h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: An introduction to some of the ethical arguments in debates about abortion - A1139861
Author: Otto Fisch (14 shirt)(Scout)("....so if you've a date in Constantinople, she'll be waiting in Istanbul" - U182089

This is a work in progress still, but I'd appreciate any comments at this stage. I'd like this to hit PR as near finished as possible, and as robust as possible.

[dons tin hat]

You have the absolutist view that an embryo is a 'person', but I've always been hearing that an embryo is 'human life'. Not quite the same. Not sure if you want to make the distinction.

Interesting entry Otto

I haven't been able to do a thorough read yet, but wanted to offer a couple of points:

1. I think the better term to use is 'foetus' rather than embryo. The term foetus is used to refer to the unborn baby at any stage whereas the term embryo usually refers to a young foetus i.e. foetus is a more inclusive term. If one were talking about late term abortions (eg third trimester) it would sound weird to refer to the embryo. I think it's good that you state clearly the definitions though


2. Perhaps the title could reflect that this is a >philosophical< examination of some of the abortion debate. I'm more familiar with abortion from feminist, grassroots, and health care provider perspectives, all of which have ethical components not particularly represented in this entry. I think it's fine that you focus on philosophy, just think it should be explicit that you are doing this.


3. >>>And finally, something that everyone should agree about ....

In the words of one researcher

As a man, I can't concieve of concieving. I can't even begin to imagine what it feels like to have something growing inside me that might grow into a baby. I only have a vague idea of what it must feel like to face a difficult decision about what to do when faced with an unplanned pregnancy under difficult circumstances of whatever kind. But whatever views one might have about the rights and wrongs of abortion in particular cases, what should unite those on both sides of the argument is compassion for a fellow human being faced with a very difficult decision, which will be very painful and very traumatic, no matter what their eventual decision
<<<

I have some problem with this being used as an ending without further comment (mostly the header and the last line or two). The reality is that for some women abortion is neither very painful nor inherently traumatic.

I understand that you are trying to find a compassionate stance here, but as it is written it's inaccurate.

See http://www.imnotsorry.net/whythis.htm for the stories of some women who haven't experienced abortion as traumatic.


4. Maybe a link to Peter Singer?


kea.

the embryo becomes a baby and human rights
-->
the embryo becomes a baby and acquires human rights
or even
the embryo becomes a baby and suddenly has the same rights as any other human

Thanks for your comments, everyone. I was expecting this to languish. It still needs a lot of polishing as well as finishing off.

Leo - philosophers use 'person' and 'human' in different ways. A person is a moral agent with rights and duties. Not all humans are persons, and there might be persons who aren't human. Many anti-abortion campaigners don't make this distinction in their language. But I think my entry needs to be clearer about this. I'll rework it

Kea - you're right about everything! I have changed embryo to foetus throughout, and hopefully have caught the required grammar changes too. This is a good spot - I could be accused of being even more biased had in my choice of lanaguage had I stuck with 'embryo'.

I've changed the title to "A philosophical examination of some common arguments in debates about abortion". Not exactly snappy, but there you go....

I've tried to rephrase the concluding paragraph, but I've just deleted it. You're right - there aren't any common platitudes that can be used here. It's not always a difficult choice, not always traumatic etc. I know this from the experience of some of my friends, but it's interesting how seldom that view is expressed - to the extent that I ended up writing something that I should have known wasn't strictly true. Thanks for the link - interesting reading....

I'll look for a good link to Singer. He's so infruiatingly fascinating that he deserves his own entry.

Could you give me an example of the kinds of arguments not represented in the entry?

Gnomon - typo fixed, along with a few spelling errors.

Otto, I remembered this convo the other day, sorry I haven't been back. The current abortion thread on Ask prompted a reply today.

>>
Could you give me an example of the kinds of arguments not represented in the entry?
<<

I need to have a think about this. Are you wanting 'formal' arguments eg ones that have come from specific people or disciplines? Or shall I just outline what I am aware of? Mostly it comes from feminist cultures, alot to do with grassroots and coalface women and their beliefs about abortion and the abortion debate, the more 'pragmatic' approach I supppose. I've read formal theory too though and could probably dig up some more.

It might take me a while though, as I'm a bit snowed under at the mo.


>>
I'll look for a good link to Singer. He's so infruiatingly fascinating that he deserves his own entry.
<<

Absolutely

What's happening with this Otto?

I've taken this out of the EWW, as I haven't done anything on this for some time. I'd like to get this finished and into PR, but it's difficult to see how I'm going to have time in the near future. That being the case, I've pulled it from the EWW for now, but will hopefully return to this at some point.