Somehow what started in the article as a moral discussion, has now deteriorated into legal and societal issues.

These are three different topics:

1. What is morally acceptable.
2. What is legally acceptable.
3. What is accepted by society.

There is no strong connection between the three, nor should there be any.

Regarding morality - I presented my views on page 3.

Regarding legality - killing one's own baby should not be illegal, whether born or otherwise: it's none of the state's business unless either at least one of the parents or (later) the child herself registers the child with the state (this most often happens when parents ask the state to pay for their maternity hospital-services or to provide them a paid maternity leave, etc.).

Regarding societal attitudes - they are fleeting, whimsical and vain: people are entitled to their ideas (for example that married women should or should not work), but others are entitled to ignore them. In any case, whatever parents do reflects on them personally, not on society.

So can we please stay on the topic?

continued

When my current wife went to university women could choose only nursing, teaching or library work. Occupational therapy opened up while she was there so she became an occupational therapist. Her insights into mathematics are wonderful although she has only had a high school education in the subject. I feel she would have been an ornament to any mathematical faculty if such an opportunity had been open to her. It is great that the situation is different now.

When I worked in the Netherlands one of my colleagues was a Christian who was deeply opposed to abortion. However, his group took responsibility. If they persuaded a pregnant women not to get an abortion they took upon themselves the responsibility to provide for the needs of the mother and child including the child’s higher education. I doubt that many who demand the right to harass women at abortion clinics would be willing to take on that responsibility.

Four of my grandchildren are girls. They are either in university or past it. Unlike their grandmothers or earlier female ancestors, they have the opportunity to do anything they are capable of doing even though they are women. They also have the right to an abortion should they feel they need one. Men never need one, but some men feel they have a right to deny that right to women.

Sells has already told us of his contempt for women’s rights when he wrote: “The resort to a woman's right is a weak argument. Rights are inventions that sometimes stand for justice but at other times are just excuses for doing what we want.” It’s apparently horrible to Sells that a woman can do what she wants to do if it’s not something Sells wants her to do.

Sells would return us to those evil days – to that dark and ugly world where a woman was primarily a baby making machine.

Margaret Atwood wrote a novel about a dystopia which returned women to servitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale tells about the frightening vision of a world which could result from following the ideas of Sells.

Davidf,
Sorry you misconstrue, I am a bad person, I am out to destroy your world.
You may like to read something about logical positivism, now a dead movement. The following is long winded but good.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/

Contraception is another issue. I think the RC church has pushed its logic too far, a bit like the logical positivists!

I object to your painting me as some sort of male chauvinist pig. Of course the situation is fraught when pregnancies occur in situations when the father is absent and a home has not been established. But we, as a society have the means to support mother and child.

Susan,
Perhaps the father of the child should be in the picture. Perhaps, since they have had sex together they might consider forming a family. If this is out of the question one wonders why they were together in the first place. Society should support mothers who find themselves without a supportive father. You speak of childbirth as some horrendous thing when in all history it has been full of joy.

We have a lot of sex education in our schools and it does not seem to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps the sexual revolution was a mistake!

Dear Sells,

I don’t think you are a bad person. I don’t put people into such classifications. I don’t think you are a good person either. I think you are doing what you think is right. In my opinion what you think is right is very wrong.

You painted yourself as a male chauvinist. The word, pig, is something you added.

You wrote: “There are circumstances in which abortion should be condoned. But most abortions are done out of convenience.”

You also wrote: “The resort to a woman's right is a weak argument. Rights are inventions that sometimes stand for justice but at other times are just excuses for doing what we want.”

The first statement ignores whatever reason a woman has for getting an abortion. The second statement is pure male chauvinism. I assume you meant those statements, and, therefore, are a male chauvinist. Apparently to you a woman is a receptacle for a foetus (yes, that is the proper term.) and must, with rare exceptions, go to term.

You have made it clear that you place the foetus as more important than the pregnant woman.

You ignore reality. Childbirth in all history has not been full of joy. Many times it has resulted in the death of a woman who is giving birth. Many times the baby is unwanted. Many times an additional mouth to feed is a great burden. The reality is that sometimes childbirth is an occasion for joy, and many times is simply not so. You mouth untrue platitudes.

I didn’t use the words, male chauvinist pig, but your own words mark you as a male chauvinist.

I think the wisest philosopher is David Hume who said that reason is the slave of the passions.

I think you have a passion to keep your proper place in the world. That passion expresses itself by your justification of keeping women in their proper place – barefoot and pregnant.

I have a passion for female companionship. I find them most enjoyable when they are treated as fully functioning, free human beings

It amazes me that people are surprised at how barbaric ISIS is when we have people making excuses for such barbarity being legal in our own country. Feminist/secularist certainly do have much in common with ISIS.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Somehow what started in the article as a moral discussion, has now deteriorated into legal and societal issues. »
.

I think it is exactly the opposite that has occurred, Yuyutsu. Peter has seized upon a scandal that blew up recently over the allegedly corrupt (illegal) commercial and financial practices of the leading health care provider in the US, in order to oppose abortion.

Instead of debating the real issue which was the object (pretext?) of his article - the alleged corrupt (illegal) commercial and financial practices of Planned Parenthood of America - the debate has now “deteriorated” (to employ your expression) into a moral discussion on abortion.

As Peter clearly admits in his article: “This event has been a huge boon for anti-abortionists …” - before adding in the very next paragraph: “We are used to diversionary tactics in ethics”.
.

As I see it, the crux of the problem, like so many others, is the confrontation of antagonistic world views.

Peter has a very open mind in many respects, not in the least bogged down in archaic religious dogma, but occasionally, his mind seems to lapse back to obsolete concepts that may well have had good reason to exist 2,000 years ago - or more - but are no longer valid in this day and age.

Forth century BC Hippocratic oath is a good example. He makes no secret of his determined opposition to abortion and I should be surprised if he does not have a similar position on suicide and euthanasia.

But, you’re right, such questions are simple diversions. We really should “stay on the topic”.

What was it again ?

Oh yes. People from an anti-abortionist organisation, pretending to represent a Foetal Tissue Procurement Company, had lunch with Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and ... secretly recorded their conversation …

.