Right to Life Ethical Considerations

I know this has come up many times before, but its something that I’ve had discussions about outside of this arena.
I’ll say it from the outset . while I can’t answer as to how I feel about abortion (I haven’t been faced with the situation), I do feel that, ultimately; the choice lies with the mother.Whenever I do discuss abortion, however, a few things do occur to me:Is there any consensus as to when life begins? And should, this play a role in determining the right or wrong of abortion?If a foetus is regarded as alive, or if we can’t answer the above, can this certainty / uncertainty be used against abortion? That is, why would we not regard abortion, legally, as murder, if we knew that the foetus was alive? And if we don’t have an answer, why would we not err on the side of caution?If we do know that the foetus is alive, would a woman’s right to self-determination trump the foetus’ right to life? Why? Why not?People, we all know that abortion debates have the potential to be incendiary. This is not the aim of this thread. If at all possible, let’s try and flesh out these ethical issues, while respecting each other rights of opinion.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

Provocative statement.I'm not fully sure of what you mean, though. What is it before it becomes human? A living ball of cells? A humanoid embryo?If this is the case, then when does this happen?Do the laws take this into account?

My rights to do so are still limited. As you say, deadly force is allowed, only if necessary. If I cap a hobo in my home, with no immediate threat forecoming, i'm going to jail.
While i agree that there are dangers in pregnancy, these are usually potential dangers, not immediate threats. If they were immediate threats, which sometimes happens, then the situation would certainly be more clear cut. Surely you can't be that certain a foetus (of a certain age) can't experience being alive?Is the life of the mother always in danger? No.

Point taken. Been doing a bit of looking around, and it seems that Brain birth and Viability are often used as yardsticks of human life. More than are actually born, methinks.
Be careful with this argument, tho' Omni, lest people think you're "playing God" Have declined to answer the rest since i probably feel the same way you do about these points. Hmmmm... not the case in RSA. seems our laws are a lot stricter regarding use of deadly force. At least, since the new constitution.Still don't regard that line of reasoning as valid justification for abortion tho'. Don't think the courts do either (one of the reasons why they'd rather define a foetus as not a person).Anyway, a foetus is more like a squatter than a murderous intruder. And when it comes to squatting, the laws are even messier.

Agreed. But risk implies potential, not immediate, danger.

I think we agree on this point, that it is the advent of "human life".However, it seems to me that you're using sapience and not sentience as the qualification for consciousness. Especially if you go right up till five years of age as a threshold for the endowment of rights.It is known that after formation of the higher brain, regarded as around 20-23 weeks, the foetus is able to sense its environment, and itself. Why would one not regard this as, at least a form (a beginning) of, consciousness?Before the advent of modern imaging techniques, i agree that, there was a lot less of an idea as to the goings on of a foetus. Nowadays, however, it would be much harder to advocate birth as the cut-off to humanity. As Jazz said, there's not much difference between unborn and born....apart from a bit of fresh air, methinks.

I think science can certainly inform the debate. Whether or not people, on both sides, are willing to pay attention, is a another story entirely.

Potential risk, not immediate. Altho', whether or not i'm allowed to use deadly force seems dependant, of course, on the laws of the region.The foetus, is better likened to a squatter than an intruder, anyway (your use of the word "eviction" kind of implies you agree with me here). And evictions are even more regulated. One can't just throw someone, who has taken up residence for a time, out. They actually have rights and a say in the matter as well. The prior knowledge that the foetus can't survive means that it could be regarded as a form of homicide (if we regard the foetus as a person). If you throw someone that you know can't swim off a boat into the middle of the sea and they drown, is it their fault?If the pregnancy was truly accidental, wherein things were done to prevent it, then i'm inclined to agree that this absolves the woman of responsibility. However, if the pregnancy was a result of negligence and / or lack of contraception, even tho' they knew the possible consequence was pregnancy, then the mother and father, surely, do hold some responsibility for its occurrence. Rights are not absolute, Crash. There is always the qualification: unless those rights impugne on the rights of another.
In such cases, there is no clear cut "end of story". That it is, not is testified by the presence of so many women that do not have pregnancy complications.
In a case where the threat is clear, then certainly, such an argument could be used as justification. But it is not valid for every case of pregnancy. Be careful not to misinterpret and misrepresent me, Crash. I never said that i think abortion is murder. That's what this thread is about: examining these issues.I've done a little reading, and the argument you present is regarded by some courts as, well, a little "iffy". Since in that argument lies a legal paradox. If it is found acceptable to abort an unborn person, who innocently poses a threat, then that could open the door to allowing the killing of other individuals who could potentially cause suffering. Examples being HIV carriers, and those with ther infectious diseases.
In order to resolve the paradox, it was found necessary to accept that the foetus is not a person.

Not so easy, RR. when it comes to laws regarding persons, Dictionary.com holds no sway in a courtroom.We've all been using the terms human life and person in a colloquial manner so far. Strictly speaking, termination of pregnancy laws do not regard the foetus as a constitutional person.This is a person who is entitled to the rights accorded to him / her by the constitution; and is defined on the basis of what the constitution regards as a person.
I don't think, however, that many constitutions specifically define what a person is, so the definition is based on the context in which it is used.It should be noted that some laws are also informed by biological instances of what could be regarded as personhood. Using Brain Birth and Viability as markers.

No, potential.
If, after a night of binge-drinking, a man stumbles his way home, only to accidently end up in someone else's house (which the owners carelessly left unsecured), and passes out in the lounge. In the morning he wakes up, with the owner holding a gun to his face.By your reasoning, the owner has a right to kill him, then and there. Even tho' the poor sod meant no one any harm.The threat is regarded as immediate, only as soon as violence against the owner is initiated. The mother left her uterus "unattended" the moment she and her partner neglected to properly use protection. (does not apply to those who do) Now, in principle, i tend to agree with this. However, i realise that things sometimes aren't this black and white. If it was, courts would have no problem regarding the foetus as a constitutional person. Bogus analogy. Since in the above example, there is clear intent to commit grievious bodily harm. A very large number of women in this world do not have access to adequate (sometime no) medical care. I don't see every single one of them dying from pregnancies.
Again, one can't conflate potential danger with immediate danger.

Not necessarily so. When a pregnancy becomes, or shows signs of becoming, an immediate threat, then things become significantly clearer, and measures can be put in place to diffuse the situation, including abortion.
This way, the baby isn't being thrown out with the bath water (sorry, couldn't think of a more fitting idiom).

The risk is curtailed, by measures being put into place, if that risk manifests into threat.If a person knows that there is this safety net in place, yet it remains that pregnancy risk is justification for their abortion, then they are being disingenuous. Their justification becomes better described as fear of pregnancy risk. (regarding those that honestly feel this way). The addition of the safety net, changes the risk dynamic.Basically i'm saying, let's call a spade a spade. Using pregnancy risk as justification for abortion is stretching it a bit, unless there is clear indication that threat is imminent. While i tend to feel that governments should not force people to do things, there are instances of the above when they do.
Lets take people with HIV for example. The government feels that they should remain a part of society, and not be kept isolated from the rest of us. This act of protecting their rights, results in an increased risk of the rest of us contracting HIV; with even less of a safety net being in place than the one i described before.NB. it needs to be kept in mind that this particular debate is only valid if the foetus is to be considered a constitutional person.

I didn't say uncontrollable. Uncontrollable would imply, in many minds, initiation of immediate threat. But not violence against the owner of the house, or other persons. So its still not enough to institute deadly force. through the act of commiting grievious bodily harm. The ability of these people to rationalise such an action provides intent.
So unless you're saying that the foetus is capable of such higher-brain activity, and is applying it, the analogy does not hold. That this is the leading cause of death in teenage women (please provide a link to this info, i haven't been able to find it) still does not support your argument. In the cases of these women, i agree that their pregnancy risk would have been justication to abort. Clearly there was impending danger, which resulted in their deaths.
This group of women, however, does not represent all cases of pregnancy. To say that they do would conflate two separate issues.

I read it just fine, thank you; but that doesn't mean it says what you want it to say.At least 40% of women experience complications during pregnancy; of these, around 15% develop potentially life-threatening problems. Mortality results within this 15% - an estmated 4-5% (of women who develop perinatal problems).How can the other 60% of women justifiably use pregnancy risk as reason for abortion?Again, pregnancy risk is justifiable reason for abortion, in those women experiencing clear threat.

Nice Try, I said CLEAR threat.