Termination of Pregnancy (Abortion)
Offline Hello To All
This is my first post. I am not sure where to post this so I apologise in advance for any error on my part.
I am training to be a doctor.
I am an atheist. A "strong" atheist.
I am also strongly against Termination of Pregnancy/Abortion (referred to as ToP henceforth)
My definition of pregnancy is from the point of implantation. This isn't a rigid definition & I would be keen to hear some others.
I do believe in contraception & emergency contraception prior to implantation.
My feelings on such matters are well defined but by no means complete.
There are few instances in which I believe ToP is acceptable. These instances are subject to change as my knowledge changes but include;
1) To protect the life of the mother
2) Where the child will be born with such profound suffering that it would be cruel to perpetuate the baby's life (hugely subjective in itself but I can define further if need be)
There are also common reasons for ToP that I refute;
1) Conception was not consensual eg Rape
2) It is an individual's choice what happens to their body
3) The child will be born into an unloving, grim reality/life
4) To protect the mental health of the mother
5) To protect the physical health of siblings & other family members
The reason for this post is that I wish to get some feed back on my opinions before I start professional practise.
So my question is; What are your views & what do you think about my opinions?
- Login to post comments
@ex-minister
Yes it is very controversial!
Behaviours can be learned and passed on from individual to individual eg learning to hunt
Behaviours can be preprogrammed and may exist from birth eg reflexes
New behaviours can also come into existence
Rape is a learned behaviour. You could argue that there is a genetic component to it. Like everything it can only be verified by the scientific method and somehow I don't see research on this topic receiving funding!
Yes believe it or not rape is more often about dominance than sexual gratification. If someone required sexual gratification it would be simpler to go to a prostitute. I have worked intimately with more than 10 rapists/patients they all had similar issues. Domineering mothers who paid them little attention. Based in this I believe rape to be a result psycho-social issue not a genetic issue.
If you wish to read further on animal behaviour (ethology) I recommend reading Richard Dawkins. He has some fantastic insights into behaviourism.
I have his book and audio book for The Greatest Show on Earth and have listened to it a number of times. Also I listened to his audio books The God Delusion and On The Origin Of The Species.
He is quiet prolific. Were you thinking of any of these or another?
The Selfish Gene, Ancestor Tale, The Blind Watchmaker, The Extended Phenotype, River Out Of Eden, A Devil's Chaplain, Unweaving The Rainbow, Climbing Mount Improbable ...
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
When each person's definition of "help" became different.
You seem to have good instincts, though. Trust them. Even if I disagree with the abortion thing.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Alcoholism may related to more than one gene, but what it does is set a predisposition. It doesn't cause alcoholism. So a person may have the gene(s), but not be alcoholic. There is a large environmental component to the disease.
I agree with Kieran that rape is more of an environmental problem. At one time I got interested in reading autobiographies of serial rapists/murderers. All of them reported physical and sexual abuse as children. I don't know if we should take their word or not. Here is a link to some studies.
We first have to be able to separate forest and trees. Do head injuries contribute? Does the age at which the first injury occurred significant? I would guess so. Is it inadequate parenting and lack of "moral compass"? Note, the moral compass does not have to be religious in origin. Parents should be instilling morals in their children from a young age. You have to teach children what is right and moral. They don't pick it up out of the air. Did the parents teach morals by their bad examples?
Let me clarify. I am not attempting to blame parents for every last problem their children have. I have known people who were severely physically abused as children and who would rather cut off their arms than abuse their own children. But other people do not seem to be able to throw off their abuse. Maybe it was the severity of the abuse. Or the age at which it started. Or perhaps the number and types of head injuries the child experienced. I think we need to research this more and come up with some guidelines that can be translated into more effective Child Protective Services guidelines and laws with some real teeth.
(CPS is the name of the agency that responds to child abuse reports in many US states - including Oregon where I live. Exact organization and charter varies by state.)
If we were able to document - this kind or these many head injuries cause these changes in the brain and the likelihood of the person suffering this type of damage committing rape/murder/assault/etc is increased x%. Then we could say - if you as a parent abuse your child to the point of brain injury, then you are monitored, you must go to classes, get counseling, or your child is taken away - permanently. I'm not a big fan of returning a child to an abusive home which is the goal for many CPS agencies in the US. "The child belongs with their parents." Well, no, not if the parents are knocking the child against the walls.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
@ ex-minister
The Selfish Gene & The Extended Phenotype are the works of a genius in my opinion. They are tough to read. Even with my pretty solid understanding of biology I still had to read them a few times to absorb the information. But persist with them. They give a nice spin on the Theory of Evolution and even hint at why Religion became such a dominant force in human evolution (there is strength in numbers!)
@Cj
I would like to add a bit to what you have said. I have worked with lots of "psychopaths" and a few traits that I came across were;
Low IQ & Poor Education
They can be VERY charming
They believe they are superior
They believe they are victims & are therefore innocent
Problems in childhood are almost universal
Drug & alcohol abuse are almost universal
It nearly always manifests by puberty
They are virtually impossible to treat
I am unaware of head trauma being so prevalent among offenders but having said that when you take a psychiatric history you always ask about complications during birth, such as hypoxia, which has a correlation with mental health issues.
It seems almost crazy that something such as difficult childbirth can influence mental health as an adult. But it apparently it does!
Not sure you mean by large, but one drink can "create" an alcoholic. It is a family disease. Some within a family will have the predisposition and some will not. Some will can become social drinkers without a problem. Others cannot stop themselves.
Here is BBC video on Vervet Monkeys who are alcoholic. They match human statistics for alcoholism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSm7BcQHWXk
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
I think most guys think of bad things, but most can also keep from acting on thoughts. Some obviously can't, and this would include more than just "rape" throw murder, stealing and everything else in the oven, bake it to a golden flaky crust.
One of the problems I have with religion, bad "thoughts" count against you, according to this theory you may as well act on them it's the same thing.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Susan Boyle - hypoxia at birth.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Even if one has a right to live that doesn't necessarily mean they have a right to be given the things they need to continue living. Somewhere at this moment there is someone who could continue living if they received your aid, but they don't have a right to have it just because that is their requirement for continued life. No one has the right to be given something by you (especially the use of your body) unless you did concede that. So unless you live in perpetual poverty because you give everything you have to people who would die without it then I think you need to rethink your position.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
@ Gauche
I am not sure what brought to make this point but I haven't suggested that it is someone's right to free aid, although I do in fact believe that. Why should a newborn child conceived under the circumstances of failed contraception or rape or incest require aid above and beyond what is typically given eg vaccines?
But you have suggested exactly that. You said:
So a pregnant woman is required to give her body because the child will otherwise die. If someone will die without being given the thing they need from you to continue living then they have a right to have it and you are obliged to give it. Why are you not in perpetual poverty if you believe this?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
You're assuming that I apply this logic to all situations. I never said that. I said a baby has a right to life and that I believe this takes precedence over the mothers right to what happens to her body.
I don't believe everyone should be given whatever they need to save their life or even to improve it. For instance;
1) I am for Euthanasia
2) I would, if had to, deny someone treatment if the cost outweighed the benefit
3) I would also treat a pensioner over an infant if the probability was that the infant would die but the pensioner would not.
I am putting so much emphasis on the unborn child because I believe there are acceptable alternatives.
You're assuming that I apply this logic to all situations. I never said that. I said a baby has a right to life and that I believe this takes precedence over the mothers right to what happens to her body.
I don't believe everyone should be given whatever they need to save their life or even to improve it. For instance;
1) I am for Euthanasia
2) I would, if had to, deny someone treatment if the cost outweighed the benefit
3) I would also treat a pensioner over an infant if the probability was that the infant would die but the pensioner would not.
I am putting so much emphasis on the unborn child because I believe there are acceptable alternatives.
I never said that you're wrong. I'm saying you're inconsistent. Instead of sitting in your nice apartment that I see behind you in that picture and looking at your nice computer, you could sell those things, give the money to charity, fly to Angola and help other people which is also an acceptable alternatives. Not only do you not believe you should be compelled to do this, but you don't even do it, so how are you in any better position morally than a pregnant woman who seeks an abortion? At least a woman who gets an abortion may only be denying resources to one person and be impoverished and unable to give to others, you on the other hand clearly have resources you choose to hoard while criticizing others for this same behavior, which in truth isn't even blameworthy. If you choose to give then you are generous, but no one is obligated to be generous.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Life isn't all or nothing. I don't have to help everybody to the best of my ability all the time or nobody at all. I practise medicine and do my best to help patients under my care in the hospital in which I work during the hours that I work there. Should I always have to prioritise the care of patients before living my own life? No. I aim to find a balance. Does that make me inconsistent? You think it does, maybe that is so but that's perfectly acceptable to me.
So, I am saying that an unborn child doesn't have to die if mother selflessly allows it lodging in her uterus for 9 months. The cost-benefit outcome here is that the child benefits more than the mother suffers (my opinion of course, others disagree). In order for me to achieve this I would have to go against the mothers wishes for her body. There are other examples in medicine where we go against the patients wishes eg Electro Convulsive Therapy, sedation of the psychotic patient etc In these examples it is the patient that is benefiting. In my example it is the foetus that is benefiting.
Other people don't always have to help to the best of their ability either. So what is the problem?
People may be compelled to receive medical treatment if their judgment is impaired, or they could be denied medical treatment for other reasons, but no one is obligated to be selfless. Just like you aren't obligated morally or otherwise to sell you possessions and fly to Angola, pregnant women aren't obliged to selflessly do anything.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I disagree. I believe the mother is obligated to be selfless. I believe this because the baby is directly dependent on her for survival.
And to negate the fact that this make me a hypocrite for not always selflessly treating/helping others. They are not directly dependent on me for care. They are dependent on themselves & their lifestyle (There are exceptions in the case of congenital disease etc). They can change their lot in life. The foetus can not.
So;
1) Mother is compelled to be selfless in my opinion because baby depends on her
2) I am not compelled because no one is directly dependent on me
You are entitled to adopt that position, but it is still a personal assessment of the moral position. Even the position that morals are absolute is a subjective opinion, not that I am assuming that is part of your position.
Your assumption that those people in Africa 'can change their lot in life' is NOT applicable to many, probably most, people in those societies, especially the children, although it may in some sense be an accusation that can be levelled at the society collectively.
Again, I am not saying that negates your second statement, just your assertion about responsibility.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
@ Bob
Yes I agree. I am only posing this as my opinion. I am not saying it is a universal truth... if there is such a thing.
I don't want to enter into discussion about whether someone can change their lot in the face overwhelming oppression, such as in certain developing nations. But what is true IT IS NOT 100% certain that they can not change their lot. Conversely, IT IS 100% certain that a foetus can not change their lot. Thus the foetus is fully dependent.
A person could become directly dependent on you for survival through no fault of their own. It is possible and I could present such a hypothetical situation if you'd like, but I think it's probably unnecessary. In such a situation one would not be obligated to act selflessly. So the fact that you can think of situations where people are not directly dependent on you makes absolutely no difference. It's no less hypocritical.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
@ Gauche
Actually I would like to hear your scenario. If I am wrong then I can review my opinions.
I was hoping that you would say that because I like to present hypothetical situations. According to you the reason these people (in Angola for example) are not directly dependent on you is that their dependence is a result of their own decisions, lifestyle, etc. Now imagine that you are crossing a bridge one night and there are 2 other people on the bridge, person#1 and person#2. Person#1 pushes person#2 from the bridge and runs away. Person#2 now calls out from the darkness of the icy water below "Please help me!." Clearly they are not in their current predicament as a result of their lifestyle choices. They were pushed. If anything they are there out of blind happenstance or "fate" if you will. And they are dependent on you, as you are the only one that knows about it other than the assailant who obviously will not be returning to rescue his victim. Are they not directly dependent on you at that moment? From what you've written here, by your standards they are.
To dive from the bridge into the abyssal darkness, brave the water and pull the person out would be selfless, heroic even. But are you obligated to do this morally? Should you be legally required to do it? Not in any way, shape, form or fashion because your responsibility to others is not wholly dependent on their need.
You might say that a pregnant woman is more like the assailant than the bystander because her actions caused the baby to be there, but you would betray yourself at this point because on page 1 you said that even if a woman is raped she should be compelled to carry the pregnancy to term.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I disagree with the first part, he IS in the water because of his lifestyle.
1) He chose to be on that bridge.
2) He chose not to be wary of the other person on the bridge.
3) He chose not to be able to defend himself from such attacks.
2 & 3 may not be true. 1 almost certainly is
I agree with the second part. He is largely dependent on me although not entirely. I would consider it my duty & obligation to assist him. But not by diving in.
Obviously, one may be wary and able to defend themselves and still be pushed, but crossing a bridge isn't a lifestyle. While it's true that the person chose to cross a bridge it is very different to choose to be thrown from a bridge. If someone kicks in your door and kills you it isn't your fault that you are dead because you chose to be home when the killer arrived. It could be that person#2 assessed the risk of being thrown from the bridge, found it to be minimal and proceeded under the belief that there was no chance of being pushed. You can't say that one chose to be pushed if they thought being pushed was impossible.
If you believe he's directly dependent on you but you don't believe you should jump in then you don't believe you are required to act selflessly. It would not be selfless to call the fire department but only minimally decent. So why do others have to act selflessly when you do not?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I am not saying he chose to be pushed just that he put himself in a position in which it was possible. He is therefore partly responsible (note I am saying responsible not to blame) for the outcome. However, I would never dream of criticising or punishing someone for such a decision. The person who pushed him is certainly the one to be punished. I have a friend who works in a bar and walks home alone at night. I frequently tell her to get a personal alarm, to learn to defend herself & to wear sensible footwear if she needs to run away. She does not address these factors & in doing so she is putting herself at risk of injury. We could bicker about your bridge scenario or you gunshot scenario all day but you can't deny that the victim is in some small way partly responsible.
By diving in I risk my own life and therefore increase the chance of both of us perishing. It would be a stupid decision to make & is not selfless. There are many better ways to offer my assistance. Again we could bicker about these all day long.
I think in order to convince me of your point you will have to address the following;
1) That there are no modifiable risk factors for which the subject is responsible
2) That subject is entirely incapable of resolving the situation
3) That only I am entirely capable of resolving the situation
Here is my problem with this reasoning... You feel women are compelled to give birth, but renounce any responsibility for yourself once the child is born... by extension, once a woman has fullfilled her obligation to ravage her body and carry a baby to term... it would then become *YOUR* moral obligation to adopt, since *YOU* are the one claiming that abortion is immoral... Or do you consider abandoning a child once it is born perfectly moral?
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I don't believe that an assault victim is partly responsible for the assault simply because they happened to find themselves in the place the assault occurred. There is a distinction to be made between decisions that are informed and those that are not. If you know about danger and risk it then you are partly responsible if you don't then you are not.
But since you take exception with this then instead of crossing the bridge the person was kidnapped from home behind their locked door with a revolver in one hand and a telephone in the other already dialed 9-1, and thrown from the bridge. Are they still responsible?
Yes by diving in you risk your life for another person, that is what selflessness is, in fact it is the most selfless one can be.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Ravage her body? Don't talk nonsense.
Why should I have to adopt or abandon it? There are services in place in the UK that deal with this eventuality.
@Gauche
No that makes it courageous not selfless. If there is a good chance I will die I am not acting in their interest but being foolish. The act of being selfless does not require one to jeopardise their own life.
And as I said unless you can address the criteria I stated I won't agree with you. I can still see modifiable risk factors in your revised scenario. And they are still partly capable of resolving the situation.
If we continue down this exchange it will quickly become ridiculous,
Well, I think you are confused about what altruism is. Altruism does not require a high probability of success. In fact by considering the danger to yourself you would have already compromised your altruism and selflessness. While selflessness does not require one to risk their life it doesn't preclude it either but it does preclude acting out of concern for oneself. So you are wrong. Diving from the bridge is selfless, more so since it is dangerous.
Let me ask you this, can a person be in a situation that they are not partly responsible for? If they can then that is the situation.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
A child is kidnapped from the hospital moments after birth and thrown from the bridge are they partly responsible?
A person is taken in their sleep bound and thrown from the bridge are they partly responsible?
Someone who is incapable of making decisions falls from the bridge are they partly responsible?
You see where I'm going with this. In your mind someone in some situation is not responsible and i will find out who.
Lenny from of mice and men gets thrown off the bridge.
Or he gets thrown off the bridge when he's a baby.
He's a retarded sleeping baby and he gets thrown from the bridge, is he responsible?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I concede defeat on the selfless/altruism argument. However that doesn't change anything. it is my obligation to help him I believe choosing a method that doesn't risk my life is more beneficial to guy drowning. Again I will reiterate my earlier argument of there are acceptable alternatives.
In answer to your second point
The foetus isn't responsible for the situation it is in.
For the 3 scenarios you gave
1) Not responsible
2) Partly responsible
3) May be responsible. Need to know why they aren't responsible for decisions.
Like I said this is becoming ridiculous and doesn't change my original assertion that the foetus has no control over its situation. And even if you prove I am hypocritical, so what? I am hypocritical everyday. I smoke, drink etc etc and repeatedly tell people off for doing those things. Like I said I am ok with this.
Well, even though this is Sunday I still have other things to do. I would say that I will continue this later but it's unlikely. Good luck with your degree.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Thanks.
I think we would end up in a stalemate. I have placed a very high threshold for what makes an individual truly 100% free of responsibility. To the point where any sentient individual is essentially always partly responsible for any situation for which they find themselves in. The only exception I can think of is the foetus, or an individual born with a congenital disease it had no control over. Perhaps racism may count as we have no control over our race. But that is about it.
We got a bit sidetracked with hypocrisy & altruism but like I said I am ok with applying rules to others that don't apply to me. Like it or not every single day healthcare professionals play god and make these decisions. You just have to hope you are doing best to help the people you have been asked to care for.
Enjoy the rest of you Sunday!
I can't see forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy caused by rape. That to me is forced suffering. Isn't a tenet of doctor's to do no harm? That maxim seems to trump "life is better than no life."
Also, this would come into play for end-of-life. If someone will never recover, then life, in this specific scenario, is not better than no life. And so, we all must make the decision for ourselves before end-of-life occurs whether we want to end our suffering or endure life until the machines fail to sustain us.
In the same respect, we must allow women, for themselves, to determine their pregnancy options. Otherwise, we have to go back and debate some issues regarding self-determination and free will...
male pill. If chaps had a big, red button we could press to turn that shit off, we'd most all press the bloody thing and women would have to fight us to reactivate the switch.
Problems would then largely be solved.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I agree so hard. Have my babies. Er, wait... nevermind. Every guy would be like "I swear I stopped taking the pill last week, honey!"
Concerning the male pill;
I think that some younger men would be against it. I think they would potentially see it as an affront to their masculinity. "The pill" is something a girl takes... is the opinion I believe many young insecure males may take. Also, would a male be as compelled to take it if it were a regular tablet? If a guy misses his pill he's not the one that gets pregnant. I like the idea of a male pill, but I don't think it would be as effective as the female COCP