[Bups-dis] Response to Merlina, on 'Three Approaches to Defending Abortion'

[Merlina Merlina]

Thanks very much.
 
I think it is quite true that women are goaded into having children they don't want (not only over the abortion choice), and it is not right, though I think act / omission (rightly or wrongly) tends to make people feel that it is less bad.
There is always a problem with choice, as the fact that the "I" that is choosing is the product not only of my own choices, but of my culture and the values I have been taught, and thus the choices of others.  There is also the problem of those who may be incompetant.  I once met a girl who'd been pregnant when she was twelve, and had an abortion, which she said that she had been pushed into.  But I would not be surprised if many girls of twelve didn't understand either childbirth or abortion well enough to truly choose.  If you were faced with that, would it really be immoral to suggest strongly to her that she should have an abortion, particually considering that very young teenagers tend to be physically injured by childbirth?  (After all, you are talking of an age at which sex is technically rape because a girl is not just beneath the age of consent, but beneath the age of understanding what she is doing.)
 
I think that I would have a right to pull out the plug even if only for five minutes, even if people would often chose not to do so.  Someone has still violated and misused your body.  I think here that there is a difference between claims made on the inside and the outside of the body.  All we are talking about with the acciedent victim is outside the body.  Others do have a claim on that.  That leaves the foetus inside, and that is exclusively yours.  I'd include sex as inside, inceidentally, assuming that consent to marriage works by a sort of toggle arrangement, it is given and once given remains, unless it is withdrawn.
I know this is a line drawing problem, but do you think that is a useful sort of guideline?
 
I think that saying that having sex includes a tacit assent to pregnacy creates a very knotty problem with users of contraception.  I don't think it gets us very far, as in practice it is not the case.  Whether it should be the case is a different question.  I would say not considering the role sex plays in a healthy marriage as a bond between the couple (we are not the only creature for which mating has more implacations than its role in procreation: most social or monagomous pair animals have some extras surrounding mating), and considering that, being in a situation in which we have too much food all the time, women bear more children than they should (if the physical suffering is anything to go by with women who bear fifteen children in twenty years).  I've heard, by the way, the natural reckoned at ten children born, and in good times three would live to breeding age (this is clearly a very rough estimate).
 
Your analogy of the muggers is dodgy because other people's choices have intervened.  They don't in pregnancy.  The natural systems work as they have evolved to do.  It would be a closer analogy to say that if you went into the jungle wearing brightly coloured clothing and got eaten by a tiger as a result.  And in that case, as far as it is anyone's fault (assuming you had a choice or your lack of it was determined by other choices of yours) it would be yours.
 
Legality and morality are very interesting here.  I characterised what you were saying as legalistic, because it dealt mostly with the law, and also only with things going wrong, which tends to be when you need the law.  Most women get quite happily pregnant with their husbands (or someone who is in effect), rejoice over it, and bear healthy children which they love and cherish.  Unfortuanatly it doesn't always work like that, but it is worth keeping in mind that we are not talking here about a normal situation.
I think that it is best for the law to uphold choice, because things do go wrong, and usually no one but the person concerned can really understand what the consequences would be.  It is possible for this to be the case in our culture, because there is little enough eugenics or wish to select one gender over another (though there is a problem with minor disablity).  This brings us back to the cultural problem.
Morally, I think there are situations where it is wrong, and a few where it is right (very nasty ones), and quite a lot where it is subjective to individual choice.  And for this reason I think the law has to be set up to defend choice, which includes a certain amount of checking and advice.  
 
Thanks again for your contribution.
 
Merlina> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:03:13 +0100> From: pia06jw at sheffield.ac.uk> To: bups-dis at bups.org> Subject: [Bups-dis] Response to Merlina, on 'Three Approaches to Defending Abortion'> > To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS at bups.org> -> > Cheers for replying to the post, I'd like to try and clear up/clarify a couple> of the points you made.> > > Firstly, the gin and coathangers thing was a joke - albeit one in poor taste. > Of course abortions, if performed at all, need to be performed safely and I no> more think this ought not to be the case than I think that kidney transplants> should be performed using cutlery. Lay people aren't allowed to perform any> other complicated medical procedure in their own home, abortion should be no> different> > The question of women are influenced, bullied even, into having abortions> because of their fragile state is a genuine pickle. It does happen, and> presumably any political sustem that allowed abortion would have to offer some> sort of protection to ensure that abortion decisions are the woman's decision> alone. In any case, the door swings both ways, and presumably women can also> be goaded into bearing children they do not want.> > You are right to point out that any claim on me is also a claim on my body, and> that people can readily assert these claims. Thomson isn't arguing against> this though. Claims on your body can be made, but there are limits. An> injured man by the french roadside may have the claim on your time, energy and> phone credit by demanding that you call an ambulance, but he doesn't have the> claim that you carry him several miles down the road to the nearest hospital,> even if it would jolly nice to do so. Equally, if you only had to be plugged> into the violinist for five minutes it would downright callous for you to pull> the plug. Drawing an exact line where claims on the body end would be> near-impossible, but it is sufficient to say that the foetus crosses it.> > The next problem you seem to raise is the problem of actively consenting: If I> fully consent to the helping the roadside victim, I can't drop him halfway> because I'm tired. Whether performing consensual sex, in the knowledge that> you could become pregnant, equates to consenting to the foetus's use of your> womb. Sex could be seen as tacit consent to pregnancy, though I'm not sure> this is a very stable position. If I go out on a night-out in my flashest> clothes, I know I am exposing myself to the risk of mugging, but this facts> don't seem to amount to consent: If I do get mugged, I may admit I was> foolish, but I would hardly say I consented to it. In the case of people who> really do fully consent, in my post I admit that Thomson's argument comes a> cropper, and instead introduce Little's argument.> > Your last point is particularly interesting, and I probably should have talked> more about this sort of thing. The abortion debate is multi-faceted, and> cannot really be reduced to one prepackaged question. You characterised my> arguments as legal arguments, but I'm afraid this is not how I see them. They> are arguments for a moral right to abortion, and the question of whether their> ought to be a corresponding legal right is a seperate question: You may think> abortion is wrong, but there ought to be a legal right to put a stop to> dangersous backstreet abortions, or you may think women have a moral right but> that transforming it into a legal right creates such a minefield - because> questions could could arise about the moral and then legal status of other> groups - that we're better off just banning it altogether. The question you> raise is just another face of abortion ethics, and I can't offer an answer,> though I will admit that it is very interesting.> > Thank you very much for your contributions. I hope you - and others - have> further comments to add.> > > Johnny> > > _______________________________________________> > -> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
_________________________________________________________________
Win a voice over part with Kung Fu Panda & Live Search   and   100’s of Kung Fu Panda prizes to win with Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571439/direct/01/