To think abortion law is a tough nut to crack?

[chandellina]

so the Telegraph has revealed doctors allowing abortion on sex-selection grounds. I see a couple threads on In the News expressing disgust over this, a view shared by many, I'm sure.

But as far as I understand you can have an abortion on demand for just about any reason - not feeling able to cope, not feeling financially secure, too young, too old.

So even if you were terminating for gender, couldn't you just give another reason? And if you believe in a woman's absolute right to choose - why require a stated reason at all?

My point is that the law seems very flimsy, and why be moral about sex selection and not other things - like terminating because a pregnancy interferes with a desired age gap between children, or it otherwise not being "the right time." I know there are cultural issues involved too with gender selection, but those probably are also in play for women coerced by family not to have a child out of wedlock, etc.

thoughts?

why is this such a difficult nut to crack?

civilised society recognises that abortions are necessary in some circumstances, therefore they need to be carried out by properly qualified medical professionals. thats it. end of. no further discussion needs to happen.
im prolife, not pro choice btw.

white that would never happen and is a totally different situation for soooooo many reasons.

Peanut, I know it would never happen, but hypothetical situations are still very useful for highlighting certain things.

Yes, it is a totally different situation, but certain key things remain the same... one life being dependent on another life, and the rights/choices involved of each party.

The scenario is designed the way it is to focus solely on those issues (as are also applicable to abortion).

Why can't we just discuss the actual subject itself without reporting to hypotheticals and extreme examples?

Because hypotheticals are extremely useful for highlighting specific issues within a complex dilemna... including the one that is the actual subject. :)

I think the complexities of the dilemma means that resorting to hypotheticals just confuses things. Talking about hypothetically being attached to someone else's kidney isn't really going to address the issue of whether aborting based on gender is ethical or whether providing abortions to 24 weeks is necessary.

Providing abortions for social reasons until 24 weeks is necessary.

My last post was a correction to my previous one I case there is any confusion...

No, but it is talking about the rights of the mother (attachee) vs the rights of the embryo/fetus/baby (attached), which is one of the core underlying dilemnas underlying the entire debate.

I am not firmly on one side or the other of the debate... but this is a scenario someone else posed to me once, and it highlighted the whole situation in a way I'd never looked at before.

should fathers get a say in any of this? ds just asked me that. I said no.

Remains and bumbley- I was never disputing that a 22 week foetus can feel pain

That is not an argument for me against terminations, though.

And yes, I think months of invasive treatment would be infinitely more painful than a single injection that stops the heart. Obviously.

Good question about fathers - do they have any rights? Maybe in some US state?

I don't feel the issue is about the foetus being "a baby" or "a real person" - for me it's about whether it is physically dependent on the mother. I truly believe that a woman has a fundamental right to withdraw her support of the foetus at any point she wishes.

Why can't we just discuss the actual subject itself without reporting to hypotheticals and extreme examples?

I was talking about myself I was hospitalized at 12 after hemorrhaging now been told nearly 30 years on it was most probably a miscarriage. Only just dealing with everything now.

Rita,

I guess it means what you mean by "withdraw support" and who you have to co-opt in order to achieve it? Do you mean abort as in give a lethal injection to a viable foetus or do you mean induce birth and allow the baby to take its chances outside the mother?

Also, if you are going to be consistent, newborns are pretty dependent on their parents. Left to their own devices, they will quickly die. Do you think it is OK for a mother to leave a refuse to "support" her newborn baby and allow it to dehydrate to death? And, if not, why not? Clearly that newborn is using the resources (in most senses) of a living breathing woman (or man).

"Also, if you are going to be consistent, newborns are pretty dependent on their parents."

Maybe you have to have had the wonderful feeling of freedom you get after you've given birth to know how different the dependence of a newborn is from the dependence of a foetus.

I think your other point gets to the heart if this though - between 24 weeks and birth there is a period when a foetus could potentially survive on its own.

I can certainly see the argument that a woman has, in theory, the absolute right to withdraw her support for a foetus, but I'm not sure that means she has the moral right to insist of the foetus's termination.

The practical reality of this - inducing the birth of a 24 week old foetus and just seeing whether it made it - seems insupportably cruel to me.

That's why the compromise of a lack of access to abortion (without medical reason) between 24 weeks and birth is acceptable to me.

I don't accept arguments that just want to lower the limit because they find abortions distasteful and want to make it harder for women to access them.

Athing,

Not all women would agree about the "wonderful freedom". I know some women who have had wonderful pregnancies and appalling sleep deprivation with newborns. I think it is quite personal.

I tend to agree with you re the current position. However, it is a weak moral argument, ultimately. What if we get to a position at some point in the future that we can construct an artificial womb outside the body and support a foetus outside the mother from birth. Then should we ban abortion altogether?

For me, abortion will always have to be a trade off between the rights of the foetus/baby and the rights of the mother. And, following that logically, you have to decide at what point a foetus is no longer a bundle of cells and becomes in some sense a human being. I guess that has to be something to do with its ability to think/feel emotion/pain etc.

I will always support a woman's right to early abortion without giving any reasons. However, beyond a certain point, I will never support it. I guess, for me (and it is personal) it will be somewhere between 18 and 24 weeks.

"Never" being a simple form of not unless the mother's health or life are in danger or the foetus is desperately damaged and has no chance of a reasonable life....before I get jumped on!

larry - a woman doesn't have to care for their newborn, they could leave it at the hospital if they want to.

But, I would also support a parent's right to refuse medical treatment to prolong the life of a very premature baby.

Rita,

Really? With no consequences? I doubt it. Even then, they are at least giving the newborn a chance at life. Abortion of a foetus is the equivalent of leaving a newborn in a cot for a few days, unattended. They are withdrawing support and offering no alternative.

"What if we get to a position at some point in the future that we can construct an artificial womb outside the body and support a foetus outside the mother from birth. Then should we ban abortion altogether?"

If that were the case, why would we need abortion?

As you say, abortion is a balancing of rights. That balancing is massively complicated by the complete physical dependence of one being on the other.

It's the dependence (and I do think it's a different quality of dependence than a newborn on its parents) that makes this so hard to legislate.

If that dependence is broken, then why would I need an abortion? If continuing the gestation of the foetus presented no necessary compromise of my bodily integrity, by what right could I demand the death of the foetus?

Yes larry, you can give up care of a newborn if you want to. The baby would be placed in the care of the state and then adopted.

Abortion isn't the equivalent of leaving a baby in a cot, it's the equivalent of giving a baby a lethal injection.

Sorry I cant cope with a thread where people are suggesting that it is acceptable to kill a baby at up to 40 weeks just because the 'mother' has decided it isnt convenient.
I always thought I was pro-choice as I accept that sometimes difficult choices have to be made but that!!!!! I now see why the opposite of pro-life is pro-death.That is not a stance I ever want to take.For me a cut off at 16 even 20 weeks and very careful counselling when the reasons are social rather than medical.

Well then bugger off, because we are suggesting just that.

It never ceases to amaze the control people think they should have over others bodies.

Athing,

You might desire an abortion as a right over the procreation of your genes. It is not just about convenience. If you had a one night stand and found at 3 weeks pregnant that you did not want that embryo, even if they could find a way of sustaining it to birth outside the body, i think it would be reasonable to desire that not to happen.