It's especially relevant to pro-lifers because it forces them to test their assumptions as explained below: From Bioethics in Canada: A Philosophic Introduction by Carol Collier, Rachel Francis, Christine Halliburton "Thought experiments are imaginary scenarios designed to test and clarify ideas they play an important role in both philosophy and science. Baggini notes that the purpose of thought experiments "is to strip away the things that complicate matters in real life in order to focus clearly on the essence of the problem." As a result of this stripping away, thought experiments can allow us to test our assumptions, help confirm or refute theoretical claims, and help make ideas visible to us. Like scientific experiments, 'they aim to isolate the key variables, the specific factors under examination, to see what difference they, and they alone, make of our understanding of the world.' " To change the variable embryos to variable child would confirm or refute that a child's life is equal to an adult's. It would confirm to most people that a child's life is as valuable as the co-worker's, because it presents a quandary. With embryos as a variable, there is no quandary.
They are not rare at all. ABORTION STATISTICS ABORTION STATISTICS (Adapted from The Alan Guttmacher Institute, www.agi-usa.org) Abortion is a common experience: at current rates, about 1 in 3 American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. A broad cross section of American women have abortions. The majority of abortions (57%) are in their 20s; 61% have one or more children, up from 50% in 1989; 85% are unmarried; 69% are economically disadvantaged; and 73% report a religious affiliation. No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority: 36% of women obtaining abortions are white non-Hispanic, 30% are black non-Hispanic, 25% are Hispanic and 9% are of other racial backgrounds. Although 47% of abortions are obtained by women who have had a prior abortion, the proportion of second and subsequent abortions has recently begun to fall. There is no evidence that abortion is being used as a primary method of birth control. Overall rates of abortion in the United States peaked soon after termination of pregnancy was legalized in 1973, remained fairly constant through the 1980s, and have declined steadily since then. However, the overall rate masks large differences and varying patterns across time for demographic subgroups. A substantial drop in the abortion rates of teenagers and women aged 20–24 accounts for much of the overall decline from 1989 to 2004. During this period, the abortion rate of women in their 30s changed little, while the rate of women aged 40 or older increased. Minors account for fewer than 7% of all abortions. Abortion rates for married and unmarried women have dropped significantly in the past 15 years, as well as for all racial and ethnic groups. Contraceptive use is a key predictor of women's recourse to abortion. Fifty percent of pregnancies are unintended and 40% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. The very small group of American women who are at risk of experiencing an unintended pregnancy, but are not using contraceptives, account for almost half of all abortions. Many of these women did not think they would get pregnant or had concerns about contraceptive methods. The remainder of abortions that occur among the much larger group of women who were using contraceptives in the month they became pregnant. Many of these women report difficulty using contraceptives consistently. In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a woman, in consultation with her physician, has a constitutionally protected right to choose abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and before the fetus is mature enough to live on its own outside the uterus - that is, before fetal viability. Abortion is defined as the expulsion of a non-viable fetus. In 1992, the Court upheld the basic right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, it also expanded the ability of the states to enact restrictions, enabling the republican majority in Congress to make access to abortion increasingly difficult or, in many parts of the USA, impossible. In Florida, the following restrictions on abortion became effective in May of 2013: * Health plans that will be offered in the state’s health exchange that will be established under the federal health care reform law can only cover abortion in cases when the woman's life is endangered, rape or incest, unless an optional rider is purchased at an additional cost. * Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. * The parent of a minor must be notified before an abortion is provided. A woman must undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion; the provider must offer her the option to view the image. Most abortions occur before nine weeks’ gestation, and the proportion of very early abortions (<7 weeks) has increased substantially since 1994. The proportion of abortions performed after 12 weeks of pregnancy has changed little, and fewer than 0.2% take place after 24 weeks. Pregnancies and Their Outcomes • In 2008, there were 6.4 million pregnancies to the 62 million women of reproductive age (15-44) in the United States. Sixty-six percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 19% in abortions; the remaining 15% ended in miscarriage. • In Florida, 381,500 of the 3,505,482 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2008. 61% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 25% in induced abortions. • In 2008, 1.2 million American women obtained abortions, producing a rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. The rate is virtually unchanged from 2005, when the abortion rate was 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44. • In 2008, 94,360 women obtained abortions in Florida, producing a rate of 27.2 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Some of these women were from other states, and some Florida residents had abortions in other states, so this rate may not reflect the abortion rate of state residents. The rate increased 2% since 2005, when it was 26.8 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44. Abortions in Florida represent 7.8% of all abortions in the United States. KEEP ABORTION SAFE AND LEGAL: MAKING THE CASE Legal abortion avoids the dangers of horrific, sometimes life-threatening, self administered abortions. Legal restrictions have historically failed to eliminate induced abortion. Instead, they make all abortions clandestine and unsafe. Making abortion illegal would drive women once again into the back alleys, without necessarily decreasing the number of abortions. According to the World Health Organization, (WHO) the estimated worldwide number of maternal deaths from illegal abortions range between 65,000 and 70,000 deaths per year which represent 12% of all maternal deaths. For each woman who dies, many other suffer disability from infections, bleeding, damage to bowel and reproductive organs, and infertility secondary to complications of illegal abortions. The worldwide consequences of unsafe abortion are enormous suffering and maternal deaths that are entirely preventable. Prior to 1970, illegal abortion in the USA caused an estimated 1,000 annual women's deaths. The abortion-related mortality has declined dramatically after nationwide legalization. In 1972, the CDC recorded 24 deaths from all causes recognized to be associated with Legal Induced Abortions, notably infection, hemorrhage, embolism, and anesthesia complications. By 1990, with improvements of the surgical skills and increased expertise of the abortion providers, this figure had fallen to 9 deaths which translates into a ratio of 0.6 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions and has varied little since. Legal abortion has saved women's lives and kept populations from soaring. It has not only improved women's quality of life and provided substantial health benefit but has contributed to a 60% decline in maternal mortality since 1970, and a decline of the rates of neonatal mortality, low birth weight and preterm births. Compared to the mortality ratio of legal abortion, the CDC reports a maternal death ratio of 17 per 100,000 live births, which is more than 28 times higher. The reason for this enormous difference in mortality rates is that most maternal deaths in developed countries are related to complications of hypertensive disorders and pulmonary embolism which typically strike women during the last three months of pregnancy. First and Second Trimester Abortion prevents these deaths because it precludes the third trimester of pregnancy and its attendant complications. The reduced number of births among high risk women (such as the very young, the very old, and women in poor health) has substantially reduced their rates of maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, low birth weight and preterm births. It is well established that births that are spaced too closely pose health risks to both the mothers and their offspring. In the USA, there has been an increasing proportion of legal abortions occurring before 7 weeks LMP, from 16% in 1995, to 30% in 2005. There also has been a 90% decrease in the mortality rate of ectopic pregnancy, from 355 deaths per 100,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1970; to 38 per 100,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1989. This declining mortality correlates with the improved access to medical care early in pregnancy as women become increasingly aware of the benefits of early prenatal care; the benefits of getting the first ultrasound exam early in pregnancy; and the benefits of obtaining an abortion at an early stage of pregnancy, when abortions are exceptionally safe and may provide the added benefit of leading to a timely diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy, before the ectopic pregnancy ruptures and becomes a life-threatening surgical emergency. Early detection of ectopic pregnancy may provide a safer, non-surgical solution at substantially lesser costs and morbidity. LINK....http://allwomensclinic.com/abortionstatistics.html AboveAlpha - - - Updated - - - Also not rare is the number of Abortions done due to Rape and Incest. AboveAlpha
As I said it is especially relevant to pro-lifers as in their eyes they are not making any assumptions, their ideology is that the embryo's are of equal value to that of the co-worker and as such is the same as the quandary faced by pro-choicers with the child, co-worker scenario ergo both scenarios are false dilemma fallacies.
I have heard of many stories of parents being forced to choose between their children. Sometimes they choose to save the most vulnerable, sometimes the one they have a closer emotional connection to. Have you seen the movie "sophie's choice"?
Yes I do for the reasons they are performed ie life threats to the female and/or fetal disability incompatible with life, as to an elective late-term abortion, when you can show me that they occur then you may have a point until then you don't. I will add that my moral point of view is not law nor is it paramount to other people, what I consider moral or immoral has no bearing on what others consider moral or not and I would never try to force my moral position onto others by weight of law, unlike pro-lifers.
What if the co-worker had a terminal illness and was only expected to live 6 more months? In contrast to a fetus that has its entire life ahead of it.
The only place elective late term abortion is both legal and accessible is in China and North Korea. And it does happen. In Canada it is legal but no clinics or hospitals offer the service. Late term to me is over 20 weeks, and that does happen in the US. I provided a link to a peer reviewed study earlier which showed most abortions past 20 weeks were elective (non medical). If people can do it at 24 weeks, what makes you think they won't do it at 25? What makes you think all those mothers who kill their children would have no problem killing a fetus? What makes you think all those surgeons who have done illegal, harmful, deadly, experimental operations wouldn't help her? What makes you think the two would never cross paths? It might be rare, but even if it only happened once, would you really be ok with even one 35-40 week fetus being killed for elective reasons?
Are you serious?! Have you not seen a baby born at 35 - 40 weeks? That baby could live, very possibly unassisted, outside the womb. There is no difference between that an infanticide!
The woman and her surgeon would have to be insane, so I'd be fine with it. Honestly, what silly questions you ask.
Late term legal in most western countries. In the UK, for example, it is legal to abort up until birth if the foetus has an abnormality or the woman's life is is at risk. There are certainly hospitals that offer the service in most countries. A lot would, if they weren't able to access an abortion earlier in their own country. Thousands of women come to Britain from Ireland every year for an abortion. Those of them that have to save enough money to pay for the fare the procedure and to stay at a hotel are usually past 20 weeks. Also, some women are not sure how they feel and need time to make a decision.. Another reason for putting off abortion is that the woman concerned has been trying to persuade her partner to accept the pregnancy. Some women don't realise they are pregnant, perhaps because their periods are irregular. It's common for young girls to hope if they ignore their problem it will go away. The fact that where abortion is easily accessible , the vast majority are carried out in the first trimester is because women want them done straight away, but there are always exceptions. The reasons they have are their own business, not yours.
So if the insane go on a killing spree thats totally okay with you? Do you have no sense or morality or social responsibility?
And how does that differ from murder? You cant claim self defence in elective abortion because the risk of death is below 1:10,000. If a woman can murder her fetus simply because she doesnt want to use her body to care for it, then she can murder her infant for the same reason. What if she doesn't want to use her hands to dial child protection? What if she doesnt want to use her hands to wrap it in a blanket whilst she's waiting for child protection to arrive? What if she lives off the grid and doesn't want to carry the baby to the nearest town? You would be okay with her killing it?
How many times do you need to be told the threat of death is NOT the only justification for using self defense? The rest of your post is blather.........You claim you had two abortions....shouldn't you turn yourself in for murder?????
Only people can be murdered. Once again, embryos and foetuses aren't people. Born children are people and can be murdered. No, because that would be murder and against the law.
Not if they go on a killing spree. What kind of question is that? I believe abortion should be freely available as early as possible and as late as necessary. Sometimes that is very late for various reasons, but when women can access abortion services easily and safely, elective late abortions won't happen.
not strictly correct for North Korea, abortion in North Korea is only available for "important reasons" as per The Criminal Code of March 1950. Reports suggest that abortion is permitted virtually on request, up to the seventh month of pregnancy .. though actual figures and details are particularly difficult to come-by concerning N. Korea. as far as China is concerned, it's late-term abortion policies and figures can be squarely blamed on its one child policy, it cannot be claimed that an abortion is elective when penalties are enforced for having a second child, add to this the cultural influence of a male child being more important than a female one and it is easy to see why abortion in China (including late-term abortion) is very high. Vietnam is also another country with no restrictions. Abysmal sex education in schools, a general lack of information on reproductive health, and no access to free family planning services do not help the abortion statistics, add to this that it's now revoked two child policy still holds a great deal of influence over the people, having a third child in Vietnam can result in losing promotion and/or salary raises, and again you have the preferred male child culture. That is not late term as defined by the medical community, "late-term abortion" is defined as " Any abortion performed after the fetus would be viable if delivered to a nonspecialized health center." - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Late+term+abortion there is no mention of a time frame, and even if a time frame were required the fact remains there are different definitions of what constitutes a late term abortion, but most definitions refer to abortions at or after 24 weeks or in the third trimester. An elective abortion between 20 weeks and 24 weeks is not a late-term abortion, and I missed your link .. can you provide it again so I can see this peer reviewed study please. What evidence is there to show that abortions at 24 weeks are in fact elective, please provide it. I suspect nothing, I also suspect they would do it long before 24 weeks, and again look to Canada, even their 2nd trimester abortion rate (what you would consider late-term) is less than the USA even with no restrictions what so ever. and by restricting abortions even further than they already are you will push women into the hands of these people .. you would be lining their pockets. My position is very simple .. does the woman consent to being pregnant, if not then there should be nothing to stop her getting an abortion REGARDLESS of the time frame .. however, I am more than willing to compromise at 21 weeks as long as pro-lifers are also willing to compromise by removing any and all restrictions to abortion for a woman before 21 weeks.
Well yes you can claim self-defence as the risk of death is not the only reason deadly force can be used, and no a woman cannot 'murder' her born child as it is not inflicting injuries upon her .. quite simple really, just as you cannot 'murder' a person who is not injuring you, while you most certainly can 'murder' a person if they are injuring you and you have no other course of action to end those injuries immediately. False equivalence fallacy, the child is not injuring the female without her consent, a fetus in an unwanted pregnancy IS injuring the female without her consent.
What should be stopping her is a fetus which only differs from a newborn because its inside her body. The vast majority of the population is not ok with killing newborns, even with good reason, so why are so many people ok with killing them for no good reason just because they are inside someone? At that stage they are not "cells". They are not "parasites" they are not "non existent". They are humans who deserve rights. By legalising abortion at any time for any reason you give a disproportionate amount of power to women. Even if they dont use that power, they will still hold it. Now im a woman. I would proudly call myself feminist until recently. I'm proud of how far we've come. I'm happy we are getting closer and closer to equality or at least equity. But allowing women access to unfettered abortion is just too much. A well functioning society protects the weak and speaks for the voiceless. Link. You need an account to access the full article but you can read the abstract. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4521013/full
It will always be a false equivalency in regards to abortion, because a similar situation just doesn't exist in real life. What if this mother who lives off the grid has to walk over rocky terrain to get to the nearest town? What if she has to climb hills and wade through water? What if she has no access to formula so she has to breastfeed to keep the baby alive? What if theres a 99% chance she'll get cuts and bruises and have minor scars after her journey, and what if there's a 0.0001% chance she'll get eaten by a bear? Can she kill her baby then?
No it does not only differ due to location, a newborn is not inflicting injuries onto another person, the unborn is. The newborn does not require the usage of another persons body in order to survive, the unborn do The newborn is socially dependent, the unborn is biologically dependent We are all just cells. They certainly have parasitic-like tendencies. I have never claimed they are non-existent. They already do have rights, if you are alluding to equal rights then that is an impossibility, to give the unborn the same rights as the born would require the loss of rights to the female ergo she becomes less equal than all other people, and even if it were to happen with those rights also come restrictions. I find it almost hypocritical that so many pro-lifers support the right of one person to defend themselves against injuries from another person yet expect a pregnant woman to give up that right .. basically what that does is to render a pregnant women less of a person than all other people. I disagree, there are other factors involved that temper the "power" pregnant women would have such as whether there would be any doctor willing to perform an elective abortion past 24 weeks, you seem to have forgotten that a doctor can refuse to undertake a procedure that is not required, now you may say that there are people who would do an elective late-term abortion for the right price .. but how is that any different to how it is now? You or the state simply cannot protect the unborn, if a woman is determined to get an abortion she will REGARDLESS of the penalties . .the only thing that may stop her is if the death penalty was invoked, do you really want to go down the road of executing women for having an abortion? That does not say anything about elective abortions at or over 24 weeks.
