Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

First, we all must take responsibility for our own actions. That's not to say that no-one deserves help (they do) or understanding (that too). But it is also the case that we can't expect everyone else to fix our problems when they occur. It's about decency and decent behaviour toward one another. We do deserve help from one another, but we don't have the right to expect others to make it all right.

Hello Pattern-chaser,
I am sorry. I am not sure if I fully understand your first point.

Then I am sorry for my lack of clarity. My words, as far as I am aware, offer only one point.

That point had to do with pregnancy, a necessary precursor to this discussion. We are all aware of how pregnancy is caused, and must accept our responsibility if we (two of us!) cause one. Such basic responsibilities cannot be shrugged off onto someone else to fix. Having said that, the focus here remains on help and assistance where possible, not on a punitive approach. I tried to fit all of this into my words, above. I will try to do better in the future.

[Count Lucanor]

Your POV about abortion: lawful with restrictions
Please allow me to explain my earlier response about the need for social change

No laws: In many parts of the world, women's rights are entirely overlooked. (There is a dire need for change in such cases)

Blanket Laws: There are some parts (even in developed countries) where we see troubling instances of essential medical care/abortion being denied to women with genuine cases.

Laws should guarantee universal rights, that is, without distinctions based on any criterion, such as social class, sex, race, etc. So, while it is true that denial of medical care to women is an unacceptable form of discrimination, it is wrong under the condition that a person has been denied their rights as a human being. Now, that brings us necessarily to the discussion about when the foetus inside a woman’s womb becomes, if ever, a subject with rights. I lean towards the original Roe & Wade decision, which established that limit at the third trimester, based on some physiological aspects related to the stage of development of the foetus that made it possible to survive outside the womb. It’s, evidently, open to discussion, but I think that intuitively there’s a general agreeement that a foetus is not, as any other thing, a disposable object. Think of the scenario where a person interferes with a woman’s pregnancy, and the foetus, which was not meant to ne aborted by the mother, is lost. If we think there must be some punitive consequences for that act, valued beyond the discomfort produced to the mother (as far as I know, causing stress and sadness does not land anyone in jail), it must be because we think the life of the foetus has some value. I highlight again, however, that this can never go so far as to grant rights to it before the third trimester, and after that, should not be equated to the rights of a born person.

Reasonable Laws: There are places (India) where abortion laws consider a wide range of scenarios. However, the unfortunate reality is that practices like sex determination, while illegal (to prevent female infanticide), are still evaded, leading women to face immense pressure from family to make heartbreaking choices when a girl child is detected.
Even when laws cover almost all bases, we often find that they fall short of genuinely empowering women (in the present/future) to make informed, independent decisions.

Hence, when I see all three scenarios, I feel, the government should be restricted to actively supporting women's rights, ensuring she has access to compassionate medical care and counseling, while ultimately allowing women to decide what is best for them. This will help reduce/eliminate wrongful acts and not endanger women's lives. I maintain, that major changes in society are needed to address the root causes.

I am open to all views as it will help me understand and consider other aspects that I may have missed.

Again, I see women’s rights as a particular application of universal human rights. Medical care cannot be denied, nor they must be the subject of any other discriminatory practices.

[LuckyR]

I once witnessed the case of a young women around 17 who ended being pregnant of an unknown father. Once the mother realized that she was around 8+ months pregnant, forced her to have an abortion only to "keep the good name of the family". It's hard for me not to think of this as something punishable. People get in jail for killing a dog.

Where and when was this case you witnessed?

This was around 20 years ago within my circle of acquaintances.

Sorry, I meant in which legal jurisdiction.

[Count Lucanor]

I once witnessed the case of a young women around 17 who ended being pregnant of an unknown father. Once the mother realized that she was around 8+ months pregnant, forced her to have an abortion only to "keep the good name of the family". It's hard for me not to think of this as something punishable. People get in jail for killing a dog.

Where and when was this case you witnessed?

This was around 20 years ago within my circle of acquaintances.

Sorry, I meant in which legal jurisdiction.

Panama.

[Seetha E]

That point had to do with pregnancy, a necessary precursor to this discussion. We are all aware of how pregnancy is caused, and must accept our responsibility if we (two of us!) cause one. Such basic responsibilities cannot be shrugged off onto someone else to fix. Having said that, the focus here remains on help and assistance where possible, not on a punitive approach. I tried to fit all of this into my words, above. I will try to do better in the future.

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with the point you raise about responsibility. Sadly, that is not always the case. And there are other genuine concerns around blanket laws and parts of the world where women have no rights.
Hence,
1) Focus on counseling and not punitive measures. I agree with you. Providing comprehensive awareness and easy access to verified information about pregnancy, related topics(trimesters, exemptions), detailed discussion about potential concerns, and information about the laws will empower women and their partners and encourage responsible behavior.
2) Implementation of laws that safeguard any infringement on the woman's reproductive choices including access to medical assistance. 
3) Ultimately, as the pregnancy directly involves the participation of the woman and impacts her in many ways, her freedom to decide is critical. Care for the present first and enable informed decisions.

[Seetha E]

Laws should guarantee universal rights, that is, without distinctions based on any criterion, such as social class, sex, race, etc. So, while it is true that denial of medical care to women is an unacceptable form of discrimination, it is wrong under the condition that a person has been denied their rights as a human being. Now, that brings us necessarily to the discussion about when the foetus inside a woman’s womb becomes, if ever, a subject with rights. I lean towards the original Roe & Wade decision, which established that limit at the third trimester, based on some physiological aspects related to the stage of development of the foetus that made it possible to survive outside the womb. It’s, evidently, open to discussion, but I think that intuitively there’s a general agreeement that a foetus is not, as any other thing, a disposable object. Think of the scenario where a person interferes with a woman’s pregnancy, and the foetus, which was not meant to ne aborted by the mother, is lost. If we think there must be some punitive consequences for that act, valued beyond the discomfort produced to the mother (as far as I know, causing stress and sadness does not land anyone in jail), it must be because we think the life of the foetus has some value. I highlight again, however, that this can never go so far as to grant rights to it before the third trimester, and after that, should not be equated to the rights of a born person.
Again, I see women’s rights as a particular application of universal human rights. Medical care cannot be denied, nor they must be the subject of any other discriminatory practices.

Hello Count Lucanor,

I agree with the points presented by you. I extend care and concern for both (the woman and the foetus) from day one. Hence, I support Laws that safeguard a woman's freedom to exercise her rights and ensure access to medical care. (It is sad to think about how denial of medical care disproportionately impacts the poor and most vulnerable, forcing them to seek unsafe methods)

As we approach the 2nd trimester, the risks involved for the pregnant woman can increase progressively, and the debate about the rights of the unborn becomes difficult. Here, I agree with your point that the rights of a woman must take precedence. This can be addressed by widespread comprehensive awareness programs to encourage responsible behavior and informed decision-making. A delicate balance is needed here. Laws alone won't give the desired result.

And finally, as the woman is directly involved, they deserve the freedom to decide.

[Count Lucanor]

Laws should guarantee universal rights, that is, without distinctions based on any criterion, such as social class, sex, race, etc. So, while it is true that denial of medical care to women is an unacceptable form of discrimination, it is wrong under the condition that a person has been denied their rights as a human being. Now, that brings us necessarily to the discussion about when the foetus inside a woman’s womb becomes, if ever, a subject with rights. I lean towards the original Roe & Wade decision, which established that limit at the third trimester, based on some physiological aspects related to the stage of development of the foetus that made it possible to survive outside the womb. It’s, evidently, open to discussion, but I think that intuitively there’s a general agreeement that a foetus is not, as any other thing, a disposable object. Think of the scenario where a person interferes with a woman’s pregnancy, and the foetus, which was not meant to ne aborted by the mother, is lost. If we think there must be some punitive consequences for that act, valued beyond the discomfort produced to the mother (as far as I know, causing stress and sadness does not land anyone in jail), it must be because we think the life of the foetus has some value. I highlight again, however, that this can never go so far as to grant rights to it before the third trimester, and after that, should not be equated to the rights of a born person.
Again, I see women’s rights as a particular application of universal human rights. Medical care cannot be denied, nor they must be the subject of any other discriminatory practices.

Hello Count Lucanor,

I agree with the points presented by you. I extend care and concern for both (the woman and the foetus) from day one. Hence, I support Laws that safeguard a woman's freedom to exercise her rights and ensure access to medical care. (It is sad to think about how denial of medical care disproportionately impacts the poor and most vulnerable, forcing them to seek unsafe methods)

As we approach the 2nd trimester, the risks involved for the pregnant woman can increase progressively, and the debate about the rights of the unborn becomes difficult. Here, I agree with your point that the rights of a woman must take precedence. This can be addressed by widespread comprehensive awareness programs to encourage responsible behavior and informed decision-making. A delicate balance is needed here. Laws alone won't give the desired result.

And finally, as the woman is directly involved, they deserve the freedom to decide.

We certainly agree on many things, especially on issues related to the right of expectant mothers to have access to medical care. It appears we cannot agree on having laws to safeguard the life of a third trimester foetus, which would mean a limitation to the right of women to abort.

[Seetha E]

We certainly agree on many things, especially on issues related to the right of expectant mothers to have access to medical care. It appears we cannot agree on having laws to safeguard the life of a third trimester foetus, which would mean a limitation to the right of women to abort.

Hello Count Lucanor,

Understandably disturbing and I am not in favor of an abortion, especially in the delayed stage. However, after receiving counseling and support offered, if she decides abortion is the right choice for her (after all it is her body and her situation), it is essential she has that right.

Its important also to recognize that several factors can lead a woman to consider abortions beyond 20-24 weeks of pregnancy. I truly empathize with the difficult emotions surrounding these choices, and I believe that no mother should feel pushed to consider abortion as her only option at that stage.

This is the reason, I stress widespread comprehensive awareness programs to encourage responsible behavior and informed and *timely* decision-making. We can do what is in our power to impact a change and hope for a better tomorrow.

[Count Lucanor]

We certainly agree on many things, especially on issues related to the right of expectant mothers to have access to medical care. It appears we cannot agree on having laws to safeguard the life of a third trimester foetus, which would mean a limitation to the right of women to abort.

Hello Count Lucanor,

Understandably disturbing and I am not in favor of an abortion, especially in the delayed stage. However, after receiving counseling and support offered, if she decides abortion is the right choice for her (after all it is her body and her situation), it is essential she has that right.

It just confirms that we will not agree on that. Given that it is a moral issue, not a logical one, there’s not much we can do about that disagreememt.

[Seetha E]

It just confirms that we will not agree on that. Given that it is a moral issue, not a logical one, there’s not much we can do about that disagreememt.

Hello Count Lucanor,
Yes, true. This matter does demand moral considerations. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this sensitive discussion. For now, we can hold on to hope that we will witness a future where no woman finds herself in a position of having to make this difficult decision to seek an abortion, especially at such advanced stages of pregnancy.

[LuckyR]

Where and when was this case you witnessed?

This was around 20 years ago within my circle of acquaintances.

Sorry, I meant in which legal jurisdiction.

Panama.

Interesting since Panama outlawed abortion except for the life of the mother or rape/incest in the 80's.

[Count Lucanor]

This was around 20 years ago within my circle of acquaintances.

Sorry, I meant in which legal jurisdiction.

Panama.

Interesting since Panama outlawed abortion except for the life of the mother or rape/incest in the 80's.

It is only allowed within the first two months and must be carried out by a physician in a medical institution, requiring a previous diagnosis and health committee’s approvals. In practice, however, religious morality gets in the middle of the bureaucratic procedures and a little delay helps exceeding the two-month period. To complicate matters, most of the women in this situation are minors, so additional consent is required. Most resort to clandestine practices within or outside the health system.