Saturday, August 21, 2004
More dangerous than giving birth
For the consequentialists in the crowd: This article discusses the well-researched, peer-reviewed and published finding that abortion in the first trimester is three times more dangerous than giving birth, and the legal implications under Roe vs. Wade.
Thanks to the SoDakMonk for the link.
Thanks to the SoDakMonk for the link.
// posted by Bill @ 4:30 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I don't know the statistics - but surely in 2004 the odds that a woman will die from childbirth are not high. Even if it is the case that a woman has 3 times the chance of dying from a first trimester abortion than she has from childbirth - it would appear that the odds are probably still quite low.
Furthermore, unless the odds of dying from a first trimester abortion were extremely high - it seems to me that this should not influence whether or not these abortions should be legal. We know that smoking hastens death, sky diving is higher risk than watching television, and undergoing plastic cosmetic surgery has risks that can be fatal. All of these, however, are legal, despite risks.
What truly matters is how we view that which is in the womb. Personally, I do not see a 1st trimester embryo or fetus as a person; ergo, I think it is all right for a woman to abort if she wishes to do so.
Later on in a pregnancy, as a fetus grows and develops, it does become a person prior to birth - and as such, is worthy of further protections from government.
But - whether or not others agree with this view, it still seems that the decision to allow 1st trimester abortions should not be linked to whether or not these abortions are somewhat more risky than giving birth.
Peg K
Furthermore, unless the odds of dying from a first trimester abortion were extremely high - it seems to me that this should not influence whether or not these abortions should be legal. We know that smoking hastens death, sky diving is higher risk than watching television, and undergoing plastic cosmetic surgery has risks that can be fatal. All of these, however, are legal, despite risks.
What truly matters is how we view that which is in the womb. Personally, I do not see a 1st trimester embryo or fetus as a person; ergo, I think it is all right for a woman to abort if she wishes to do so.
Later on in a pregnancy, as a fetus grows and develops, it does become a person prior to birth - and as such, is worthy of further protections from government.
But - whether or not others agree with this view, it still seems that the decision to allow 1st trimester abortions should not be linked to whether or not these abortions are somewhat more risky than giving birth.
Peg K
# posted by 
: 11:52 PM
: 11:52 PM
Those are excellent comments, Peg. The reason the risk factor is cited is that there is a legal issue under Roe vs. Wade, in that states were allowed to ban abortion on a risk basis only after the first trimester. I also was making a point that even under consequentialism early abortion can now be debated. Granted the risk factors are low, but the debate can be now joined on secular as well as religious grounds. I have stated a position that abortion should not be done once a working nervous system is in place. This position is based on my theory of souls. (This can be construed as a religious position) I also believe the various forms of birth control are far to be preferred over abortion. In fact I would condemn abortion as a means of birth control. There are some legitimate grounds for abortion, but all are subject to case by case debate. In the AnalPhilosopher's lexicon this would be a modified deontological position.
Post a Comment
<< Home
