When is it ethically okay?

[Lursa]

Asked early in the thread, before any OP perturbation:

I'm perfectly fine with acknowledging that pregnancy carries a certain degree of risk, yet according to your own source, abortion is no less risky. This makes pregnancy risk (in itself) moot when it comes to justifying abortion.

Yes, they said pregnancy is safe...like driving in cars is safe...which carries a very large risk, doesnt it?

It's not a moot point at all. Another point to be made would be that nobody forces anyone to drive in cars. But you are advocating for a demand that women take significant risks against their will. (And it said abortion was much more, 14 times more, safe.)

How do you justify that in your ethical perspective?

Again, very worthwhile to explore in a discussion on ethics, yet was abandoned.

 

[Lursa]

And then there was this one, a common one the OP shares with people. Left unanswered, yet asked quite early in the thread:

And about the exceptions that are justifiable are your opinion:

--Rape, incest. If the unborn has a right to life...why doesnt it have one in those cases?

--the mother's health.*IF*it can be predicted and prevented. The 86,700, plus the 300,000 women that suffer from the eclampsia-related complexes...those women wouldnt be dead or severely damaged if it were that simple. Those are significant numbers of women.

So again, what are the justifications from your perspective?

Again we return to trying to examine the ethics of the health risks to women that would be against their will (by force of law)...(and the rape question of course).

They seemed like good discussion fodder with ethical considerations. Any answers?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

DD, I do want to add that most pro-choice women won't have an abortion because of their "moral stances". But that they genuinely see the necessity of having the individual freedom to maintain 100% control over their reproductive roles. I don't know where they acquire those moral standards, but it's not my business. However, I suspect that most women's moral views on abortion are linked to their religious upbringing.

It's also important to remember that most pregnancies are brought to full-term.

That seems to be the conventional wisdom, and I have no reason to doubt it.

Prejudging the term "convenience" as being immoral when it comes to abortion - is merely vilifying women without knowing their circumstances is the MO for pro-life advocates.

I realize that the word 'convenience' isn't appropriate when discussing a woman's decision whether or not to abort, and I pledge not to use it in that context going forward.

And herein lies the importance of the right to privacy.

Privacy is a factor in any medical procedure, as it should be, but I don't agree that a few pro-life radicals are the only, or even the greatest, justification for privacy.

I really dislike the government being able to publish abortion statistics. There wouldn't be many exchanges such as this - because nobody would have a clue about who (what race, ages, or how many abortions occur). To me, even published statistics are a violation of privacy.

As long as they're anonymous, I'm not sure how anyone's privacy would be compromised this way.

 

[Removable Mind]

That seems to be the conventional wisdom, and I have no reason to doubt it.


I realize that the word 'convenience' isn't appropriate when discussing a woman's decision whether or not to abort, and I pledge not to use it in that context going forward.

Privacy is a factor in any medical procedure, as it should be, but I don't agree that a few pro-life radicals are the only, or even the greatest, justification for privacy.

As long as they're anonymous, I'm not sure how anyone's privacy would be compromised this way.

The statistics alone are fuel for the fire for anti-abortion religious and pro-life groups. No personal data necessary. Just race, age, socioeconomic status, cited reason for having an abortion, marital status, virtually everything but a name, address, and family history,

What could possibly be the necessity to make such inform avail to the public? Medical researchers, yes.

 

[Lursa]

The statistics alone are fuel for the fire for anti-abortion religious and pro-life groups. No personal data necessary. Just race, age, socioeconomic status, cited reason for having an abortion, marital status, virtually everything but a name, address, and family history,

What could possibly be the necessity to make such inform avail to the public? Medical researchers, yes.

If privacy is very important, I wonder how it is justified to invade a woman's privacy between her and her Dr to learn of her reasons for the abortion? Just another one of those ethical questions that are tough to answer...so no one does.

It's not justifiable IMO. So we are fortunate to have the Constitutional protections for privacy to protect women.

 

[molten_dragon]

For any reason before 20 weeks gestation, and afterwards only if there is a serious threat to the mother's health or the fetus isn't capable of surviving outside the womb.

 

[minnie616]

For any reason before 20 weeks gestation, and afterwards only if there is a serious threat to the mother's health or the fetus isn't capable of surviving outside the womb.

In the US there are only 3 clinics and 4 doctors who perform abortions past 20 weeks so those are the only reasons abortions are performed past 20 weeks.

Doctors perform routine ultrasounds on pregnant women between 18 and 20 weeks. Pregnant women often look forward to them so they can the unborn moving and if they wish to know they can find out the sex of the unborn then. But the main reason for the ultrasound is to discover if there are fetal abnormalities. Doctors look at and measure the spaces between the spine,can examine the heart , brain and other organs of the unborn. If major abnormalities are found there are decisions to made before viability (the 24 week mark.)

[After 24 weeks/viability only the life/major health of woman ( about 100 a year occur in the US).[/B]


About 20 percent are threat to the woman’s life/ heath.
The other 80 percent because of major fetal abnormalities.

So many seem to think just because several states have no limits on abortions that elective abortions can take place past 20 weeks in the US. That is false.

From the following:

In 2013, there were four doctors in the country who performed abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to Slate. (Current numbers could be even lower.)

.....

So Dr. Gunter supplied a few facts of her own. Only 1.3 percent of abortions happen at, or after, 21 weeks, she said, and 80 percent of those are the results of catastrophic defects with the fetus. Dr. Gunter continued with a powerful explanation of why women generally seek out procedures like a late-term abortion.
[between week 21 and week 24 which is the cut off for fetal defects ]

Sometimes it can take weeks or even longer to fully understand what is going on with the fetus. Some patients might think they can make it to term and then at 34 weeks cave and ask to be delivered because they just can’t bear one more person asking them about their baby. Do they just smile and walk away or say, 'Well, actually, my baby has no brain and will die at birth?' Some women go to term and others can’t. To judge these women for requesting an early delivery is cruel on so many levels.

But the fact remains that, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the vast majority of states ban abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy.

https://www.romper.com/p/which-stat...tions-they-are-very-difficult-to-access-21069

 

[Lursa]

For any reason before 20 weeks gestation, and afterwards only if there is a serious threat to the mother's health or the fetus isn't capable of surviving outside the womb.

But you are not explaining your ethical considerations that formed those decisions, that's what the OP is about. Can you explain?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

The statistics alone are fuel for the fire for anti-abortion religious and pro-life groups. No personal data necessary. Just race, age, socioeconomic status, cited reason for having an abortion, marital status, virtually everything but a name, address, and family history,

What could possibly be the necessity to make such inform avail to the public? Medical researchers, yes.

I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's sort of inevitable. (Nor is it a violation of privacy.) As you say, medical researchers value this information, and - just like in the rest of the academic community - studies are made available to the public. They always have been, regardless of whether any government conducts or funds the study.

 

[minnie616]

I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's sort of inevitable. (Nor is it a violation of privacy.) As you say, medical researchers value this information, and - just like in the rest of the academic community - studies are made available to the public. They always have been, regardless of whether any government conducts or funds the study.

I feel the list of reasons was a violation since they gave the women a pre written list and asked them to choose from the list.

Therefore they could tilt the answers/stats the way they wanted.

When one looks looks closer at the answers they see that 13 percent were concerned about the fetal health of the unborn and 12 percent were concerned about their maternal health.

 

[minnie616]

I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's sort of inevitable. (Nor is it a violation of privacy.) As you say, medical researchers value this information, and - just like in the rest of the academic community - studies are made available to the public. They always have been, regardless of whether any government conducts or funds the study.

I feel the list of reasons was a violation since they gave the women a pre written list and asked them to choose from the list.

Therefore they could tilt the answers/stats the way they wanted.

When one looks closer at the answers they see that 13 percent were concerned about possible prom lens with fetal health of the unborn and 12 percent were concerned about posibile problems with their maternal health.

See table 2
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf




Also only a very small portion were given a questionnaire and only to Women who went to a public clinic.

Those who went to a private GYN for their abortions were not asked to fill out the questionnaire forms.

 

[Removable Mind]

I'm not sure it's necessary, but it's sort of inevitable. (Nor is it a violation of privacy.) As you say, medical researchers value this information, and - just like in the rest of the academic community - studies are made available to the public. They always have been, regardless of whether any government conducts or funds the study.

A few examples of necessity are:

Non-Viable Intrauterine Fetus;
Intrauterine Fetal Death;
Premature Rupture of Membranes;
Placental Separation;
Fetal Abnormalities;
Fetal Congenital Birth Defects;
Maternal infections;
Ilicit drug use;
Harmful radiation doses;
Genetic disorders;
Cardiovascular Diseases;
Renal Disease;
Preeclampsia; (Year2Late suffered with this);
Cancer Diagnosis;
Intrauterine Infections....
Yadda, yadda, yadda.

By the way, for those who support granting personhood to the yet to be born - quite a few of the items listed above wouldn’t be sufficient reasons to abort. A lot of doctors wouldn’t want the legal liability for any issues related to pregnancies. Or the medical processes to get approval would be very complicated. That alone is putting women unnecessarily at risk. And there’s dozens of unintended consequences that I haven’t begin to address.

DD, to deny the right to privacy for women for ANY reason is draconian, extreme discrimination.

If as much effort was put into prevention of unwanted pregnancies through advanced technology and certainly making serious efforts from an early age to instill sexual responsibility - and dispense with the institutional condemnation of women - we would see a dramatic drop in abortion rates.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I feel the list of reasons was a violation since they gave the women a pre written list and asked them to choose from the list.

That actually hurts the study itself, but unless the researchers hold on to personally identifiable information, I don't see how it violates privacy.

When one looks closer at the answers they see that 13 percent were concerned about possible prom lens with fetal health of the unborn and
Also only a very small portion were given a questionnaire and only to Women who went to a public clinic.

That also hurts the study: the sample isn't representative.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

A few examples of necessity are:

Non-Viable Intrauterine Fetus;
Intrauterine Fetal Death;
Premature Rupture of Membranes;
Placental Separation;
Fetal Abnormalities;
Fetal Congenital Birth Defects;
Maternal infections;
Ilicit drug use;
Harmful radiation doses;
Genetic disorders;
Cardiovascular Diseases;
Renal Disease;
Preeclampsia; (Year2Late suffered with this);
Cancer Diagnosis;
Intrauterine Infections....
Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Okay, but if nobody keeps personally identifiable information (IOW, details about who specifically has what health issue), how can it be a violation of privacy?

By the way, for those who support granting personhood to the yet to be born - quite a few of the items listed above wouldn’t be sufficient reasons to abort. A lot of doctors wouldn’t want the legal liability for any issues related to pregnancies. Or the medical processes to get approval would be very complicated. That alone is putting women unnecessarily at risk.

Shouldn't doctors be allowed to judge whether the increased level of risk is enough to be concerned about?

DD, to deny the right to privacy for women for ANY reason is draconian, extreme discrimination.

I'm extremely reluctant to deny the right to privacy for any person, male or female. As I said before, it doesn't really apply unless there's personally identifiable info.

If as much effort was put into prevention of unwanted pregnancies through advanced technology and certainly making serious efforts from an early age to instill sexual responsibility - and dispense with the institutional condemnation of women - we would see a dramatic drop in abortion rates.

Let's hope so: as I said before, I'm completely in favor of prevention before conception.

 

[minnie616]

That actually hurts the study itself, but unless the researchers hold on to personally identifiable information, I don't see how it violates privacy.



That also hurts the study: the sample isn't representative.

The study is not representative because of the small number of women questioned at a small number of clinics. Also as I said only women who went to public clinincs were asked.

13 choices were given the women could check Some woman gave one answer others gave more. Some may have thought they were only to check a few answers. If the women were given the questionnaire and were given more time they may have listed more answers. Of the 1,160 women in 2004 who gave at least one reason, 89% gave at least two and 72% gave at least three; the median number of reasons given was four, and some women gave as many as eight reasons out of a possible 13 ?


It is interesting to note the women who already more than one child at home ; 35 percent had 2 and 31 percent had 3 or more children at home.

See table 4

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

 

[molten_dragon]

In the US there are only 3 clinics and 4 doctors who perform abortions past 20 weeks so those are the only reasons abortions are performed past 20 weeks.

Good. Although I disagree with your statement that those are the only reasons. I agree that they are the vast majority of reasons.

Doctors perform routine ultrasounds on pregnant women between 18 and 20 weeks. Pregnant women often look forward to them so they can the unborn moving and if they wish to know they can find out the sex of the unborn then. But the main reason for the ultrasound is to discover if there are fetal abnormalities. Doctors look at and measure the spaces between the spine,can examine the heart , brain and other organs of the unborn. If major abnormalities are found there are decisions to made before viability (the 24 week mark.)

I have two children, so I've been through this process multiple times. None of this is news to me.

 

[molten_dragon]

But you are not explaining your ethical considerations that formed those decisions, that's what the OP is about. Can you explain?

Well 20 weeks is a nice round number, so that's why I chose it. Regardless of views on abortion I think most people can agree that people have a right to self defense, and I'd certainly never force a woman to continue a pregnancy that might kill her. And I see no harm (and quite a bit of good) in terminating a pregnancy where the baby has no chance of ever surviving outside the womb.

So that's my ethical considerations.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

The study is not representative because of the small number of women questioned at a small number of clinics. Also as I said only women who went to public clinincs were asked.

13 choices were given the women could check Some woman gave one answer others gave more. Some may have thought they were only to check a few answers. If the women were given the questionnaire and were given more time they may have listed more answers. Of the 1,160 women in 2004 who gave at least one reason, 89% gave at least two and 72% gave at least three; the median number of reasons given was four, and some women gave as many as eight reasons out of a possible 13 ?


It is interesting to note the women who already more than one child at home ; 35 percent had 2 and 31 percent had 3 or more children at home.

See table 4

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

I agree with you; the study has multiple flaws.

By the way, have you talked about your ethical position yet? Not asking as a criticism, I'm just curious.

 

[minnie616]

Good. Although I disagree with your statement that those are the only reasons. I agree that they are the vast majority of reasons.




I have two children, so I've been through this process multiple times. None of this is news to me.

Nor to me.

I have four children.

I had two miscarriages between my second and third child.

The first miscarriage was an early miscarriage ( in the first month of pregnancy).

During the second miscarriage I was about 20 weeks along when I started having hard contractions. We went to ER hoping the hospital could save the pregnancy. The nurse at the ER took a pregnancy test and told us ( my husband and I ) that I was no longer pregnant. Our little one had died within me and that’s why I was having contractions. My doctor told me it was so malformed it never would have survived even if I had carried it longer. He said it was so malformed that pathology could not even tell if was a boy or girl.

 

[minnie616]

I agree with you; the study has multiple flaws.

By the way, have you talked about your ethical position yet? Not asking as a criticism, I'm just curious.

I sincerely believe pro choice allows each woman to follow her conscience and religious liberty regarding their medical reproductive procedures.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

I sincerely believe pro choice allows each woman to follow her conscience and religious liberty regarding their medical reproductive procedures.

So would it be correct to interpret this as meaning you believe that abortions are ethically okay at any time?

 

[minnie616]

So would it be correct to interpret this as meaning you believe that abortions are ethically okay at any time?

Anytime within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

As I said only 1.3 percent of abortions take place past 21 weeks.

Also remember there are only 4 doctors and 3 clinics in the USA ( as of 2013) who perform abortions past 20 weeks.

It takes a highly skilled doctor to perform these and the medical need for the abortion must be a greater for the woman than the risk of delivery.

 

[molten_dragon]

Nor to me.

I have four children.

I had two miscarriages between my second and third child.

The first miscarriage was an early miscarriage ( in the first month of pregnancy).

During the second miscarriage I was about 20 weeks along when I started having hard contractions. We went to ER hoping the hospital could save the pregnancy. The nurse at the ER took a pregnancy test and told us ( my husband and I ) that I was no longer pregnant. Our little one had died within me and that’s why I was having contractions. My doctor told me it was so malformed it never would have survived even if I had carried it longer. He said it was so malformed that pathology could not even tell if was a boy or girl.

My wife had 3 miscarriages before we were able to have our first child. Two were normal early miscarriages and the third was ectopic and she had to have a methotrexate shot to flush out.

 

[minnie616]

My wife had 3 miscarriages before we were able to have our first child. Two were normal early miscarriages and the third was ectopic and she had to have a methotrexate shot to flush out.

So sorry about the miscarriages.
I am happy you and your wife were able to have two born children.

 

[Removable Mind]

Okay, but if nobody keeps personally identifiable information (IOW, details about who specifically has what health issue), how can it be a violation of privacy?


Shouldn't doctors be allowed to judge whether the increased level of risk is enough to be concerned about?



I'm extremely reluctant to deny the right to privacy for any person, male or female. As I said before, it doesn't really apply unless there's personally identifiable info.


Let's hope so: as I said before, I'm completely in favor of prevention before conception.

Let’s talk about “Privacy” in a different light.

DD, the aggregate information collected on abortion becomes a discriminatory tool for anti-abortion groups and even individual pro-life advocates that is used in invasive ways against the female sex. Individual names aren’t necessary to fuel disdain and the harassment at the only places that abortions are conducted. It creates an atmosphere of fear and concern for one’s safety. It’s sad that Women can’t have procedures in hospitals and clinics that provide common medical procedures. Stand alone clinics is invasive as it gets when women go to and from “abortion facilities

Requiring applications from Universities and medical research organizations to get abortion data - should be necessary. Managing such information should be highly confidential.