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.

Firesuit

Fascinating and quite shocking article!

Interesting that they say that if infanticide /post-birth abortion is held to be unethical, then by their arguments pre-birth abortion would be too.

I think the problem is that the people who argue most strongly pro life are misogynistic and quite aggressive, especially in the US. They don't have any compassion for the circumstances that might lead a woman to feel that she has no choice.

I also find that a lot of anti-abortionists jump on vulnerable women in very difficult situations and attack them for daring to consider terminating their pregnancies, and show absolutely no compassion. That's just wrong.

And I agree that no woman should be forced to carry a baby to term, but equally no woman should be forced into having an abortion. From what I've seen in some of the threads on here, it's all too frequently the case that partners or parents can pressure women into aborting.

I have noticed, though, that anyone who isn't totally pro-choice could feel that they're not allowed to offer an alternative opinion. I don't personally think that abortion should be encouraged in all circumstances. As has been pointed out, it shouldn't be a woman's choice if they're not happy about the sex of their baby. And the age limit should be brought down to 20/21 weeks except in a medical emergency.

But mostly, although I'm personally pro-life as a Christian myself, I really don't believe preventing women from having abortions is the answer. I don't see how the situation in Northern Ireland can be seen as anything other than lacking in compassion.

It's so emotive hence why it's hard to have a sensible debate.
Personally I wouldn't have one.. unless medically necessary, but I recently discovered even that view isn't simplistic. Without going into detail I had to have a pregnancy removed because my life was at risk and even then I'm struggling with awful feelings of guilt.
BUT at the same time, I believe people should have the choice to do what they feel best for their bodies. I don't need to like or even understand other people's choices, it's not my business.
In this incredibly complex debate everyone would do well to remember that we are all different and what is right for you will be wrong for the next person.

I am deeply uncomfortable with that article. Who decides whether someone is capable of attributing value to their own existence? That kind of judgement seems to take us down a rather slippery slope not just in terms of infants but also people with severe disabilities, who may not be able to communicate whether or not they value their life.

It also ignores the very significant difference pre- and post-birth, in that pre-birth the foetus is completely dependent on its biological mother for continuing life whereas post-birth, the baby's survival does not depend on a specific individual; it needs to be cared for but those needs can be met by people other than the biological mother.

The Netherlands has post birth abortions under the Groningen Protocol

“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.”

The problem is their definition, really.

A suicidal person doesn't fit that definition, yet no one would argue that they had ceased to become a person.

I think what really prevents any meaningful discussion is people bringing late term abortions into it. You can't just simply turn up at 30 weeks and announce you want an abortion, there has to be really serious need. Even past 16 weeks you can't just waltz in and say that on reflection you'd rather not go through with it.

I'd love an answer to the following scenario from someone who believes that the foetus is a baby with equal human rights.

If you were pregnant, and you had the choice between saving yourself, and your older living child, how would you decide? Would you view it as having to choose between your two children, or would your first instinct be to save your older child, with zero deliberation about whether it should be you and the 'unborn child' instead?

I find it interesting that euthanasia is much more clear-cut as an issue, with massive public support.

I often wonder if it's because elderly/sick people are inherently less "cuddly" in the eyes of the general public. Or, is it a protective urge to protect "the youngest" in society at all cost, even if that "protection" is actually pretty illogical and ill-thought out (save the baby; dump it in an orphanage - not our problem, now it's born)?

"Pro life" is probably a mish-mash of all these things, with misogyny thrown in as well, and some religious ideas about shame/punishment for sex.

Pro-life arguments seem just so intensely easy to criticise and hard to back up. It is easy to picket an abortion clinic and yell about murdered babies. It is slacktivism. If they were opening homes for children, adopting unwanted babies and campaigning for contraception, it would be internally logical consistent. But, as a belief system, it doesn't seem to hold together.

(sorry, rambling on... very good and interesting thread).

The gronigen Protocol is only in regards to severely ill newborns, it is not about a mother's choice not to continue with a pregnancy/bring up a child. It is a form of euthanasia, not abortion.

I think with euthanasia, people see it as more hastening something that's going to inevitably happen anyway. If someone is in pain and not going to get better, it's perceived as a way to end the suffering.

Whereas even the shittest childhood is going to end eventually, and the rest of someone's life might be much better.

(It's late, and I'm not explaining myself well)

....and is basically only implemented when the poor baby has no chance at living anyway. A bit misleading to mention it on an abortion ethics debate as if it is a policy that agrees with the concept of post term abortion.

By the same logic as above how many women have the pro choice rd living in thier home. The women who feel they have no choice but to abort due to their circumstances homelessness or poverty? If they really support choice they should be supporting the women that feel they have no choice but too abort

Of course life begins at the moment of conception. Everything that makes that person who they are is there.

I don't think that's "of course" at all. The instructions to form a human are there, but that isn't the same as a person being there. If you read instructions on how to build a shed, that doesn't mean the shed already exists. You can imagine what the shed might look like, how you might look after it etc. but it still doesn't exist yet.

"Life" doesn't have the same meaning at all times. Plants are alive but they don't have brains. Likewise, in early pregnancy a foetus doesn't develop a brain, awareness or connected nervous system. It simply contains the instructions to do so later.

Even if there is such a thing as a "soul", why should it appear from day 1 of pregnancy? Everything else develops gradually.

And to me euthanasia, while an altogether different ethical mine field, is more clear cut because isn't the whole concept of euthanasia being ethical based only on circumstances where the person in question wants to die, as in, they are suffering and want to end their life? For me personally respecting the wishes of someone who is already dying and suffering in life is quite a different issue to the ethics of aborting a baby, who could be perfectly healthy and normal and live a full life - that's the difference to me.

Smiling I suppose that makes sense, it's about hope and optimism. Maybe it's misplaced in a lot of cases, though.

It's probably largely defined by individual experience and background; people who have had opportunities, or good mental health, or a loving mentor in their life are more likely to assume that a change of fortune is inevitable.

Religion is supposed to be quite a good guard against depression. I've read that depressed people are more realistic in a sense as they lack the optimistic qualities we develop to shield us from the nastiness of life. Obviously, this shield is valuable to us. But sometimes it can make things seem too rose-tinted. Maybe growing up with strong faith in a god blinds people to some of the human realities.

I find it hard to have a measured discussion on this topic because I live in Ireland and have been affected by the lack of safe legal abortion. I was 18, alone travelling to a foreign country at a cost of well over 1000e. I stood in the line at the airport afterwards gushing blood and passing clots, feeling like I might black out. I had been awake for over 24hrs at that point, I couldn't afford to stay over night at a hotel. I have never felt so alone and sad and vulnerable.
In Ireland at the moment pro lifers have a 'love both' campaign where they purport to care about the woman as well as the unborn and it makes me feel sick to my stomach. They certainly didn't care about me.
It's all well and good having measured discussions when you live in a country where it is legal but when you live in a country where once you get pregnant you lose any say over your body it's not so easy.

This video explains some of the problems Ireland's women face in pregnancy because of some people's pro life stance www.bustle.com/p/pregnant-women-in-ireland-discuss-the-devastating-effect-of-the-countrys-abortion-ban-74328

I'm currently trying to get tubal ligation so I will hopefully never have to worry about being pregnant here again but even with this I have been advised by my Dr not to be referred to my local hospital because I want be approved because of their pro-life stance. So no I can't have a measured discussion about it when people's pro-life beliefs have effected me so badly.

euthanasia is with the patients consent

Are newborns able to consent?

Everything that makes that person who they are is there.

Not everything, or they would pop out of their mother there and then. They develop for 9 months in the womb, then it takes years for the rest to follow. The brain keeps developing up until the age of 21, for example.

It is more like a person-seed than a person.

Additionally, I would argue that experience defines a person as equally as genetics. An experience-less person, a tabula rasa, has no real personality beyond basic temperament.

Mum Technically, euthanasia does not involve consent, you're thinking of assisted suicide. But I'm being pedantic because I think most people use euthanasia as a shorthand for that.

Animals can't consent, but we euthanise them. Some are much more intelligent than babies, and far moreso than a foetus. How do you navigate that discrepency?

I had an abortion. I was 19, in an abusive relationship and on the polo, but had been unwell and it failed. I found out I was pregnant and told my boyfriend at the time. His only words on the matter were "you'd better get down the clinic and get rid of it or I'll kick it out of you". I managed to convince two doctors at my GP surgery that I was too depressed and it would harm my mental health to have a baby. I then went to BPAS and arranged the termination. On the day of the procedure, my boyfriend drove me there and walked in with me, telling me that if I whispered a word about it being under duress, and left before getting rid, he would kick it out of me - again it was very clear that I had to tow the line. I woke up from the general anaesthetic sobbing. The next day was Christmas Eve and I was still bleeding when he raped me.

I have had a healthy pregnancy since with my lovely DH, and several miscarriages. I still hate myself for having the abortion, but mainly because I can't have another baby. My mental health has never really recovered - ironic that I lied about depression to get the abortion but now it is always with me.

Despite this awful experience, I am definitely pro choice. I may not have made that choice of my own free will, but there is no way I could have had that baby and still been alive to tell the tale. If he had decided not to try to perform an at home abortion, I would have been tied to that man for life.

I don't think that there are very many women who use abortion as a contraceptive measure. But there are lots of women who are abused, who are so grateful that they can make that choice. It may mess with their heads after (like it did me, although not everyone has that reaction, and that's probably much healthier) but at least it is an autonomous choice that they can make.

It is still not (as you were implying) a form of post term abortion in that a woman can request it due to any choice other than extremely exceptional circumstances where the newborn is believed to be suffering greatly as well as having virtually no chance of surviving. Also i its simplest terms no, euthanasia is not defined by consent. It is simply the ending of a life to prevent suffering.

Also Mum I can't make sense of your latest post, what do you mean by your pro choice comments? Are you implying that people who are pro choice are actually just pro abortion? Because that has already been covered on this thread and it is pretty clearly not the case.

*on the pill. Although a polo would probably have been just as useful.

I’m very pro-choice, but I think your right that it’s not simple. The view that it’s simply the woman body is very simplistic and doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny - but it’s an effective top level view to guide your own beliefs to reach a conclusion.

It’s not universal, but I suspect that before conception the vast majority of people have no sentiment about the constituent cells. I find it difficult to hear that “life” begins at conception, as the cells were alive before conception - but i’ll take it as meaning belief of when a human is formed rather than life.

However, the human body naturally fails many pregnancies that are not viable at this point - so it’s not clear this is really significant. Additionally still after another 12 days or so the cells can split into twins, so the point of individual humans is ambiguous.

Equally, when does the baby acquire its own rights. It would seem very strange to believe most people would consider the baby that has just been born still attached to its mother is still part of the mother’s body - and five minutes earlier whilst still inside I doubt many would disagree there is no real difference.

So, there must be some point when the baby/foetus acquires it’s own rights - and the discussion is really when this is. So despite being pro-choice, the rights at conception argument could be a viable choice - but the logical conclusion of pro-choice, it’s the mothers choice until born is not viable imo. It is possible for a mother to die and the baby to survive, so the baby must be independent at that point.

It’s also not the case in society we don’t recognise parents have responsibilities. They have the responsibility to keep their children safe and to feed them - there is no reason to consider a embryo anything in another state of being fed and looked after - arguably it is not part of the mother’s body as the DNA in every cell is different.

I am not suggesting this, but a society could choose that the independent child inside the mother is the responsibility for the mother to keep safe, and any action that increases risk to the child is illegal - a society could choose that drinking whilst pregnant is illegal as a child protection issue.

We also consider someone dead when they cease brain activity. Although unpleasant, stabbing someone who has no brain activity is not murder. So, as a personal perspective I believe the point where the embryo acquires rights is similar - its when there is brain activity. Up to this point despite being a separate organism I don’t believe the embryo has consciousness, and whilst is “life” the human is not alive. After this point I believe the mother has a child and it is now her responsibility to look after the child.

I don’t know, but I suspect brain activity that we would call being “not dead” in later life is detected at around 25 weeks and this is the reason we limit abortion to 24 weeks. It could be better rather than choosing a timescale to simply see whether we can detect brain activity and use that, but I can understand the necessity of keeping it simple.

So all in all I think we’ve probably got it right - choice up to the point of consciousness and then responsibility rather than choice after consciousness. I would personally make it an absolute choice of the mother before consciousness - we essentially have it, but the right is cloaked.

The decision though is societies, not the individuals - and my rationale is just one voice in society. You may not agree, but if we can decide it’s valid to prohibit people from taking drugs and taking their own life - then there is nothing to suggest people have sole rights to control of their bodies in most societies.