Bad For Your Health
A Christchurch study has confirmed that women who have abortions are at increased risk of developing mental health problems, particularly depression and anxiety. This is not a once-off study, there have been plenty of others that show similar results. Despite the profusion of good-quality evidence, the pro-abortion lobbyists discount the data:
“But a pro-abortion group said yesterday that international evidence was inconclusive.
“It was likely that the effect of abortion on mental health was small or negligible and closely linked to factors that led to unplanned pregnancies, said the president of the Abortion Law Reform Association, Margaret Sparrow.”
They then go on to quote an American Psychological Association taskforce on mental health and abortion:
“The best published scientific evidence indicated that among adults who had an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems was “no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy”.”
Whale-Oil has the interesting take that there is an increased risk of mental illness after an abortion because most abortions are granted on the basis of poor mental health. Would that that were true, Cameron. My very first post (back in the distant past -i.e. June) was prompted by the announcement by Justice Forest Miller that the criteria used for granting abortions on the grounds of mental health were being applied in a very loose and suspect manner. In other words, these women may not be “at risk” at all.
Be that as it may, all parties seem to have overlooked the most obvious point here. Regardless of how you interpret the data, the inescapable conclusion is that abortion does not protect the mental health of the mother. The very grounds under which most abortions are granted today are based on an utter lie – that abortion will reduce the mother’s risk of developing mental health problems. Not only are most abortions granted under a very dubious interpretation of the law, that very law itself is based on an erroneous supposition. This section of the Abortion act should be repealed immediately.
Least I be accused of wishing to apply my religious viewpoint upon the whole of New Zealand, let me say that I am perfectly willing to debate the “abortion on demand” issue in public. This is one of those issues that would work best as a referendum, so that we can get a real feel for what New Zealanders actually want, rather than the wishes of a bunch of vocal lobbyists from the fringes of the debate. This is also too important a matter to be left in the hands of politicians.
It would be good if we could have rational discussion on the issue. It is a pity that we are more likely to get rabid posturing, instead.
Related posts:
- Abortion is Maddening This Month’s British Journal of Psychiatry carries a research paper...
- Demand Driven The Abortion Supervisory Committee are pushing for more use of...
- Abortion: A personal look. The sudden interest on abortion in New Zealand on the...
- Quick and Easy? Abortion Family Planning Council are seeking to introduce non-surgical abortions...
- Pro-choice In a twist on the pro-life/pro-choice abortion debate, many nurses...
Dec 2 08 11:22 am
Surely you must acknowledge that a woman can do what she damn well pleases with her body. What is the problem that you have with it?
Dec 2 08 11:54 am
“It would be good if we could have rational discussion on the issue.”
For me the abortion issue above any other is one I believe there isn’t a “rational” answer to, it comes down to moral beliefs and individual freedom. It can’t be measured on a set of scales or with a ruler, those most involved in the debate insist that it is they who hold the moral high ground, but the reality is that their positions are subjective, in objective terms the rights and wrongs just can’t be meaningfully qualified.
So because it’s the nature of the issue the only answer is whatever the democratically elected politicians think the law should be, and if you don’t like it, use democracy to fight for different laws.
Millsy: “Surely you must acknowledge that a woman can do what she damn well pleases with her body. What is the problem that you have with it?”
But a foetus isn’t part of a womans body, her body supports the foetus, just as it would once the baby is born, so the argument you use is as legitamate as arguing that a woman should be allowed to kill her baby after it is born.
And the counter argument is that the foetus isn’t a human, just a potential human.
Round and round and round…
Dec 2 08 12:07 pm
Millsy:
Can she walk down the high street naked? Can she slit her wrists in public and expect everyone to stand idly by? Can she sell one of her kidneys on the black market? These things are proscribed her because of law. Somehow you seem to have a problem with the law.
The very fact that you can’t see the other part of the story, but can only see a woman’s “rights” rather than her responsibilities, is exactly why we need to have this debate out in the open.
Dec 2 08 12:16 pm
Argh, I hate the term pro-abortion. Pro-choice is very different from being pro-abortion. Just because we think it should be an option doesn’t mean we advocate that anyone should go along that path (actually we would prefer that there were no unplanned pregnancies through better use of contraception) just merely that it should be there as an option.
Hence why Pro-choicers find China’s enforced-abortions just as abhorrent as the situation in El Salvador where women are subjected to enforced vaginal examinations if an underground abortion is suspected (and incidentally where the well-off still exercise their choice via a plane ticket). For pro-choicers it is an issue of body autonomy.
While abortion may have mental health consequences, none of the choices regarding an unplanned pregnancy are entirely physically and mentally risk free nor entirely pleasant but in the end those best placed to make the decision are the women, (ideally) her partner in consultation with health professionals.
I agree with you that the current legislation is a farce and we should have abortion on demand. Perhaps something along the lines of what was recently passed in Victoria. Where it is on demand until 12 weeks and then requires two doctors to sign off after 20. I’m not trying to argue the merits of the study. Presumably they might want to also examine why the women were undertaking risky behaviour (ie. unsafe sex) that would lead to needing abortion and also whether society’s reaction has mental health consequences.
Finally I don’t think this sort of thing is something that you should put to referendum. Like the case of prop 8 (gay marriage in the states) this decision isn’t just a case“let’s agree to disagree”, it fucks around with real people’s lives; their futures, their sense of security and happiness on the basis of a question (when does life begin) that hasn’t been answered fully by science nor for that matter philosophy.
Dec 3 08 3:24 pm
Excellent post MacDoc, I do not what to nit pick but I would disagree that abortion does not protect the mental health of the mother. I am not 100% sure how abortion is defined in minds of the extreme anti-abortion fanatics. Would a rape victim taking a morning after pill be considered having an abortion even if it was uncertain if she was pregnant? What if the pill did not work or Catholic doctor convinced her not to take one? Is it not possible that she could develop a mental health problem is she was forced to carry on her pregnancy?
I knew a woman who developed bi-polar disorder when she was caring for three children under five. There is a high likelihood that the stress was the catalyst that caused the disorder. I would say that a woman who suffered severe depression after child birth to the extent of serious suicide attempts should qualify under existing law.
Where I think we will agree is that under existing legislation we basically have abortion on demand.
You sound like you have a sensible approach to abortion like the majority of non Fundamentalist Christians. I normally steer clear of such debates but your proposal seems so obvious and sensible I thought I would support you. That is we should have a referendum. I am not in favour of CIR generally because most issues like the economy, trade, law and order, and should be decided by rational debate including the publics’ right to make submissions. Many issues are interrelated so if a militant group managed to succeed with a binding referendum there could be unforeseen consequences. Another problem with binding CIR is getting the wording right.
This is different with moral issues. In the case of abortion it would almost certainly be a free vote. Under FPP there was some excuse for a free vote. The MPs were meant to be representatives of the people in the electorate. They could be lobbied and votes out – granted that could be hard in some safe seats. Under MMP there is no such justification to free votes. The type of referendum I would propose is that the politicians sort out the wording after hearing submissions. The public act as a second House which we no longer have. If they reject the legislation it is either scraped or they have another go at getting it acceptable.
There is now way that everybody will be satisfied with any abortion law. However, if the politicians knew they have to satisfy the majority of the public not just a militant minority I believe that we would get a better law.
Unlike the know all fanatics on both sides of the debate I not profess to know the perfect solution because there is not one. I do not accept that a woman who has too much to drink and has sex with someone she cannot remember should not be allowed a very early termination. On the other hand I think any woman should have the right to abort a baby at eight months because she breaks up with her partner.
Dec 3 08 6:10 pm
Chuck: I think I am probably substantially less liberal in my outlook than you! I can find no justification at all for the dangerous and distasteful procedure of late or “partial birth” abortions. Once the foetus is viable outside the womb, this is simply infanticide in utero. As for leaving the infant to die in the sluice room, this is utterly abhorrent and against the oath we swore as doctors to “first do no harm”.
I think there is a place for the mental health provision for women with established mental health disorders such as depression, previous postnatal depression and bipolar disorder. There is good evidence these woman are at substantially increased risk of post-natal depression and some evidence that abortion may be a better option. There is absolutely no evidence that someone with a mild anxiety disorder or borderline personality disorder is more at risk and good evidence that abortion increases the risk of mental health problems. These women should not be being offered abortions on mental health grounds.
Stef: I agree a referendum is a bad option. However, I am certain that all the other options are worse. And, if it makes you feel better, we’ll label the opposing parties “pro-choice” and “pro-life” (even though these imply that their opposites are “anti-choice” and “anti-life” – and therein lies the underlying problem in this debate).
Dec 3 08 7:59 pm
“Chuck: I think I am probably substantially less liberal in my outlook than you! I can find no justification at all for the dangerous and distasteful procedure of late or “partial birth” abortions.”
MacDoc, I thought I had proof read my post. It should have read.
“On the other hand I DO NOT think any woman should have the right to abort a baby at eight months because she breaks up with her partner.”
Do you agree with my point about referenda
Yes, indeed. CIR have a tendency to be loaded questions with very vocal lobby groups – the smacking referendum being a fine example. Which is why I don’t think they should ever be binding. It this case (abortion law), at least everyone’s views will be aired and the government will get a good idea of what kind of thing will be acceptable to the majority – something that should have been done with section 59 as well.
Dec 4 08 11:01 am
MacDoc, thanks for your reply. I wonder how any of the pro choice contributors view late term abortion. After all it is the woman’s body according to them.
Dec 4 08 2:17 pm
Millsy of course a woman can do what she damn well pleases with her body?
But she cannot steal with it, burn a house down with it, or kill with it.
The issue is not about limiting women, the issue is, is abortion homicide?
If no, then there is no reason to oppose abortion. Women are adult moral agents who can make their own choices about things that may or may not upset their mental health (though Nanny State, et al, should ensure there are no restrictions on the availability of peer reviewed information available to them to make choices regarding their mental health).
However, if yes, then abortion should be treated the same as any other homicide and any mental health issues is tough luck in the same way we don’t really give a damn about how the serial killer or the rapist feels about what they did.
Pondering the answer to this is the key. See our series exploring whether abortion is liberal or not looking at the harm principle and the common arguments in the literature.
Dec 4 08 2:28 pm
With regards to late-term abortions, you are talking about a very small amount abortions that take place past the 20th (ie past the halfway point week) something like 0.3 per cent (65 out of 18,000). In fact something like 94% of abortions in New Zealand take place before the 13th week.
With regards to later term abortions, there are times when the mother’s health may be threatened by continuing with the pregnancy which is why provisions need to be made and why it would be scary to put an issue like abortion to a referendum. Every abortion has a back story often a lot more complex than the stereotypical drunken one stand with no contraception (though I accept those happen too) and when it comes to voting on referendum, people often aren’t thinking about the backstories.
Dec 4 08 3:26 pm
“when it comes to voting on referendum, people often aren’t thinking about the backstories”
When it come to voting on conscience issues MPs have a very poor record for considering the ramifications.
Lowering the drinking age is but on example.
Dec 4 08 8:39 pm
Madeleine, I have no doubt you and Matt are very knowledgeable in science and philosophy. It is a shame you were not so knowledgeable in political reality. I wonder what you are trying to achieve. I will guess and say you hope to swing enough people to your way of thinking so that abortion will be treated as homicide. You stand a better chance of winning Lotto.
I have discussed this on another blog you were on. One way abortion numbers could be reduced would be if the government promoted marriage as the best environment to raise children. This is not likely to happen. One thing that could assist is a conservative political party. I think you have already acknowledged that the only conservative parties at the moment, the Kiwi Party, the Family Party, and the Pacific Party have a very uncompromising position on abortion. That being the case there is little likelihood of any of them making it into Parliament even if New Zealand First folds and there are a lot of potential conservative votes.
People decide what is right and wrong many different ways and this is their right in a democracy provided they do not break the law. When one votes they can be as racist or sexist as they like. If we had direct democracy on moral issues instead of allowing these issues to be determined by fanatical pressure groups we would have better law.
Take the smacking referendum coming up. There is scientific research that clearly shows that moderate physical discipline is not harmful. Most people will not do the research. They will vote on their gut feeling and their life experience.
Getting back to the abortion issue, I note that one pro-choice contributor believes he or she know better that the collection wisdom of all the voters. If the Court of Appeal supports the lower court that abortions are not being done within existing legislation we will almost certainly end up with much more liberal abortion laws. There is no way this government will legislate in such a way so that abortion number drop radically.
However, if the new law was to be decided by binding referendum I believe that we would end up with slightly more conservative laws. The added benefit would be that people and groups who oppose abortion would have a good chance to put the arguments to the public. Even if the law did not reduce abortions very much the public awareness could have a significant effect.
I note that MacDoc supports a referendum on the issue. He is Christian and hardly pro-choice. There are two ways a new law will be determined. The most likely way will be a free vote of MPs using their so called conscience. If they had a conscience they would support direct democracy and not be so arrogant. The second way is by referendum.
Neither way will you get the law you want. Hopefully the pro-choice lobby will not get their way either. Which way would you like to see the law changed – free vote or referendum?
Millsy of course a woman can do what she damn well pleases with her body?
But she cannot steal with it, burn a house down with it, or kill with it.
The issue is not about limiting women, the issue is, is abortion homicide?
If no, then there is no reason to oppose abortion. Women are adult moral agents who can make their own choices about things that may or may not upset their mental health (though Nanny State, et al, should ensure there are no restrictions on the availability of peer reviewed information available to them to make choices regarding their mental health).
However, if yes, then abortion should be treated the same as any other homicide and any mental health issues is tough luck in the same way we don’t really give a damn about how the serial killer or the rapist feels about what they did.
Pondering the answer to this is the key. See our series exploring whether abortion is liberal or not looking at the harm principle and the common arguments in the literature.
Dec 4 08 8:49 pm
My post above should have ended before “Millsy of course a woman” I copied Madeleine’s post when I responded to her and should have deleted it.
Dec 5 08 10:55 am
Great post, Macdoctor. You make a lot of sense. Keep it up.
Dec 5 08 6:27 pm
Chuck, I am trying to achieve clear thinking. I will not adopt or present a view simply because it is popular or persuasive if it is flawed.
As long as you want to argue the abortion debate on the grounds of what is best for women you are giving the proponents of abortion exactly what they want. They want it to be about what women want and how they feel. They don’t want to discuss ethics or right and wrong or heaven forbid, homicide.
Of course people decide what is right and wrong utilising many different methods and make decisions based on their gut feelings. However, you don’t respond to stupid reasoning by pandering to it.
We can either carry on embracing relativism and throwing ethics and reason out the window, thus contributing to the very problems we rail against or we can all refuse to engage in it and consistently respond to ethical questions with reasoned arguments. Encourage people to have a sense of ethics, to rise above their base feelings and start to thinking about whether they should or should not engage in actions because of the rightness or wrongness of them and because of what sort of people they want to be.
Mental health problems are a very real and very horrible thing to live with, especially if they are tied in with guilt over the loss of a child. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. However, I oppose abortion because it is homicide. To oppose homicide because of how people might feel about it devalues the human life that is taken.
Imagine if we all went around saying poor Nia Glassie’s mother and step-brothers must feel awful, they have to live with what they did forever, they have deal with the memories popping into their heads uninvited. How awful. Let’s campaign against child abuse so that more perpetrators don’t have to live with the guilt. What an insult to the victim.
I will not engage it that. Further, I do not believe it works any better than what I have been doing for the past 13 years. I have turned many people around simply by challenging assumptions and speaking the truth.
Our blog’s rapid rise to prominence in the blogosphere and the respect held for it among all kinds of bloggers from all sorts of viewpoints is precisely because of the committment to clear, strongly reasoned ethical arguments contained in it. Reason is powerful and women are not stupid morons who cannot understand it.
That said, I find the study MacDoctor refers to very interesting and not at all surprising, sadly.
Dec 5 08 7:20 pm
Madeleine, I have not suggested that you present a view simply because it is popular or persuasive if it is flawed in your opinion.
I have asked you which way would you like to see the law changed – a free vote or referendum? You have not answered.
The simple fact is that legal abortion in New Zealand – and most abortions in New Zealand are legal – is not a crime let alone homicide or murder. Sadly the pro-choice and militant abortion is murder lot have one thing in common. That is they are convinced they not only are far more intelligent and informed than their opposite number but they are far more intelligent and informed than the ignorant masses who might not have heard of relativism and ancient philosophers.
Maybe we should have intelligence test for voters and jurors.
Do you disagree that you have about the same chance of outlawing abortion in New Zealand as bringing in probation or outlawing homosexual behaviour?
It appears to me you have two choices. The first is to continue with your present tactic of lobbying politicians. You present method of debating might change the view of a handful of voters figuratively speaking but not anywhere near enough to make a difference. The second choice is to accept that everyone with a view contrary to yours reasoning is not stupid. I would bet any amount of money that there are people that have a higher IQ and academic achievements than you and Matt but have a view that is different that yours on abortion. They would spend some time debating it but would be intelligent enough to realise that the debate will never be resolved.
Why do you oppose letting the people decide ignorant as some of them might be instead of the MPs?
Dec 6 08 10:53 am
Homicide is not a matter for the general population to vote on. The legislature have a duty to protect the citizens from harm.
I never said that those with contrary views to mine are stupid or have low IQ’s I said their reasoning was flawed and, as such, their positions were stupid.
It is not true that most people cannot understand a reasoned argument or that most people are not capable of shifting their thinking to what is right, as opposed to what suits. The cultural practice is not set up this way, but it should be. Playing by the rules is a recipe for ensuring it will never change, further, you end up all over the place.
Dec 6 08 10:58 am
Stef, why would you prefer that there were less abortions? If abortion is a choice that you say should be available on demand, what is the problem with people exercising it?
Further, why do you have a preference as to what point abortion occurs? Do you think something changes in the nature of the fetus that justifies that? What is that change?
Also, every action has a backstory, people rarely do anything for no reason or motive. The question is, is the backstory sufficient to justify homicide? The question is not do we feel sorry for the person.
As a society we only accept self-defence as a full justification. Is there a coherent reason for treating the human fetus differently to the born infant when it comes to homicide?
Dec 6 08 4:34 pm
Madeleine, I assume from your posts that you view all abortion as murder even when it involves rape and incest. You would like to see all involved in an abortion including the woman punished severely by the law. It is highly unlikely that even one MP would support such a law if there was even a chance such a bill would make it to a first reading.
Using such terms as homicide and referring to a six week old embryo as a citizen discourages people from listening to anything else you have to say.
Nearly all people who hold such an extreme position on abortion as you do so for religious reasons. I know these are some individual agnostic and atheists opposed to abortion. I doubt if many of them would proclaim that someone getting a very early abortion is morally equivalent to killing a three year old child.
As far as I can tell the most of the fanatic anti-abortionist believe that an individual gains or gets a soul at the moment of conception. They base all their arguments on that belief.
This is similar to the anti smacking lobby. They believe children should have the same rights as adults. The chance of agreement between opposing views is just about nil with either group.
I believe where there is to be an abortion it should be done as early as possible. I cannot see any reason why it should have to be any later than 8 weeks. I am not a doctor but I believe that an 8 week embryo has no sense of being and no feeling. Maybe the good doctor could correct me if I am wrong. His medical opinion always seems to be honest and not affected by his religious belief.
Dec 6 08 9:30 pm
Chuck: The question of whether an embryo has any sense of being or feeling at eight weeks is essentially meaningless, as we have no reliable way of determining that. The question of the timing of “ensoulment” is tricky even for theologians and any argument based on it tends not to to resonate for this reason. In theological terms, a soul is not “added” to a being but is developed from the interaction between the spirit and the body. I find it hard to envisage this process as instantaneous at conception, simply because there is no personality at that time.
Having said that, the potential for a person to develop is there. Abortion removes that potential in much the same way as killing a person removes the potential of the rest of his or her life. For this reason (and for other reasons), I think abortion should be available only for good, solid medical reasons, and I do not support abortion on demand. However, I certainly defend the right of people to support abortion on demand and bring their reasoning into a debate.
Dec 6 08 10:08 pm
So Mac,
Do you think a teenage girl who falls pregnant should have to keep her baby?
What’s with your desire to interfere with a woman right to decide what is best for her?
So you think a teenage girl who falls pregnant should be allowed to murder her baby? What’s with your desire to interfere with a foetus’ right to live?
Amazing how annoying pointless, rhetorical questions are , isn’t it, Millsy?
Dec 6 08 10:15 pm
The two perspectives are incommensurable.
Dec 6 08 10:15 pm
Chuck/Mad,
You are both wrong. A woman can do what she wants with her body, and you two, along with that magical fairy in the sky you call “God” – which doesnt exist by the way. We are here because of SCIENCE – think you can shove your sick beliefs down her throat. If a woman wants to abort her preganacy that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
HOW MUST THAT BE SPELLED OUT TO YOU?
I wasn’t aware you could spell, Millsy.
Dec 6 08 11:12 pm
(Its amazing how those who go on about social engineering, always seem to have their own social engineering nanny state agenda of their own)
True. Thank you for illustrating…
Dec 7 08 7:45 am
Chuck instead of assuming, erroneously, what I do and do not believe, why I believe it and speculate on my motives, how about you go read the link I put up on my first post before you accuse me of extremism.
My position is reasoned, consistent and rationally defensible.
Dec 7 08 8:04 am
Millsy
Do you think a teenage girl who gives birth in secret should have to keep her baby alive? Is ok for her to throw it out the window into the bushes or leave it to drown in a toilet bowl?
If you are not ok with such choices, what’s with your desire to interfere with a woman’s right to decide what is best for her?
The mistake you are making in your reasoning is that you are assuming what you are trying to prove. You have assumed the fetus is not on par with an infant (forgive me if I am wrong and you do have no issue with infanticide, I am just assuming you think newborns have a right to life), however, you have not provided grounds for treating the two differently.
A woman can do what she wants with her own body. But unless you are arguing women have superior rights to men, I maintain a woman cannot commit homicide with her body.
Men and women can do what they like unless they harm another person.
Again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. First prove no one is harmed by abortion, then your assertion follows. I note you have not done so.
“We are here because of SCIENCE – think you can shove your sick beliefs down her throat.”
The answer to a question of ethics and jurisprudence (what should or should not be the case at law, how to we balance freedom to do as we please with the other people’s rights to not be harmed) is not a chemical formulae or a lesson in biology. Ethics and jurisprudence are not sick beliefs.
Calling someone names and insulting their alleged views is ad hominem (a logical fallacy) and proves nothing beyond your own inability to reason and identify the issues.
“If a woman wants to abort her preganacy that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.”
Again, you assume what you are trying to prove.
If abortion is not a form of homicide and is morally on par with clipping toe-nails or having your tonsils out then you are absolutely correct.
Conversely, if abortion is a form of homicide and is morally no different to infanticide then you are incorrect (Unless of course you wish to defend the statement: If a woman wants to strangle her newborn that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS)
So Millsy, do you have any scientific reasons for justifying why we should treat the fetus different at law from the newborn? What about a reasoned philosophical case? Or are you all about slogans and name calling? Should we all assume that you just support abortion because!
BTW I don’t think Chuck is a Christian.
Dec 7 08 8:14 am
Is Abortion Liberal? – this blog series addresses the ethics of abortion from a reasoned, philosophical and liberal position utilising Mill’s harm principle.
It goes on to cover sentience including the potentiality argument MacDoctor addresses. It links to articles by the same author on viability and the abortion prevents child abuse issue.
It is written by a PhD, Otago University graduate, whose specialialty is applied ethics.
Dec 7 08 8:56 am
“most of the fanatic anti-abortionist believe that an individual gains or gets a soul at the moment of conception. They base all their arguments on that belief.”
What happens are popular level ranges widely on both sides, I know people who believe every woman should deliberately fall pregnant at least once just so she can abort because aborting is the untimate feminist empowerment – there are nut bars everywhere.
However, at the academic level, no one argues for or against aortion on the basis of ensoulment.
As for your assumptions about me, let me state my position for the record.
The basis of my position is a simple argument:
The argument follows. The only way to rebut it is to attack 5; provide a non-arbitrary difference that is sufficient to ground unequal treatment of the fetus from other human beings.
So to answer your question Chuck, yes, I am consistent in my application of my reasoning; it is still homicide to kill a human being even if their father is a monster. Ditto if they happen to be disabled.
Human beings have a right to be protected from harm by others, to not be killed regardless of who their parents are; regardless of whether they are disabled or their existence is stressful to other people or whether killing them will prevent them from being abused or neglected in the future.
To suggest otherwise, without providing a reason as to why we should treat the fetus differently to the born, would mean it would be ok to shoot everyone in a wheelchair, every born person who was conceived by rape and to excuse every mother who due to mental health stress drowns her children in the family bath-tub or drives them into a lake. It would be ok for Cyps to kill kids being abused.
As for the appropriate punishment at law? I would support consistent application of homicide punishments. We tend to view infanticide as a lesser crime to pre-meditated murder due to the mitigating state of mind of the offender.
As to whether an MP would support it. This is utterly irrelevant, all it shows is that most MP’s cannot reason consistently and are inconsistent. We are not talking about what the views currently are on abortion in society – what a pointless excercise that would be – we are talking about what they should be.
As for my motives being religious, where in the above argument is the scriptural reference or the appeal to God? Surely what matters is whether my argument follows and whether I have consistently applied it Chuck.
Dec 7 08 9:56 am
“HOW MUST THAT BE SPELLED OUT TO YOU?”
Millsy, you could spell a few things out.
Do you support woman’s right to a late abortion?
Do you support woman’s right to a partial birth abortion?
Do support abortion as a means of selecting the sex of a child?
Do you believe the State should be obliged to pay for an abortion?
Do you believe that the father should be obliged to pay for something which is just part of a woman’s body?
Dec 7 08 10:30 am
“BTW I don’t think Chuck is a Christian.”
Madeleine, you are quite correct. It was worth pointing out as I do not think Millsy reads very well. I would be very interested in her proof that God does not exist. If she could proof that she would be smarter than all of us combined.
Dec 7 08 10:47 am
(by the way I am a man – who doesnt belive in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy or any other imaginary beings either)
Dec 7 08 11:08 am
“Do you support woman’s right to a late abortion?”
Yes
“Do you support woman’s right to a partial birth abortion?”
Yes. The procedure may sound gruesome, and might piss off some god-botherers, but what goes on between a woman and her doctor is none of our business
“Do support abortion as a means of selecting the sex of a child?”
Sex selection is a seperate issue
“Do you believe the State should be obliged to pay for an abortion?”
We have a universal health care system, so why not.
“Do you believe that the father should be obliged to pay for something which is just part of a woman’s body?”
A fetus is technically part of a woman’s body until she gives birth.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyway Mad, Chuck, et al answer this:
Are you willing to force abortion underground, where women die or are disfigured by illegal abortions. Because if abortion is banned tomorrow, that is what will happen. It is about time we grew up and started having abortion on demand. Yes, we will need to have safe guards put in to make sure that people dont go the abortion clinic every week, but surely a women can do what she wants with her uterus.
Dec 7 08 11:58 am
“However, at the academic level, no one argues for or against aortion on the basis of ensoulment.”
I disagree. I think you are and you are also arguing from a religious point of view although you are careful not to mention ensoulment or quote scripture.
If people who attended church regularly were asked if they thought it should be unlawful for a rape victim to obtain an early abortion the majority would say it should not be unlawful. However, a not insignificant minority would say it should be unlawful.
If the same question was asked of atheists, agnostics and deists I doubt if many would believe it should be unlawful. In other words there is a strong correlation between ones religion and view on abortion.
In regards a human fetus being a human being I choose to accept the dictionary definition. When you can convince a major dictionary to change their definition of abortion to what you believe it should be then I will look at the rest of you argument.
Abortion is not a major issue for me – democracy is. We have had nine years of a government where a militant minority has forced their will on the majority. Some of it has been very public like laws on prostitution, smacking and civil unions. Other changes have been done quietly without public debate like letting in a lot HIV+ immigrants and refugees from Africa.
This is unlikely to happen under the present government. Fortunately, a small militant religious group is unlikely be able force the will on the majority.
Every moral issue may not be able to be decided by referendum. I think they could but that is a side issue. Having said that, I think it is outrageous that any militant group can force legislation that is opposed by 80% of the people whether it is to do with smacking or abortion.
Dec 7 08 12:36 pm
“(by the way I am a man – who doesnt belive in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy or any other imaginary beings either)”
Millsy, you would not happen to be a homosexual by any chance. I think it fair to ask as you are trying to portray yourself as someone who is not concerned about the own rights but that of a perceived disadvantaged group. The lunatic fringe of the feminists and homosexuals have worked together and supported each others demands no matter how outrageous.
I consider anyone advocating partial birth abortion on demand part of a lunatic fringe.
You offer no proof whatsoever that reasonable restrictions on abortions accepted by the vast majority of the public would lead to back street abortions.
I very much doubt that there would be back street abortions to perform late term or partial birth abortions.
Dec 7 08 1:37 pm
What’s homosexuality got to do with it? And what is your obession with gays and women? Do you want homosexuality banned again?
Look like its intolerance a-go-go here…
I personally think its outrageous that people think that someones relationship choices is their business when it is not.
Dec 7 08 8:18 pm
“1. Causing the death of a human being is homicide.”
Yep, a simple objective fact.
“2. Homicide is wrong.”
An opinion, generally true within a society but subject to qualifications.
“3. The current practice of abortion causes the death of a fetus. (artificial wombs might change this)”
Another simple objective fact
“5. A fetus is a human being.”
Another opinion that’s subject to qualifications and is open to debate.
“Therefore, abortion is homicide and as such is wrong.”
A conclusion that is not an objective fact but which is actually an opinion based on your own ideological beliefs.
Dec 8 08 8:43 am
Millsy am I prepared to force abortion underground? Assuming that would happen and I am not convinced…
Statistics show that when abortion was illegal back in the early 70′s, 0-2 woman per died per year from it, back in the 1930′s the worst it got, when there were no antibiotics, was 37.
If abortion is homicide, annually taking the lives of 19,000 to save less than 40 lives is clearly wrong. Both are bad, but one is clearly the lesser evil.
If abortion is not homicide then legal abortion is fine.
So again Millsy, you miss the point, you assume what you are trying to prove without giving an argument for it.
Dec 8 08 8:54 am
Andrew, conclusions are things that follow from premises – logic 101. Given you accept my premises, how on earth can my conclusion be an opinion based on my own ideological beliefs?
My conclusion follows from my premises unless you dispute 5.
Killing humans is homicide, homicide is bad, a fetus is a human, killing fetuses is homicide and we have already established that homicide is bad, therefore killing fetuses is bad.
It follows logically. It has nothing to do with religion or my motives or my subjectivity or the colour of my toothbrush.
If the fetus is not a human being then its death is not homicide and non-homicidal death is not wrong so abortion is not wrong.
The whole thing turns or fails on the humanity of the fetus.
Why is it acceptable to treat the human fetus differently to the born human?
Dec 8 08 8:55 am
Chuck you inspired me to write a post on MandM on direct democracy. You even get quoted.
Dec 8 08 9:05 am
“A woman can do what she wants with her body, and you two, along with that magical fairy in the sky you call “God” – which doesnt exist by the way.”
Millsy, You think you can post offensive material where you go out you way to offend other people’s religious beliefs then get indignant when someone questions your background. I have already explained why I think knowing one sexual preference is in my opinion is relevant. As usual it looks like you have not bothered to read my post as you have with other people’s.
I have explained it is my opinion that a person’s religion has a bearing on their view on abortion. I do not usually bother arguing abortion with a strongly religious person as the debate usually around in circles.
A person’s sex also has a bearing on the matter. More women than men are liberal on the issue of abortion. The exception is male homosexuals especially politically motivated and ideologically driven homosexuals.
Some homosexuals act in most parts like rest of us. However, there is a significant minority that put their so called rights far above the good of society.
No long ago a lunatic fringe were demanding their right to donate blood. Any normal person would realise this is sheer madness. After Labour first got elected one of the first things they did was to stop testing migrants for HIV+. They finally changed the policy back after the public became aware of the number of HIV+ migrants from Zimbabwe.
Homosexuals in the last few years have been meddling in the affairs heterosexual families. Tim Barnett got the law changed relating to how heterosexual couple divide their property. That was none of his business. They have a big influence on the type of sex education our children and grand children are taught which a great many parents disagree with.
So when you say you think a woman should be able to demand a partial birth abortion at taxpayer’s expense I tend to think you are a bit sick.
I very much doubt if there would be many fathers who have held their newborn child who would share your somewhat sick idea on partial birth abortion.
That is why I asked about your sexual preference.
Dec 8 08 9:14 am
Millsy wrote: “A fetus is technically part of a woman’s body until she gives birth.”
So this is why its ok to kill it?
First of all, this position commits you to abortion for any reason (including sex selection) at any stage of pregnancy right up until the moment of birth. If a woman can do whatever she likes with her uterus and anything contained within it then she can abort at any point for any reason.
Further the dependancy of a fetus on another’s body does not end birth. The demands a newborn places on the body of another are arguably higher following birth than before it.
If a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her body then why can’t she choose whether to use her hands and her breasts as she sees fit? Why can’t she just leave the baby at home alone and go for an overseas vacaction? Why is it only her uterus that she gets to have control over?
The 9 month fetus and the newborn have no different properties. They are both completely and utterly dependant on the body of another for survival. Your position commits you to infanticide.
Your position also commits you to the termination of the lives of those on life support, on dialysis and basically anyone who is dependant on another.
If you are unhappy with what your position entails then you need to show what property the fetus lacks that the born possess that justifies the unequal treatment.
Dec 8 08 9:40 am
Madeleine, I have read what you infer on your blog quite incorrectly are my views on direct democracy. Did you bother to read my view on CIR? Your ridiculous example of looting Asian shops could not happen under my proposal. I doubt if the majority would support such a thing. Having said that I believe the majority would support the death penalty. That could not happen either under my proposal.
If you read what I have had to say on this thread regarding direct democracy and wish to discuss it on your blog I would be glad to respond. However, if you want to totally misrepresent what I say I will not waste my time.
Dec 8 08 3:37 pm
Madeleine, Your conclusion is an opinion because your premises 2 and 5 are opinions.
“Why is it acceptable to treat the human fetus differently to the born human?”
Madeleine this may surprise you but a foetus in it’s first trimester is not the same as a new born.
also, a 25 year old is not the same as a 10 year old.
A 65 year old is not the same as a 35 year old.
I have no opinion on whether abortion should be legal or not, it’s an ethics call and as such is subjective.
Mac, are you getting the quality debate you were hoping for?
It’s a bit like tennis with words, with Millsy as the net. Interesting…
Dec 8 08 6:48 pm
Chuck,
Please answer the following:
Do you think that Homosexuality should be recriminalised and gays thrown in prison?
Do you hate gays?
Do you belive that it is your business if a man wants to have sex with another man?
Do you belive that gays are evil?
Dec 8 08 10:01 pm
Millsy, have you ever tried to put toothpaste back in the tube? It is no more possible to recriminalise homosexuality than to raise the voting age back to 21.
If homosexuals told the truth about decriminalising homosexuality it would not have been a problem. They said they just wanted to be able to have sex with someone of the same sex without breaking the law. They lied. No sooner had the law changed and more demands came and continue to come. As I said in an earlier post a small group of militants are demanding the right to donate blood. This would put public heath at risk and is sheer lunacy.
I not hate homosexuals as a group but I think they have political power disproportionate to their numbers in the population. I have had a drink with Lindsay Perigo and some other who are not in to victim hood.
It is only my business if a man wants to have sex with another man if they want to do it in public like in public toilets or cruise on nude beaches. However, I strongly object to homosexuality being promoted in schools as equally valid lifestyle choice. Adolescents should be taught the health risk of experimenting with the homosexual lifestyle.
I do not think homosexuals as a group are evil but many of the militants put their homosexual agenda far ahead of the good of the community. An example of this would be how they successfully lobbied to stop screen migrants for HIV. I have never got a good answer why they did this. The only reason I can think of was that they could point out the increasing number of heterosexuals being infected and gain public support for what ever doppy AIDS prevention program they want to push. An example of this would be claiming condoms offer reasonable protection in stopping the HIV virus.
Now this is getting somewhat off the topic of abortion. Are you now going to say whether I am correct in my guess that you are a homosexual?
Dec 9 08 7:06 am
I am not gay, Chuck Infact, I think the thought of kissing a man as rather gross (all that facial hair), but that is a preference, and not a moral belief, as I just think that a person’s relationship choice is none of his business.
And when I went to school, I do not recall being taught about the homosexual lifestyle, so that shoots that down.
As for abortion – firstly, partial birth abortion is just a medical procedure, you make it something that Dr Mengele devised.
Dec 9 08 7:40 am
“As for abortion – firstly, partial birth abortion is just a medical procedure”
Thanks for letting know you are not homosexual. That is why I do not generalize. The above statement shows that some heterosexuals have some pretty warped thinking. I do not think you will give many blog contributors would support your view – and less would do so using their full real name.
As for promoting homosexuality in schools it goes on. I have no idea when you went to school but that could be an explanation why you cannot recall it. I am not saying it is taught in every school but it definitely goes on in a lot of schools and the militant homosexual lobby are continually lobbying for it to be in the sex education lessons