphysics aside, it is reasonable to conclude that the new human being begins when the foetus is capable of independent life. Before that, an abortion is undesirable but tolerable. After that, it is only acceptable in the most extreme cases. They do not include the psychological trauma of the expectant mother. A civilised society does not kill one person in order to alleviate the distress of another, no matter how traumatic it may be.

That incontrovertible imperative leaves parliament and government with only one task to perform: discovering when independent life is viable. Over the past 20 years, medical science has increased its ability to cure or alleviate almost every known disease. And improved standards of living have contributed to undeniable improvements in health and longevity. It is very nearly inconceivable that the healthy development of the foetus is the one area that has remained at the level it had achieved when the working of the Abortion Act was last examined. That makes an irresistible case for re-examining the question of when we should allow life to be extinguished. Indeed the arguments in favour of a re-examination are so compelling that the opponents of an inquiry regularly ignore them.

Melissa Dear of the Family Planning Association argues that further study is not necessary because "only a small minority of women have an abortion after 20 weeks ... and for those there are good reasons". One of those reasons is, in her estimation, the fact that the prospective mothers "may not have realised that they were pregnant". How can that possibly be a justification for killing a potential, or an actual, human being?

The other day, as part of a radio discussion, a young lady raised the question of a child conceived by rape. Surely, she said, no one could argue against an abortion - no matter how late the date - in such circumstances. The logic of her argument is as disturbing as her lack of respect for life. I give her credit for not demanding the execution of the rapist. If she does not propose capital punishment for the perpetrator of the horrible crime, how can she justify the death penalty for one of its victims? The rational conclusion is desperately hard on the woman who has been violated. But unless the preservation of life comes first, we are savages.

No doubt the two archbishops claimed the support of public opinion because they did not want the argument about abortion to be polarised between the Protestant and Catholic churches. One of the attractions of Rome used to be its moral certainty - the absolute refusal to temper its argument according to the needs of good public relations. Last week it failed to make its case even when its beliefs could be supported by reason. The rational - I will not presume to call it the moral - argument about abortion is, I know, dismissed by some sections of society as primitive misogyny. But when they write their letters of complaint, note how many of them are prepared to deal with the central issues: when does independent life begin, and should we alter the date at which, in any circumstances, it is ended? If they fail to answer those questions, we will know for sure how strong was the case that the two archbishops failed to advance.

And she should be allowed that "choice"...without interference from people whose business it is not.

The rules that should govern an ethically acceptable policy on abortion are not difficult to define. Metaphysics aside, it is reasonable to conclude that the new human being begins when the foetus is capable of independent life.

Before that, an abortion is undesirable but tolerable. After that, it is only acceptable in the most extreme cases. They do not include the psychological trauma of the expectant mother. A civilised society does not kill one person in order to alleviate the distress of another, no matter how traumatic it may be.

That incontrovertible imperative leaves parliament and government with only one task to perform: discovering when independent life is viable.

But unless the preservation of life comes first, we are savages.

Can anyone honestly compare an innocent unborn infant with someone committing criminal trespass and presenting a threat?

FA wrote-

Quote:

And she should be allowed that "choice"...without interference from people whose business it is not.

I'm not interfering Frank unless my inability to find a woman who has had an abortion sexually interesting is interference.

Is it an interference with my rights that I don't know a woman has had an abortion because she is keeping it quiet just like she might other conditions which would put me off. The idea of following after the killing forceps is alien to my drives.

Are you aware that somewhere deep in this debate there is an element of body fascism and that women in media have exploited body fascism to get permission to bray from the pulpit and change the lives of the 99% of women who are not body fascists.

They are in my opinion running ordinary women off a cliff.

real life wrote:

Can anyone honestly compare an innocent unborn infant with someone committing criminal trespass and presenting a threat?

Sure, in the same way that one can compare any two things. It's called an "analogy." It doesn't mean that the two things are exactly the same (indeed, one cannot make an analogy between identical things), but rather that they are alike in at least one quality.

Before that, an abortion is undesirable but tolerable. After that, it is only acceptable in the most extreme cases. They do not include the psychological trauma of the expectant mother. A civilised society does not kill one person in order to alleviate the distress of another, no matter how traumatic it may be.[/i][/u]

Is that the kind of "distress" that Hattersly is talking about? I don't know.

One thing I have done since first posting here is reading alot about abortions, both pro and against. My opinions stand but the biggest problem which I now see arising is the governments. I believe they will at some time compromise and reduce the time say to 16 weeks for abortion or to the time they say the first brain wave activate (4-8 weeks!), but what will this do to woman who have already had abortions after this time period? especially if all of a sudden the people in charge say a 16+ week unborn baby is a living human being. Could this destroy these woman phsychologically and cause more problems?

(By the way 16 weeks means nothing, I just needed a number)

You asked:

Quote:

Is that the kind of "distress" that Hattersly is talking about? I don't know.

The answer is obviously : No. Hattersley is saying there is NO rationale for killing one because that one is blamed for inconvenience or emotional upset, no matter the degree.

Hattersley is apparently bright enough not to equate an innocent infant with a criminal.

So the 'distress' he is talking about has nothing to do with fear for one's life brought about by a threatening individual who of his own free will endangers another.

Thus the 'analogy' is anything but. It is an absurdity.