To be frustrated that it's impossible to have a discussion on abortion ethics....

[coconuttella]

On one side there's those who believe an embryo has fully human rights from conception, and on the other those who believe the foetus has no rights at all until birth.

Both sides seem to put forward their position forcefully and dogmatically as though they're stating the obvious, and anyone who thinks the ethics surrounding it may be a more complex is shouted down, especially by some on the pro-chioice side who seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with their stance as a misogynistic slave of the patriarchy.

Personally, I'm not in either camp and find the ethical questions complex, with this being brought home the other evening when I was reading that Incas didn't regard babies and toddler as having human status until the age of 3-4 (where they had a ceremony to mark this rite of passage) and no longer totally dependent on their mothers and past the most perilous time wrt child mortality. It made me question again my thoughts on when we should a human should acquire rights, and frustrated me that any discussion on this immediately degenerates into a slanging match.

Just like men, who as you will have noticed, are ALWAYS able to refuse to donate a kidney to a dying child. Hell, they are even entitled to do that after their own DEATH.

I think you'll find women are able to refuse this too. Not sure why it would only be men who can refuse organ donation...

"after the birth the baby can be cared after by a lot of people."

But this doesn't change the principle, that whoever was looking after the baby it would still be entirely dependent on others and unable to survive without them. Would it be ok to say that it was theirs to dispose of if they didn't want to care for it?

The overwhelming majority of women who have abortions have the procedure carried out before the 12 week mark, so I find all the discussion about "late term abortions" a bit of a red herring.

Fair point that it's not just a mother who can look after a baby after birth, but that doesn't change the argument at all... As I posted earlier:

I don't see why it is self-evident that "someone being dependent on some other person = they have a right to life" whereas "someone being dependent on their mother alone = they don't have a right to life".

Pro lifers are actively against rape convictions and want to ban disabIility support now?

What sort of horse shit is that?

Is this real life?!?

As someone who has had an abortion for none medical reasons, ( 8 weeks -10 weeks) I have found this thread interesting.

I personally had one as I got pregnant at 19 , single ,mid uni - I was taking the pill , had one accident and took a morning after pill and got pregnant ( I know - the odds!). At the time I wasn't in an appropriate place to bring a child into this world, and personally am of the view that I may not even want to have children at all due to long term severe phobia of childbirth so you can perhaps imagine my horror.

I knew instantly I didn't want to go through with this, I was distressed every day until I could be treated ( vomiting through stress and anxiety - crying to the point of being sick and luckily was able to go private and be seen quicker).

If I was unable to access these services, would that have changed my situation? No. I would have, by any means necessary 'dealt with the problem' - more than likely ordering potentially dodgy drugs from the internet.

I do agree that potentially there should be some limit for none medical reasons - I had a cousin who had premmies at 24 weeks so I feel conflicted- but ultimately the right to choose what happens to your own body is most important to me.

Really do agree with 'pro-birthers' reality = typically not pro life in the sense of welfare / support / adoption.

All of these people who talk about "adoption for unwanted babies" = ok how many have you adopted then?????

BertieBotts it seems to me that you have missed OP's point, which was to say that both 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' positions make abortion simple, whereas in fact there are many difficult and intractable ethical issues which are really hard to find your way through.

As I've said before, even if no-one ever aborts at term, if it is a possibility allowed by legislation the ethical issues are still there. In fact, that is what legislators must do: test the ethics not against what most people will do but against what it is possible to do once a law has been passed.

In 2013 in the UK

Late term abortions
1 at 39 weeks
3 at 38 weeks and
2 at 37 weeks
190 after 24 weeks

Pro lifers are actively against rape convictions and want to ban disabIility support now?

Why do some people have to dumb this down with a Daily Express style sound bite? Infuriating! Pro-lifers are not some homogenous group! It reinforces my original point that some are determined to turn this into a partisan slanging match in which they parrot their mantras and refuse to engage in the arguments!

All of these people who talk about "adoption for unwanted babies" = ok how many have you adopted then?????

Quite. there are hundreds of children in this country looking for homes. If it were as simple as just adopting babies, we'd not have so many children waiting.

I have also become more pro choice since having a child and miscarriages. Women have always been controlled by childbearing which is something men can never experience, so it should always be the woman's choice of when,how, why , and with whom she has children or does not have children.

Up until birth? Does abortion exist in third trimester (except stillborn but I wouldn't call it abortion because they don't do it the way they do first trimester)

Why do some people have to dumb this down with a Daily Express style sound bite? Infuriating! Pro-lifers are not some homogenous group! It reinforces my original point that some are determined to turn this into a partisan slanging match in which they parrot their mantras and refuse to engage in the arguments!

Why don't you refute Bertiebots post then where they made those points?

@GreatFuckability oh there are lots of people just waiting to adopt,but always "other" people. Not them ofc.

And who in their right mind would want to go back to the days of coat hangers, knitting needles, etc that have been used in the past to end pregnancy? Women deserve the choice of safe abortions. The films, If These Walls Could Talk and Vera Drake have both hunted me since first viewings and made me appreciate how far women's rights have come.

Some really interesting opinions here. Those that are on the extremes will tend to attempt to shut down this type of discussion, but they are a minority. It's an important debate and I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the conflict between the rights of a woman over her own body and the rights of an unborn child who is dependent on the mother but also a separate human life.

The interplay between the theory/ethics and the practicalities is also interesting. Quite a few people try to counter ethical arguments with practical ones, which I find a bit sleight-of-handy...

I think after conception it is just a few cells that should have zero rights. Just before birth a fetus could possibly have some rights. In between it is a gray area. Either way a woman does have rights over their own body and therefore should have the final say over what happens to it.

I find the terms pro-choice and pro-life quite deceptive. Someone who is pro choice is usually pro life. The correct descriptive terms would be forced-birthers and pro-women's rights.

I find it very distressing that some people think we should go back to horrific back street abortions.

Wasn't services at some Marie stopes suspended earlier this year over health and safety concerns and trying to give a woman an abortion without her consent?

I think 'Pro abortion rights' and 'anti abortion rights' would be slightly more neutral terms.

Mumof56

Yep, but 92% of abortions are carried out before the 12 week mark in the UK, so I still think the discussion of late term abortions in relation to the abortion debate is a red herring.

I'm pro choice; as early as possible and as late as necessary.

I'm also pro abortion. Pro safe, legal abortion for any woman who needs or wants one.

I'm not sure why pro-lifers like to throw "pro abortion" around like it's a bad thing. Unless they'd like to now be referred to as forced birthers?

I was interested to see that some cultures do not give a baby full rights until some time after birth. I recall a few years ago there was something in the news about a medical ethics paper which concluded that "abortion" (probably not the right word) should be allowed up until some time after birth.

Found it:-

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

and

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

I believe and would like it if you had to go before a panel in order to obtain the rights to have an abortion. The panel should include a mother who has had one, a couple who can't conceive, a doctor, a nurse and maybe some sort of mental health expert?

Why isn't it a good idea to have a variety of perspectives from people before a woman makes a life changing choice? Would you make such a life changing decision blind?
That's like going to university to get a degree without reading the syllabus. It's like buying a car without having a test drive? I am confused.

A panel?!

You say having an abortion is a 'life changing decision' mowgeli - for many women it isn't - it's not 'life changing' in the least.

For me, carrying & giving birth to a baby is far more life changing than an abortion.

Surely (using your logic) it would make more sense to put pregnant women before a panel before they're allowed to continue with a pregnancy?

I don't know why people are comparing an abortion up to 24 weeks to an abortion after 24 weeks.
After 24 weeks there has to be a medical reason for a termination and if that is after 24 weeks so be it.
If you are told your baby has a condition that is going to limit its life or other chromosomal conditions then don't you really think the parents are going through hell and have to make a decision to continue with the pregnancy or not.
If tfmr after 24 weeks are only 0.1% of all terminations why are people using that in an argument.
Those of us who had to make that choice have already been to hell and back.
You can't compare a 14 year old having a 3rd abortion to a person who is having a tfmr whether it's before or after 24 weeks the same.