Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 5th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Little basis for abortion



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

There is no human right for anybody to kill a healthy unborn baby, and such an act is really a violation of the Hippocratic oath. It is difficult to see what rational or humanitarian basis there can be for your debate on an upper limit for abortion (Burning Issue, 9 May).
Whether a healthy foetus at 23 weeks with conscious experience could survive independently of its mother has nothing to do with whether it is morally justifiable to abort it. What is certainly predictable is that, being defenceless, it would have no opportunity to survive being aborted and separated from its mother.

(DR) DAVID PURVES

Strathalmond Road

Edinburgh





The full article contains 112 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 May 2008 8:17 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Colin Edwards,

Dundee 13/05/2008 08:41:21
David Purves cannot be a "real" doctor, otherwise he would know that a foetus is NOT a baby. His is typical of the sloppy use of English and lack of logic which make arguments of the "pro-life" (actually anti-life)so pathetic and laughable.
2

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 13/05/2008 08:55:18
1

He would be a Dr of Philosophy dimwit which is why his comment is of a Philosophical nature and NOT a medical nature.

A baby isn't a fully formed human either, he/she cannot survive without constant attention for the first few years of it's life, does that mean it's ok to terminate it's life then when it becomes "Inconvenient", or a hinderance to a career or too expensive to keep?

What exactly is the difference to a baby inside the womb and one outside? Very little, both are utterly helpless and dependant on thier mothers for life support (from the age of conception to a few years old). Medical science may answer some questions but it cannot answer your moral questions. i.e. you have no morals.
3

Colin Edwards,

Dundee 13/05/2008 09:29:26
You prove my point, Dave from Barra - pathetic and laughable - sloppy English and lack of logic. If you don't know the difference between a viable human being (ie a baby) and an abstract noun (an unborn baby) you should keep your own comments abstract - ie to yourself.
4

Puzzler,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 10:37:52
#1 and #3 Sorry but I can't see how #2 has proved your point, which seems effectively to be that anyone who disagrees with you should shut up.

Termination is surely, at best, the least bad of a selection of grim options - and let's be clear it doesn't get any better. As far as viability goes; the foetus is "viable" unless there is a problem in which case the mother will miscarry or the child will die.

Abortion is a form of infanticide. Anything else is mere sophistry. I am not necessarily opposed to it in all circumstances, but it is high time that people faced the truth. Playing with words like baby and foetus doesn't change anything. A termination ends the process that would normally result in the birth of a human being. It's as simple as that.

People should take moral responsibility for their actions. If a woman decides for whatever reason to end a pregnancy, she is ending the life of her child. She should not take refuge in the pretence that she is doing something else. It's not a growth, a "ball of cells" or anything else. It's a very young human being, whether self aware or not.

Many ancient societies practiceed infanticide as a form of birth control. They at least made no bones about what they were doing. We on the other hand prefer to play games with language and turn our faces away and people like Colin Edwards, get very angry when anyone points out the reaility of the situation.
5

Gilbert McAdam,

Manila 13/05/2008 10:50:13
(In response to Colin Edwards, 1 and 3)
Both a born and an unborn baby are viable human beings. They are equally alive, but both are wholly dependent upon another human being for the continuance of that life. Moreover there is nothing abstract about an unborn baby: it is physical an entity as you or me. If you find that laughable and pathetic then I think the problem lies with you.

On what basis do you claim that the "pro-life" position is actually anti-life?
6

James,,

13/05/2008 11:16:25
#1,

"...a foetus is NOT a baby."

So what is it then? At conception, a zygote contains all the genetic information that the fully grown adult ever will.

Nothing is added, and nothing is taken away. The only difference between the zygote at the moment of conception, and the newborn baby, and indeed the fully-grown adult, is that it has developed and grown.

7

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 13/05/2008 13:11:32
Hmm, looks like you are the thicky Colin. By the way, I believe in freedom of Speech, unlike you. You, therefore by your logic, are a facist.

Looks like I and others bust your stupid, infantile and abstract argument wide open. How pathetic.
8

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 13/05/2008 13:14:36
...and laughable.
9

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 13/05/2008 15:10:03
#6 James,,

'At conception, a zygote contains all the genetic information that the fully grown adult ever will.

Nothing is added, and nothing is taken away. The only difference between the zygote at the moment of conception, and the newborn baby, and indeed the fully-grown adult, is that it has developed and grown.'

So what? There is more to our bodies than our genes. Furthermore, although a person has a body, a person is not merely a physical body.

Treat things as what they are, not what they might become. For instance, my body is a potential corpse. That is no reason for treating it as if it already were a corpse.
10

Shrink,

Dundee 13/05/2008 16:01:27
#9 - "Treat things as what they are, not what they might become"

Do you stop being a person when under general anaesthetic then? After all, what you ARE at that point is a body with no consciousness or self-awareness or ability to act or ability to survive without artificial respiration. What you MIGHT BECOME, all being well, once the anaesthetic wears off is a thinking conscious person with all the qualities that go with that.

Also, with that reasoning we might argue that to kill a healthy 2 week old infant is much less of a big deal than to kill a healthy 20 year old man or woman - & not much different from killing a 20 week old foetus.
11

James,,

13/05/2008 16:10:41
Hugh #9,

That your body is a potential corpse is not quite true. One day, your body WILL be a corpse, there is no "might" about it.

A zygote may have no recogniseably human features, but neither does a tadpole resemble a fully-grown frog. It is not a potential frog - left alone, it WILL develop all the recognisable features of a frog. It is a frog in its earliest stages of development, just as a zygote is a human being in its earliest stage of development. Left alone, it WILL develop all the recogniseable features of a human.

You are speaking metaphysically rather than scientifically though.

Logically, your argument claims that there is a point in development at which the unborn child becomes "a person."

1) What is "a person?"

2) Why is a zygote not "a person?"

3) At what point in gestation does a zygote become "a person?"

4) What has changed at that point?
12

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 13/05/2008 17:13:18
#11 James

'That your body is a potential corpse is not quite true. One day, your body WILL be a corpse, there is no "might" about it.'

No, my body might, for instance, be blown to smithereens.

'Logically, your argument claims that there is a point in development at which the unborn child becomes "a person." '

No, that is not my argument at all. I make a distinction between a person and a person's body.

'Why is a zygote not "a person?"'

Because it is the (very) partially developed body of a person.

'At what point in gestation does a zygote become "a person?"'

Never. My body is not a person. My body developed from a foetus, which developed from and embryo, which developed from a zygote.

'Left alone, it WILL develop all the recognisable features of a human [body]'

No, left alone it will die. It will only develop further if it is allowed to remain in a woman's womb. It is her business whether or not she is prepared to accommodate it.

'You are speaking metaphysically rather than scientifically though.'

Of course I am. As Dave from Barra (#2) correctly argues, science cannot help us much with the moral questions pertaining to abortion. For instance, whether or not a foetus, baby, teenager or adult is 'viable' is not of crucial moral importance.

The philosophy and the ethics of abortion are matters about which reasonable people might, reasonably, disagree and disagree without falling out with each other. In my view, it is not merely people who currently have living and fully developed human bodies who are due moral respect and to whom we have moral duties. What precisely these duties are is difficult to say. However, our concern with conservation and environmentalism would make little sense if we did not have such moral duties towards and concerning those who do not have currently living mature human bodies(although I think the importance of conservation and environmentalism might often be grossly exaggerated).
13

James,,

13/05/2008 20:51:15
Hugh,

Lloyd George's quotation about trying to pick up mercury with a fork springs to mind.

You have not answered question 1 - what is a person?

You make a distinction between a person and a person's body. So, at what point in gestation does the unborn child attain "personhood?"

"No, left alone it will die. It will only develop further if it is allowed to remain in a woman's womb. It is her business whether or not she is prepared to accommodate it."

Left alone, the zygote will develop and grow into a recogniseably human form. If the zygote/foetus/unborn child is torn from its mother's womb, it will die.

At what point in your opinion does it cease to be the woman's business whether she allows it to live or die?
14

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 13/05/2008 23:27:42
13 James,

'At what point in your opinion does it cease to be the woman's business whether she allows it to live or die?'

At delivery. Prior to that, although the woman might well be morally obliged not to have an abortion, in my view, there should be no legally obligation to refrain from aborting a foetus if a woman so wishes.

'You make a distinction between a person and a person's body. So, at what point in gestation does the unborn child attain "personhood?"'

Personhood is not something that begins or ends, in my view. A person can acquire a body, a personality and so forth but a person does not acquire personhood. The person into whose mature body a foetus might develop does not cease with the demise of the body and does not begin with its formation.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.