Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

I absolutely agree that no one has authority over anyone's body other than the person whose body it is.

As I said, however, this is a question of two bodies: the mothers AND the baby's. In the case of the latter, the body clearly has relevance to the father; he could be said to have an interest in it. Abortions affect all parties (not in equal measure, obviously); does that mean the father has associated rights? I don't know. I can see what many people think here, but I don't know.

baddancing - you aren't talking about responsibility there, you're talking about control.

It isn't that the father has no responsibility for the foetus (although legally nothing is required of him), it's that he has no right to say what happens to the mother. For instance, with IVF the father has as much say as the mother about embryos that haven't been implanted, but once it's inside the mother she is the conduit - he can provide support but has no control, because he has no authority over the mother'sr body.

I don't think your kidney analogy is helpful to the case although I do see where you're trying to go with it.

I think that you are saying that a woman has absolute control over her body even when there is another person growing within that body. This is a pov, but this is an ethical question for me and therefore open to debate. I'm absolutely pro-choice btw, but I do think that this is a case of two people's rights: mother AND child.

I'm unsure how you ratify a belief that the father has no responsibility for a child before it's born, but joint responsibility thereafter (I'm making an assumption here - namely that you would object to the assigned gender role of mothers as being primarily responsible for child care...)

baddancingdad

The relevant question, for me, concerning abortion is the point at which someone acquires human rights - in this case the right to life.

Not really. You can accept that a foetus has a right to life from conception if you wish, provided it does not have a right to use another person' body that makes absolutely no difference.

Everyone on the kidney transplant waiting list has a right to life, however they do not have a right to one of my kidneys if I choose not to donate it, even though I can carry on living just fine with one kidney (in fact losing one kidney could have less impact on my health than carrying to term and delivering a baby) and they may well die without it.

As to the fathers, I think they should have a say in terms of what treatment is offered if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy of a viable baby before term.

Otherwise, they can have a say the day they become able to have the foetus implanted into their bodies and carry it to viability.

Sorry lambethlil .

I shall try to restrain myself from responding to any more such utterly idiotic and nonsensical posts from Voldemort.

Voldemort is an evolutionary cul de sac.

Leave it lonely I really don't think she should be encouraged to air her bile.

voldemort, that is complete and utter bollocks.

I take it you also oppose immunisation, antibiotics, surgery and all other forms of medicine? These remove the need for humanity to evolve themselves away from vunerability to disease and infection, after all.

I'm not sure I agree with you discrete. The relevant question, for me, concerning abortion is the point at which someone acquires human rights - in this case the right to life. Is it upon birth? You seem to suggest that it is certainly at this point at the least - or rather that the rights of the mother are ALWAYS a priority over the rights of the child.

I am not saying I have an answer to the question; but I do think that the question involves the rights of at least two people*: the mother and the child.

I am also uneasy with the notion that the father has no rights at all in this issue in any circumstance.

I'm not British so it doesn't really matter, but I'd support lowering it to 20 weeks, disabled or not. In fact I'd do 12 or maybe 16.

Someone posted awhile ago that she was of the view that a woman could demand that the fetus be removed at any point, but not demand that it be killed. I agree.

Oh the irony of voldemort citing Darwin.
I have never read such unenlightened tosh. I'd ask you to defend your views, but i don't want to encourage hate speech.
Twat.

I think women should always be able to terminate a pregnancy, whatever the term. It is her body that it bearing the strain of carrying the baby, and if at whatever point she decides she no longer wishes to do that to herself, she should have the right to stop.

Whether or not that leads to the death of the foetus is not relevant to that discussion. However, it is a different and much more difficult discussion as to what should happen to a baby that is born as a result of such a termination and is viable, with or without medical intervention. In fact it's two different discussions, depending on whether or not the baby requires medical intervention.

Think of it this way. Suppose medical knowledge was such that someone's cancer could be treated using cells from a donor (with a suitable genetic match). Suppose that the treatment required the donor to have daily sessions for nine months, and take a number of drugs which affected them quite strongly. Early on in the process, the patient would have no chance of surviving if the treatment was interrupted, but later on there would be some chance, increasing right up to the end of the treatment at nine months.

Do you really think that the donor should, because they agree to undertake the treatment initially, have a legal obligation to see it through to the end regardless of what it is doing to them, physically and/or mentally?

I cannot imagine a developed legal system which would impose such an obligation on the donor.

Presumably you aren't disabled Voldemort.

I have just read your post voldemort and am dumbfounded. I hardly know where to start with such an inhumane view...

Oh dear fucking god!

Two fingers that's heartbreaking.

twofingers your user name rocks

Women will have abortions anyway - they always have done, they always will do.

And many die/cause themselves serious injury in the process:

Here's something for the 'pro-lifers' to chew over...

...According to the World Health Organisation and Guttmacher, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus). They also concluded abortion is safe in countries where it's legal, but dangerous in countries where it's outlawed and performed clandestinely. The WHO reports that in developed regions, nearly all abortions (92%) are safe, whereas in developing countries, more than half (55%) are unsafe. According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths. Worldwide, 48% of all induced abortions are unsafe.

source

Another question for the anti-choicers is simply this:
Say you get your way and Abortion is illegal/restricted.

Women will have abortions anyway - they always have done, they always will do.

When they do, they will have broken the law. How should they be punished? Prison? Fines? Who will pay to prosecute these women? How will taxpayer funds support their punishment? Should the doctors/nurses who perform these illegal abortions be punished too? Prison? Fines? Being Struck off?

People imagine they can wave a magic want and stop all abortions, but it doesn't work like that, and never has.

There are babies who don't survive at 27-30 weeks.

It might be a fairer discusssion if women actually could have an early termination on the NHS. But in reality, it takes months, pushing them right to the edge of the limits. What about young girls whose cycles haven't even established yet, it might take them months to be sure they are pregnant?

Yes, you decide to have consensual sex, but contraception can go wrong, and some people can't use certain methods, because they are allergic to them.

Whilst it is lovely and fluffy to say that a 23-week foetus is a baby, what about the women who are so desperate they have to have an abortion? Who have struggled to get one? Who are at the limit? Where the very act of giving birth will endanger the life of the mother and baby for some reason?

Life is not black and white, and rules need to reflect this

@ AThing

Well said!

LonelyCloud - I've read that too.
Another thing is that possible death during or soon after childbirth isn't the only risk - I have friends who still struggle with physical problems and/or have had to have vaginal reconstruction have bowel/bladder/uterine prolapses etc. All because of pregnancy and childbirth. Saying 'there's always adoption' doens't negate all of that.