http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675
Wow! I wonder if that’s a first for a modern country in modern times? And I thought Britain was less conservative than the U.S.
From the news article, the woman sounds irresponsible, but that’s no reason to jail her.
Apparently she only had one week left until her due date.. that’s murder.
No, she shouldn’t go to jail, because she didn’t commit a crime against another individual.
But she is highly irresponsible and immoral nonetheless, especially considering that the UK allows legal abortions during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy (and in fact provides them for free).
That said, some of the blame for this mess does belong with the government. She did go to a doctor at 30 weeks, and if it wasn’t for the abusive law limiting abortion rights to the first 24 weeks, this would’ve been resolved in a manner that’s at least significantly closer to rational (much less morally revolting).
I am failing to see the difference between this and infantacide.
@NIcky I am guessing you don’t think the fetus was an individual because it was not yet separate from the mother (and thus not an individual)?
I am failing to see the difference between this and infantacide.
Consider this: what is the difference between killing a fetus in the two weeks before the due date versus killing it one week before? What is the difference between killing it three weeks versus two weeks before?
Birth is a clear and objective line.
Apparently she only had one week left until her due date.. that’s murder.
Ick, this calls to mind the Casey Anthony case. But here, there’s no body, so of course there’s no cause of death, just the woman’s word that it was a stillbirth. It sure looks like murder, though. I mean, when you induce labor it doesn’t mean you’re killing the infant. I was born by appointment, labor was induced, and presumably the doctor was home in time for dinner and/or afternoon golf.
I don’t even want to think about this case any more, what I’m visualizing is too awful.
@snerd, I would think there’s some developmental difference.. Although it’s not technically a living, breathing baby, it’s close enough. She was almost 40 weeks pregnant, and only tried to get an abortion once at 30 weeks when it was too late. That’s insane.
@doc: I don’t know how reliable that source it, but it says “She pleaded guilty earlier this year to administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage.” Miscarriage meaning killing it, I think.
Consider this: what is the difference between killing a fetus in the two weeks before the due date versus killing it one week before? What is the difference between killing it three weeks versus two weeks before?
Birth is a clear and objective line.
As Beaker would say, and only he can channel the emotional flavor of my reply: MEEEP MEEEP MEEEP MEEEP MEEEEEEEEPPPP!!!
Ugh. Alright. But no, I’m not going to try and write an essay right now. When I ran a campus club I brought Andy Bernstein to do his Abortion talk, and he was simply maddening on the subject of viability and exactly when rights begin. Obama gave a really respectable reply about it in one of the 2008 debates, he said it’s above my pay grade.
Do you believe the fact that the umbilical cord is still attached means it’s ok (morally, legally, feel free to parse it out) to chop up the…what shall we agree to call it, how about “the entity”. It’s no longer in the womb, there’s just the cord. Ultimately Bernstein didn’t, though he repeatedly dodged by saying it was an “invalid question”. Ok, I’m going to assume you’re on board so far.
Now, the entity, full term, due date was last week, is still in the womb, and the woman wants, for whatever reason, to evict her tenant. If a doctor induces labor, out will pop a healthy, screaming entity, er, newborn. But if another doctor does something else, which I’m not going to describe, out will come…something I don’t want to describe. But suffice to say that if he did the same thing to the newborn that he did to the entity, he would be convicted of murder. So, so long as the entity is still inside the woman, it’s all no rights, no consequences? All the way up to, when? The hour before delivery? The minute? Until the cervix is dilated to so many centimeters? Come on, let’s see what’s your pay grade.
@doc: I don’t know how reliable that source it, but it says “She pleaded guilty earlier this year to administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage.” Miscarriage meaning killing it, I think.
The way I’m reading it she’s trying to avoid being charged with murder. And without a body…well I don’t know, it happened in Britain, things might be different there. The fact that she didn’t go to a hospital sure looks bad. Casey Anthony got away with it for lack of proof, but what really happened was about as obvious as the O.J. case.
Although it’s not technically a living, breathing baby, it’s close enough.
I think the legal line should be drawn at birth (which could be 36 weeks, or 40, etc.) If this is the legal line, then that is what it is, as abhorrent and emotionally wrenching as anyone may find it.
Do you propose the legal line should be around the third trimester like many people believe?
I think the legal line should be drawn at birth (which could be 36 weeks, or 40, etc.) If this is the legal line, then that is what it is, as abhorrent and emotionally wrenching as anyone may find it.
Okay, but why have you come to that conclusion? According to UK doctors, most babies can survive out of the womb at or after 24 weeks. I think the question about the legality of abortion should be determined based on those numbers. If the baby can survive without it’s mother at the time of abortion, she shouldn’t be having an abortion.
I have to agree with the Doctor on this. Calling the line the date of birth in this case shows there really is more to the story since this is so abhorent on the face of it. The reaction alone requires induction to explore the values involved. I’ll admit to this “being above my pay grade” since I know little about the practical science of biology involved but I’d give weight to the theory of the third trimester when the baby is capable of survivng without the mother. At any rate, there is a difference between a 24 week surgery and a 36 week poisoning.
According to UK doctors, most babies can survive out of the womb at or after 24 weeks.
I think this means they can survive if one uses the best of modern medicine, available in an advanced country. This is not something I’ve studied in much depth, but that’s my layperson understanding. I remember a doctor telling me that the baby’s lungs can breath normally without aid if it is born somewhere around week 36. Of course, it could actually happen some time earlier or later in an individual case.
I think the question about the legality of abortion should be determined based on those numbers.
So, are you saying the legality of abortion should be based on the viability of a fetus when removed from a mother, while taking into context the technology present at the time? In other words, if modern technology is some day able to create some type of artificial womb that could take a fetus at (say) 13 weeks and bring it to term, do you think the line should then be drawn at 13 weeks?
I’m not saying that would be right or wrong; I’m merely trying to understand what you mean by “viability”.
P.S.: I know this topic has been done so many times (we even have a thread with over 1000 posts). So, feel particularly free to stop answering without any explanation.
In other words, if modern technology is some day able to create some type of artificial womb that could take a fetus at (say) 13 weeks and bring it to term, do you think the line should then be drawn at 13 weeks?
Good question, that’s something I haven’t considered. I was just thinking of present methods that can keep babies alive until they’re able to survive on their own (blink, breathe, swallow, etc) without the aid of machines. But if something like a womb were created, as you said, I don’t know if it would be best to keep lowering the limit. It’s a really tough call. Mother’s should have the right to terminate their pregnancy, but shouldn’t be given leeway to murder an almost fully developed baby.
I am failing to see the difference between this and infantacide.
@NIcky I am guessing you don’t think the fetus was an individual because it was not yet separate from the mother (and thus not an individual)?
Sounds like you’re seeing the difference perfectly well. If instead your position is that the difference doesn’t matter, then that’s what you should say, not that you don’t see the difference.
But then you’d have to present us with a whole new set of reasons for both “individual rights” (and a new name for them, obviously), and abortion rights (if you even think they’re a right).
Good question, that’s something I haven’t considered. I was just thinking of present methods that can keep babies alive until they’re able to survive on their own (blink, breathe, swallow, etc) without the aid of machines. But if something like a womb were created, as you said, I don’t know if it would be best to keep lowering the limit. It’s a really tough call. Mother’s should have the right to terminate their pregnancy, but shouldn’t be given leeway to murder an almost fully developed baby.
The issue isn’t “what mothers should be allowed to do”, or “given leeway to do”, the issue is “what the government should be allowed / be given leeway to do”.
If you get rid of the Objectivist idea that the government should be allowed to defend individual rights and nothing more, the entire concept of Capitalism falls apart.
Case and point: this woman was sent to prison because she bought some pills with her own money, put them in her own mouth, and swallowed them into her own stomach. You want to give them the power to do that in the name of defending who’s rights again? Certainly not an individual’s: no individual would be harmed by this woman swallowing poison.
If we don’t have a right to our own bodies, what rights do we have exactly?
1 Like
Good question, that’s something I haven’t considered. I was just thinking of present methods that can keep babies alive until they’re able to survive on their own (blink, breathe, swallow, etc) without the aid of machines. But if something like a womb were created, as you said, I don’t know if it would be best to keep lowering the limit. It’s a really tough call. Mother’s should have the right to terminate their pregnancy, but shouldn’t be given leeway to murder an almost fully developed baby.
I think that last sentence is the most critical. I completely agree with it’s underlying principle (as I read it), which is: what is important is the nature of the fetus/baby/child. The question you’re asking is: what is this? Very early, the reply might be: a clump of cells. Then: a rat like creature. Then: a human-like creature but unable to survive without modern technology. Then: an even more human-like creature that is not quite ready for survival outside the womb, but has an even chance even with the extra care we might be able to give it in a Somalian village. And so on.
I suggest that if you use viability as a razor, then it ought to be some sort of “natural viability”, as in that last example.
Okay, but why have you come to that conclusion? According to UK doctors, most babies can survive out of the womb at or after 24 weeks.
Potential != Actual.
A newborn exists independently of the mother. A fetus doesn’t, it exists as a part of the mother’s body. The fact that it could be removed and then it would exist as an individual doesn’t mean it’s an individual while inside the mother.
The difference is crucial, because individual rights apply to relationships between individuals. Trying to apply them to physically connected entities would lead to irreconcilable (hope that’s a word) contradictions.
I think the legal line should be drawn at birth (which could be 36 weeks, or 40, etc.) If this is the legal line, then that is what it is, as abhorrent and emotionally wrenching as anyone may find it.
Do you propose the legal line should be around the third trimester like many people believe?
I’d like to make it clear that I was responding above to the suggestion that an “elective” abortion at 8 months 3 weeks is ok. But whatever the legality, you’d have a hard time finding a reputable doctor to perform such a procedure. It actually endangers the mother, not to mention “the entity”. You basically have to scramble the child inside the womb, then vacuum the pieces out. The brain has to be sucked out with an oversized needle, to make the skull collapse. Not that birth is some kind of picnic, but this is something else.
The question of where to draw the line is quite beyond me. Even at such a late date there are situations, like an injury from an accident that requires a quick judgement call, tragic emergency situations, where abortion is the right way to go, and if so it’s going to be the same nasty procedure I objected to above.
Abortion is a tough topic. I remember I was really disappointed by Bernstein’s talk, though I believe it was only the second time he’d delivered it, so maybe (hopefully) he’s better now. I still have the VHS of it somewhere in the middens, though I haven’t watched it in ages. There are some tough questions to wrestle with, and he acted like people were asking questions no rational person would ever ask. And oh man, he had this pathetic reply about how do you know if/when it’s a human being: you point at it!!! GAAAAA!!! 