Welcome to Gaia! ::

[ Message temporarily off-line ]

Mental health must be included with physical health.

If a woman suffers a complete mental/nervous breakdown and wants to kill herself because of a pregnancy... her condition is just as "physical" as the pregnancy actually threatening her life. True mental health problems are hormonal based. They have a phsyical aspect of them that isn't simply just the woman being sad... she cannot will herself to be better, she cannot will herself to not be sad because being sad is caused by hormones her body is either not producing enough of or producing too much of.

Since these hormones can be affected by pregnancy, and since these hormones can be causing suicidal tendancies, it seems strange not to permit them as a reasonable excuse for abortion when they are just as physically real and physically dangerous as any other condition. Though, having known more than one person who has suffered true mental illness, I wonder if such a person would be able to reasonably consent to abortion.

And Beware the Jabberwock... there are reasons to oppose abortion in the late term while still being for a woman's bodily integrity, under the premise that if a viable aternative exists a woman is compelled to take that route (ie if pre-mature birth would produce a live neonate that was able to survive, then to kill it in utero would be like shooting a robber in the head when you were perfectly able to shoot him in the leg).

Mental illnesses can be taken care of, and likely aren't going to be helped a whole lot by an abortion, which has it's own mental problems involved.

I'm not sure what you're asking... (you are asking me right?)...

In what case isn't it ok for her to wait? In what case is it ok for her to wait? I'm not sure what cases you're talking about or what you're referring to (assuming you're referring to something I said before).

I'm sorry, could you clarify the question u.u;;;

Oh!

I would argue that since a fetus at that point is able to sustain it's own life you'd have to kill it before removing it when if you just removed it it would be able to survive as a born neonate (granted premature).

I think I mentioned it somewhere else... but it draws on the notion that if you are being attacked and you have the option of shooting a man in the leg or shooting him in the head and you shoot him in the head you are in the wrong because you could have stopped him without killing him. Or perhaps you are being attacked and you shoot your attacker in the leg, then while disabled, you shoot him in the head (this would send you to jail for murder, even if the first shot was self defense).

Killing the fetus when all you need to do is "disable" it (ie remove it) is unnecessary (unlike early abortions**) and would be wrong in the same way as the "kill the guy after shooting him in the leg" because by that point in time it is indubitable that a fetus, if born, would survive and be granted legal personhood (assuming it is past around 20-25 weeks, and assuming the fetus is otherwise in good health - ie if dead in utero there's no reason to deny abortion).

**One could argue that all abortions should just be induced birth to let the fetus have at and try on its own to survive, rather than killing it in utero before removing. I think I said it somewhere else that the distinction of "how" you remove it doesn't seem to make much sense if in the end it's going to be dead anyway... all it would do is put the woman at more risk to have the same ends... which is why I'd consider earlier abortions acceptable because the distinction between "remove it whole and it dies" and "suck it out and it dies" seems to be a pointless one to make, whereas in the third trimester "remove it whole and it lives" versus "kill it in utero and then remove it dead" seems to not be such a pointless distinction to make.

I think in the other thread that you and I are talking in I said that between 20 and 25 weeks it was a sketchy grey area... I'm not going to assert one way or another what one should do in this time period because if I say "a woman has a right to her body" I would be neglecting that some fetuses would survive if given the opportunity. But if I say "she must wait 2-5 weeks" I'm thus denying a woman the right to her body if only for a limited time...

I would want to argue that she should wait. I would not argue that she is obligated to wait or that she owes it to the fetus's rights to wait (ie it cannot be demanded of her that she wait) because it is still her body... but that charity compells her to do so... that she would be quite a horrible person if she could not wait 2-5 weeks and just induce birth. I don't think I could say it is required of her that she waits in any moral/ethical sense. At best I could support legislation that says she must wait with a justification "it is better to be safe than sorry," but I don't think that is a strong enough justification.

Also I'd then be subject to "well what if she's 19 weeks pregnant, why is 4 weeks ok to wait, but not 5?" and then "what if she's 15 weeks pregnant? Why is 9 weeks ok but not 10?" until I am at the point where I am being asked "why not just force all women who want abortions to wait until week 25 and have them induce birth?" If we can justify forcing her to wait 2-5 weeks because of the "better safe than sorry" I worry that such a thing could be used to justify longer waits (in McFee's thread I mentioned in the bit about "quality versus quantity" how the same sort of "what if we add one more?" argument can lead to some pretty objectional circumstances which might better explain what I mean)

The problem with the argument that "Well what if I add just one more? Then what if I add another? And another?" is that it is a fallacy; The age of consent is 16, lets say. What if it was 15? Well, if it were 15, why couldn't it be 14? 13? 12? 11? Etc. etc. Or say the drinking age. "Well, if we adjust it three years and say 18, people will start saying, 'Why not two more?', and if we move it down to 16 people will start saying, "Why not a couple more?'" Just because you say that, at one point you have to wait, does -not- mean that it would eventually lead to having to wait no matter what stage of the pregnancy you are in. That's just ridiculous.

That's why "Slippery slope" is generally cautioned against; Although it holds some value, frequently it is fallicious conjecture.

The issue I have with slippery slopes is that they can be considered acceptale arguments (even though they are defined as fallacious), but that the slope stops somewhere, and defining that somewhere is what will stop the slip down the slope.

For example: Homosexual marriage... people say "what stops people from marrying children then! or dogs!" And there is an answer to stop that slide - informed consent (which is required for any contract to be valid). The person who fears marriage of dogs with people is not unreasonable for wondering where the slide will stop, how far it will go... even though slippery slope is considered fallacious... because there is an answer to stop the slide (or I suppose if one wants to make a slippery slope argument that's ok because someone that they are arguing with should be able to explain why that slide will stop somewhere).

With saying "why not wait one more week, two more weeks, three more weeks" I'd have to wonder... "what stops this slide?" After thinking on it... I suppose one could argue that between 20 and 25 weeks the odds for survival are greater than 0% but less than 100% and so waiting is thus required wherever the chance for survival is greater than 0%.

And LymeLady... it seems we're having two parts of the same conversation between the other thread and this one XD. Again I'll have to concede that it is an issue that requires more thought. If a woman owes it to a fetus to go through with induced premature birth at a point where it is viable, is that a conflict with her right to control her body? I just don't know how to answer that at this point.