Choosing what is life in the abortion debate

Marty says:

07:57am | 03/10/09

I’m pro-choice (within limits), but the issue of when life begins deserves far greater gravitas than the tripe written by yourself and Simone McDonnell.

DG says:

08:40am | 03/10/09

Clare,

While I agree with your ultimate decision (i.e the right for a woman to choose what happens in her own body), I do find myself wondering how you draw the distinction between being alive and having a life.

I would argue that the entity is not “alive” (and as such does not have a life) until it has the capacity to be viable outside of the uterus (i.e around the 22/26 weeks mark). I should be noted that the odds of life continuing at that point are, ordinarily, no better than 50/50.

Until that point the biologicall process occurring inside the woman is nothing more than that, it has no capacity for life other than that which can be provided by it’s host. I see no reason why the host should be required to give it that chance at life against the host’s will.

I put it to you that the dependence that an embryo has on it’s host, has much in common with the host of any egg. After all, the egg needs proteins and an environment that is suitable for the carrying out of certain biological processes. Why do we refrain from saying that the refusal to provide sperm to an egg is a malicious and premeditated effort to deny that egg a chance at life?

Despite all of this I think it needs to be noted that this is not a “black and white” point, it is indeed a matter of degree. To say that this is ‘black and white, ignores the fact that whatever point you choose on the time line between the creation of an egg and the death of the person you are attempting to decide when that entity goes from being a “potential life” to a living person.  Some base this on when it “looks like a person, others on the capacity to react to stimuli and others still on the birth of the child. It’s an arbitrary line that we are attempting to draw. We’ve managed to split it into a 9 month period, Conception to birth, for the reasons outlined above I argue that it should be pretty close to the middle of that period, but I accept that my ‘line’ is just as arbitrary as any other.

Why do people find it so hard to accept that thier line is not arbitrarily based on when they think that life starts?

On a side note we can compare this to the philosophical question of “which came first, the Chicken or the Egg” - As I understand it, modern genetics can show that that ‘traits’ are passed to the child from both the mother and the father. The child will have those “mother” traits from the moment that the egg is created, and will gain the father traits at conception. As such the new entity that we know as a “chicken” first began as an egg. Was it that “Chicken” (containted in the egg) before the egg was fertalised? or after it hatched, or some time in the middle?

**I should point out that in researching this I was unable to find whether a chicken, like a human, is born will all of the eggs it will have during it’s life time. HOWEVER,  I found a website that had the following line “In order to produce a fertile egg, a hen must have a husband” - I suspect that some priest spends a lot of time going around and marrying hens and roosters to each other?!? And possibly, just possibly, we have found the only 100% effective form of contraception (Apparently, an egg can’t be fertalised unless the female is married). GOLD! see http://www.kidfarm.net.

David says:

10:20am | 03/10/09

Thank you, Clare, for sharing your own journey in wrestling with the moral dilemma’s this issue presents. There is no doubt that any potential life could just as much be a disaster as a triumph (Hitler v Mandela).

Your argument regarding choice is appealing, particularly toward those who are pro-life, who can choose not to have an abortion. But, with respect, who made you god to decide who lives and dies? Surely there is some difference between a human being and a lamb that ends up as a roast on the dinner table? Is there?

In all seriousness, I encourage you to have the courage to confront your convictions, and watch an abortion on-line. Yes, it’s yucky, and yes, I might be accused of poor taste. But this is reality.

I hope that you continue to wrestle with this issues, and I again applaud your willingness to think through the implications of your position.

Samuel says:

11:07am | 03/10/09

I have to confess, i’ve never actually heard a genuine pro-lifer argue that the potential for a Mandela is a reason to be pro-life.  Using that as an argument actually demeans the pro-life case because it makes it about quality of life, not life itself.  And that’s precisely the key to being pro-life; it’s not about quality at all but about defending human life just because it is human life.

Therefore, to be pro-choice in that context means one must be willing to concede that some human lives are more valulable than others.  A concession that moves very quickly into shaky ground.

As for the nonsense that an unfertilised egg or sperm is also life, anyone with a basic grip on reproductive science understands that fertilisation completely changes the essence of these two cells.  The logic of such arguments is akin to saying a bag of green coffee beans is the same thing as a cup of coffee.  There is a fundamental difference between coffee beans and a cup of coffee and there is also a fundamental difference between a fertilised egg and sperm and egg on their own.  And given that we’re talking about live cells, the difference is even more pronounced.

The other issue is that of viability, also a logically shaky justification for abortion.  The reality is, once born, a child is still dependent on others for its life for a number of years.  In terms of viability, there is little difference between a child in the womb being fed through the mother’s body and breastfeeding post birth.

Jeff says:

11:34am | 03/10/09

I have never heard an argument that could convince me that any man women or institution has the right to snuff out an unborn human life.

How can we know what a person will become? Who are we to say that because a person that doesn’t have a fully functioning brain or body or will grow up in the the ‘right’ economic or family situation deserves to live or not?

At Work (or not) says:

11:48am | 03/10/09

It’s unfortunate- while I’m on your side, your point is unclear.

I bring it down to this simple point- if you feel you are unable to be responsible for another person, please ensure you are not. There’s a huge difference between an early stage termination (wow, I’ll get flamed for using the clinical term. I know. Moving on.), and, as per example, the recent case of Ebony’s mother. I can’t insert a fancy hyperlink, but here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26155249-421,00.html
I know a mildly mentally challanged woman who was “Pro-life”. She kept her unplanned baby- and very nearly did the same as the story linked above. Her baby boy was taken away as he nearly died of starvation- Miss Pro-life no longer has access to the child she nearly killed. Where were the self-righteous campaigners that brainwashed her to keep the baby? I watched them force her through the pregnancy, then leave her to fend for herself.

Clare, comparing a foetus to lamb that we eat is just icky. There are many, many real world examples that function better than a psuedo-cannabalism reference. And the one above works for me.

So ladies if you are unable to raise a child, please don’t.

Davo from St Kilda says:

11:48am | 03/10/09

Clare - are you happy that you weren’t aborted? That you have been able to experience all that life offers, both the good and the bad? Then why would you deprive others the same right? Imagine if, hypothetically, you had been aborted. That you never had the chance to enjoy all the great things in life, like family, friends, relationships… Even small things like lying in bed on a Sunday morning reading the newspaper. Why should others be denied the right to live this life? If you had been aborted then you never would have had the opportunity to be a journalist. And this article would never have existed. How can that be good?

Lauren says:

12:45pm | 03/10/09

The difference is this: “I knew you before you were born and I designed you for my purposes.” (Jeremiah 1:5). A lamb has not been designed to be a prophet or a teacher, a councellor or a musician, it is designed to be a lamb, to help the earth in it’s own way and also to be kept as a pet and used for food. That is the major difference between humans and animals and I simply can’t comprehend why people bring the slaughter of animals into the abortion debate, it makes no logical sense.

bec says:

01:57pm | 03/10/09

I really wish anti-abortion activists would be more vocal in calling for better quality comprehensive sex-education (which is statistically PROVEN to decrease abortion rates), improved access to domestic violence shelters for all people living in violence, improved maternity and paternity leave, and better protection for young women who experience sexual violence. You know, those things that actually make pregnancies and having families practical and viable?

Until then, they’re just pro-foetus, because they sure as hell don’t care about mother or baby after the birth.

Shane says:

02:11pm | 03/10/09

To take your own life is an individuals sacred right, as unpleasant as that may be to consider.
Even more unpleasant and far more heavy a burden, it is a woman’s sacred right to choose between life and death for both herself and her child.
This protocol falls into the category of “Things Men Will Never Really Understand” simply because they don’t have a womb or the ultra-sacred bond of mother-child.
A choice of terminating a pregnancy would be based on the possible danger or inadequate care the child may face, and only a mother may make that final call.
Religion has no place in this conversation. Religion has no place in any conversation really. This question spans all people and beliefs.
A comparable muse would be to ask the ultimate philosophical question; Spare one life at the sake of another, or take one to spare another?
Once this question is placed in an objective scenario, outside of personal defence, how can an answer possibly be justied? It is not a case of “Take one to spare ten”, but One for One.
Hmmmmm….

Eric says:

05:43pm | 03/10/09

Shane, your sexist and ignorant views have no place in this conversation.

bec says:

07:14pm | 03/10/09

Dear Eric,

Somewhere in your past, a girl was likely mean to you. This makes you entirely like 100% of the population. Unlike you, 99% of the population was able to move on from that unfortunate day when they were seven years old and developed a little bit of resilience.

Stop making every single post on this website about you and your pathetic self-aggrandising crybaby attention seeking.

Love,

Every person, everywhere.

Gibbot says:

07:59pm | 03/10/09

What Bec said.

Oh, and a couple of issues with the article:

“Humans are the only living organism with the capacity to think about “what if”, “if only”, “could”, “should”. We are the only beings able to imagine situations, or consider something in a way that is different to how it actually is.”

I think that’s pure conjecture. There’s plenty of evidence in the natural world that would suggest otherwise.

“A foetus, growing inside a mother, is alive, yes, and no doubt with the capacity to feel and react.”

It is alive, but it has no capacity to feel & react until it has developed a neural network - more than halfway through the gestation period.

They’re the main objections I have. Otherwise it is nice to read a sensible opinion on the subject. Thanks Clare, and kudos to the Punch for keeping this debate open & even handed.

Eric says:

08:18pm | 03/10/09

Bec,

You are completely wrong.

That is all.

Talitha says:

09:49pm | 03/10/09

There is little sense in saying that we shouldn’t think about what they ‘could be.’ Imagine a world where everybody lived entirely in the present with no thought about ones future, ones purpose, or the consequences of our actions. Our very ability to do this is what sets us apart from the other species with who we share, to eliminate that would essentially also eliminate the notion of right and wrong behaviour, making it a moot point.

I consider myself pro-life in every sense of the word. This means that whilst for the most part I am against abortion, I do support the cases where the life of the mother is at detriment, be it through medical or emotional means. I do not however adhere to the notion of an ‘unwanted’ child, or not having a child because you can’t support it. There are increasing numbers of women not blessed with the ability to bear children who want nothing more that to take a so called unwanted baby and nurture it into a productive adult life.

Both pro-life and pro-choice are guilty of painting the abortion debate as a black and white issues, when in reality that is perhaps the only thing it is not.

Shane says:

10:40pm | 03/10/09

Yikes Eric! I think Bec sewed you up there…
But seriously, was it my religion comment that irked you?
I’m not sexist, I’m a male who is acutely aware of how stupid most men are for not acknowledging how superior females actually are, how truly the world is (badly) male dominated and how desperate we as a culture are for true 50-50 sexual equality, in order to move forward to our next level.
As for ignorant, well, sure ok. If you can sum up such a venomous slur in one sentence, without even a hint of evidenced reasoning, then I guess I’ll just have to trust you on it.
But I’ll go out on a limb here, and assume it was the religion bit, and further assume you go for something Christian or at least Abrahamic… here’s the rub.
Jesus never actually existed. Christianity was based on the Ancient Egyptian’s religion, specifically Horus. First testament Joseph = Second Jesus. Romans invented it as a means to control the masses; a set of laws and a strong reason to follow them. Same with any religion. We have known all this for over 200 years. The whole thing started as pagan sun worship. And the Church has always been an exceptionally lucrative, cunning business.
Much more to follow, but for now, Eric, and any other theists who always quote a lot of the Bible when abortion is mentioned…
Your turn.

Vicki PS says:

12:41am | 04/10/09

Regardless of other possible flaws in her rhetoric, I think Clare has come closest to articulating my own confused beliefs and the dilemma of being pro-choice and also pro-life.  I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, do not support euthanasia, and have deep reservations about withdrawal of life-sustaining measures from people unable to give consent.  I think Clare has captured the distinction between these and early term abortion very well—a life vs. merely alive.  And although I fundamentally disagree with the anti-abortion lobby, I applaud the integrity of their beliefs and courage of their conviction.

Kalan says:

01:17am | 04/10/09

To the person so arrogant as to think they speak for “every person, everywhere,” there is validity to Eric’s statement that Shane is being ignorant and sexist. Yes, people are generally seen to have the right to live or die, for themselves, but it has never been understood in society that a mother has the sole right to decide whether her children should live or not.
This kind of argument is frequent, when pro-choice advocates limit themselves to only thinking about a fetus, rather than a child after birth. When a mother kills a child *after* birth, it is usually seen as one of the most egregious offenses and punished harshly - she has betrayed the trust that children instinctively have in their mother, even those abused or maltreated.

As far as the argument goes that “pro-lifers” are only “pro-fetus”, i can understand where that argument comes from. Many pro-life advocates are in fact against increased welfare and social programs, but as such a pro-life advocate, I can explain this. It infuriates me that so many people can ignore the brutality that takes place during an abortion, especially late-term and partial-birth abortions. In fact, those who so casually talk about the process should do everyone a favor and watch it, as suggested by “At Work.” It is that passion for the powerless unborn that we decry the legality of abortion. However, the life that may come of that is another matter. TO say that a child should be aborted rather than brought into a disadvantaged situation is akin to saying a child who ahs already been born into one should be killed. Both are already set to live a difficult life, but that is what life is. Some draw a perfect life from the deck, others draw poorly. I myself grew up in a bad home, but had the ambition from an early age to focus on what was important, and I have found my share of success. I want to see poverty end, too, but just because I disagree with liberals on how to make that happen, don’t accuse me of forgetting about children after they’re born. It’s not my place, or yours, or the mother’s, to decide that child’s existence for them. The mother made that decision when she got pregnant, and now she should do her best to provide for that child.

bec says:

10:51am | 04/10/09

Kalan, it’s called ‘hyperbole’. It is not pronounced ‘hyper-bowl’ and it doesn’t refer to a big-ass shopping centre or sporting field. It means “I am being so damn over-the-top to make a point that if you can’t pick this up, you don’t even have a fleeting and unsatisfying one-night relationship with reality, much less a long-term, mutually rewarding one”. Every single post that Eric has made to this site has been about his stupid little “what about the menz?!111” campaign. He doesn’t care about the men who are actually at risk in the community - you know, the Indigenous men, or the gay/bisexual/transgender men, or the men with physical and intellectual disabilities. He cares about middle-age white dudes keeping their middle-age white dude privileges from those pesky women and minorities. I’m getting pretty sick of it and so are plenty of other readers on this site who just want to read relevant and interesting responses to topics, rather than one man’s concerted efforts to win the gold medal at the Oppression Olympics.

If what you are saying is the case with regards to pro-life activists being pro-social welfare (and as a lapsed catholic I am very much in agreement with this), anti-reproductive rights activists wouldn’t be loud promoters of abstinence-only sex education - a failed curriculum that does nothing to prevent underage or extramarital sex, but plenty to ensure that people don’t know how to use contraception or avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Anti-reproductive rights activists would be loudly supportive of maternity/paternity leave measures. But they’re not. You look at the loudest lobbying groups and they are strongly against the real measures that prevent abortion and unwanted pregnancy and ensure basic economic and social protection for those people who are most at risk in the community.

And ffs, finally, stop exploiting the emotionally-laden disingenuous falsehood that is the ‘partial-birth abortion’. There is not a single woman alive who makes it to eight months into a pregnancy and says “stuff it, I want this thing out of me ASAP”. Late-term abortions are only ever performed for horrific complications and in the majority of cases are used where the foetus’ condition would preclude compatibility with life after delivery. These aren’t abortions by the hordes of evil, slutty irresponsible women running rampant in your imagination - these terminations are, in the majority of cases, of much-wanted or planned babies, done with the best wishes by BOTH parents. These are surgical procedures which can save a woman’s life - a woman who may have obligations to other young children or babies.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:30am | 04/10/09

Hey, don’t drag me into this debate- I already said my opinion on abortion in some other blog….

watto says:

12:05pm | 04/10/09

If you are serious about the human potential or ‘could be’ argument then why throw away humans in their their teens or adulthood when they become socially ‘useless’ as homeless etc. Then when does life become sacred &/or valued & not just theorising?

Grant says:

12:54pm | 04/10/09

@ Davo from St Kilda says: 11:48am | 03/10/09

This comment is gold :

“If you had been aborted then you never would have had the opportunity to be a journalist. And this article would never have existed. How can that be good?”

Davo Davo, you should really think this through carefully…  If she was aborted, she wouldn’t exist, and thus wouldn’t care about all the great things in life because she wouldn’t exist…  that comment is nonsensical.

I detect shenanigans, do you believe all aborted babies go to purgatory?

We should make this clear for the pro lifers commenting here, it is your choice to not have an abortion if you wish.  however, you do not have the choice to force your will on to someone who has made the decision to have an abortion.

alto says:

01:04pm | 04/10/09

Davo - on the other hand, if abortion were more widespread, we may have been spared Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden and Paris Hilton.

Eric says:

04:14pm | 04/10/09

Shane:

Don’t assume. I am not a Christian or a believer in any Abrahamic religion.

As for your sexism, I only need quite this: “I’m a male who is acutely aware of how stupid most men are for not acknowledging how superior females actually are”. That’s as sexist as it gets.

Think about that sentence until you realise why it is sexist.

Trevor says:

10:28pm | 04/10/09

To all:
I am ‘pro life’. And I am a bloke.

Wouldn’t it be a valid question to ask when choice begins?

A bloke meets a girl and sooner or later each will make a choice on how far they are are willing for their relationship to go.

The moment they agree to sleeping together, they have made a choice that can result in the production of another human.

I believe it is that simple. A choice between being responsible for your decision, or not.

Obviously I am assuming a mental capacity to make a choice.

If the need arises for a mother to choose saving her life(not lifestyle), over the new life within her, her choice should be respected. The only other exception that I can think of is where someone enforces their will against another. In such a case it comes down to the victim being forced to make a choice that should never have needed to be made. Her decision is one that should be respected by all others.

I suggest it is selfish to expect a girl to be on the pill and any undesired result to be ‘her problem’.

I suggest it is selfish to chant, ‘it’s my body’, etc. when your choice is to extinguish the potential choices of another.

Choice is too valuable.

Michael says:

01:28am | 05/10/09

gawd Eric you’ve got such a massive library you’d you could put a bit of effort into your arguments, I agree that males are castrated in Australian society but they way you state your arguments you might as well be a lesbian behind a keyboard, if you are so fracking good way don’t you back it up.

Jugger says:

06:21pm | 05/10/09

@trevor:
“I suggest it is selfish to chant, ‘it’s my body’, etc. when your choice is to extinguish the potential choices of another.

Choice is too valuable.”

I suggest that it is selfish to chant “I speak for the un-born”  This argument is so intellectually bankrupt its almost humorous.

You speak for the un-born?  The un-born cannot speak.  A foetus is not a baby.  A foetus is a collection of cells that may or may not become a baby.  To say “I speak for the un-born” is as ludicrous as saying “I speak for my curtains” or “I speak for my belly button lint!”

You’ve already shown the contradiction of your argument by saying “I speak for the foetus”  A foetus cannot speak, a foetus has no sense of self, a foetus may or may not go on to become something else.  Who decides this:  The woman that carries the foetus.  No amount of God bothering delusion can change this simple fact.  Whether abortion is legal or illegal, the owner of the womb will always have the final say.

To suggest that you speak for the foetus, for god, for the great teapot in the sky, for anyone other than yourslef is clearly delusional.  You can only speak for yourself.  The owner of the foetus will speak for herself.  If she chooses to abort that foetus, then it will be just that, an aborted foetus.  It is not a life that went un-lived, it is not murder.  I can’t murder my sideboard, because it is not alive in the firstplace, ditto a foetus.

Trevor says:

10:15pm | 05/10/09

I believe Jugger is correct in his observation that, “the unborn cannot speak.” Don’t laugh.  I believe it was a serious statement.  Obvious, but serious.

Most would have difficulty finding a statement from me saying that I speak for the unborn.  I suppose some would like to read this into my previous comments. I hope never to be found guilty of taking such a position. The unborn are not in a position to solicit a representative.

My comments are directed to those who are in a position to make a choice; nothing more.

It is my hope choices made will reflect acceptance of the basic principle that there are consequences for our choices.

Maybe someone, some day, will be in a position to speak for the unborn.

Here’s a thought: I remember a time when our society made it’s rules for the protection of the weakest.  Dare I say, ‘whether they could speak for themselves, or not.’

fpjiympnupm says:

06:17pm | 30/05/10

VZFT1J lnobszllzwlw, qoseknakkznq, [link=http://wyfgixqaayqd.com/]wyfgixqaayqd[/link], http://pyghdmzsoswd.com/

RosalindaROSARIO27 says:

10:55am | 15/02/11

I took my first loans when I was 32 and that supported my business a lot. However, I require the short term loan over again.

Steph says:

07:32pm | 05/03/11

Abortion is a weak word. A more suitable word is Murder as that is what it is - the murder of a human being. What’s worse is that it is the murder of an innocent child by it’s mother - the mother whose very nature is to love and protect their child at all cost.