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.

*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?*

Assisted suicide is when the physician provides the means for death ie writes a prescription and the patient administers the dose on themselves

euthanasia is when the physician administers the lethal dose ie injects the patient with a lethal injection

Involunotary euthanasia without consent is called murder

Animals can be euthanized because the vet administers the dose

Euthanasia in humans involves consent. You might be pedantic but you are not correct.

You're dodging the fact that it is not relevant to the abortion debate though Mum. That might be the legal definition but ethically, the definition of euthanasia is to end a life to end suffering.

If you actually read the Groningen protocol, consent is given by the parents, but only as a form of euthanasia for a child that has been declared to be suffering and to have very little quality of life, as judged by medical professionals and then consented to by the parents.

In other words, it has nothing to do with abortion.

"is possible for a mother to die and the baby to survive" without being delivered? How?

Sorry about that, I was indeed incorrect.

You're dodging the fact that it is not relevant to the abortion debate though Mum

I'm not dodging anything? .

@whores fair play to you that's possibly the first time i've have seen someone on the internet state that!

AssassinatedBeauty - I don't know where I said "without being delivered", but irrespective it's still true whether delivered or not.

A mother can die due to lack of brain activity by definition - but her organs can function through artificial means and keep the baby alive. The baby is alive despite the mother being dead even before being delivered, and the baby can then be delivered by a doctor and still be alive.

But you were making misleading comments about so called post term abortions when it is actually completely irrelevant, which is quite insensitive.

Ah, it was the independent part that was confusing. It is stilly wholly dependent on the mother until it is delivered by doctors. Not sure how that makes it independent as well as alive?

Not sure how - I only made the point that I don't think there is any real difference between post-term and 5 minutes before birth. What is misleading?

Okay - I see your point, it can't survive independently of human activity - but neither can a child of 1.

What I meant by independent is that it can be alive outside of the timescale of the mothers life, and therefore is an independent being at that stage.

Not you Blink, Mumof56

"It is possible for a mother to die and the baby to survive, so the baby must be independent at that point"

I'm just not really sure what you mean by independent in the above sentence. A baby in utero is wholly dependent on the mother. How is that an independent entity? It can only become independent when it is outside the mother, surely? Do you mean "capable of being independent"?

But you were making misleading comments about so called post term abortion when it is actually completely irrelevant, which is quite insensitive

Another poster brought up a study. Did you see it linked? The writers argued that the same reasons given to support abortion can be extended to support post birth abortions. Neurons are still developing and the baby is not yet a person. Trauma during the birth or due to undetected conditions may cause damage to the existing family unit and/or the woman.I mentioned the Groningen protocol because it is a country where this is in practice. The study makes a good case for why the same logic for abortion can be extended post birth.

I was continuing that conversation. The point of life can be arbitrary. It has a lot to do with the ethics of abortion.

Sorry Blink, I mean my comment was aimed at someone else, who in the context of talking about post term abortions mentioned a policy in the Netherlands whereby a newborn can be euthanized with the approval of doctors and consent of parents only if the baby was suffering and usually unlikely to survive anyway.

I know it sounds as if I'm being pedantic but given the nature of the discussion and the dreadful circumstances that must occur to implement that particular policy, I found it highly distasteful of her to mention it as a quick one liner as if pointing out that in some countries post term abortions are a done thing based on the choice of the mother, as if it were the same as an abortion in terms of choice.

I see now perhaps what you were trying to say Mum but it's not really the same because the decision to euthanize anybody is not the same as saying that abortion and the point we deem it acceptable is arbitrary or debatable. That's not to say that it's not, just that comparing the euthanasia of a suffering infant to the availability/acceptable timescale of an abortion is not really logical or justifiable.

A child of 1 can survive without adult activity, they can breath and move independently after all. They're not wholly dependent on one specific person and wholly within that person's body.

And the fact is that euthanasia of adults is legal in the Netherlands too, so the protocol is clearly more in relation to their views of ending suffering than it is to do with abortion. It is not that they agree with the study linked (which I did read, and thought it was horrible), rather they are just extending the same laws they already have to infants.

not to say that it's not, just that comparing the euthanasia of a suffering infant

The second requirement addresses pain and suffering. The supporters admit that suffering is not measurable, even in adults, less so in the pre-verbal child.

Most of the medically stable children euthanized for presumed poor future quality of life were diagnosed with spina bifida. This condition may present a wide variety of clinical manifestations, most of which are treatable.

What I maybe should have said is "is a district human to the mother", i.e. is not considered part of the mothers body.

I think the word independent is just semantics - it has serval distinct meanings - and whilst I understand the use meaning "dependant on", it is also a synonym of "separate" or "discrete". The joy of the ambiguous English language.

It is still not about the choice of the mother in the same sense abortion is though, and certainly not relevant to the paper about justifying post term abortions, it does not address at all that it is okay to end these babies lives because they do not believe the child has a right to life. It is absolutely about euthanasia to end suffering and nothing else.

And I;m not sure what your point is about suffering not being measurable - they concede that it is not objectively measurable, but there are signs in non verbal infants to convey this. My point is not whether the law is ethical or not, my point is that is is definitely not based on their perception of a child's right to life. As in, whether you agree with it or not (which I am inclined not to in treatable conditions, but it's not my call to make), it is not seen as an abortive procedure but a form of euthanasia. Again it has nothing to do with seeing newborn infants as having less right to life than an adult, although there is of course the added complexity of the parents giving consent instead of the child (which obviously can't).

All I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a legal post term abortion, whereas legal euthanasia does exist for infants in exceptional circumstances in some places. It's an important distinction to make, especially if you are attempting to equate it to supporting the idea that late or even post term abortion is ethical (because it doesn't support that idea at all)

In utero a baby is definitely not separate or discrete from the mother. Of course it is human and has the possibility of becoming independent should it be born alive. But it has not yet attained that state.

AssassinatedBeauty - I think you may be trying to make a point that does not relate to what I am saying. I did not say anything about "wholly dependent on one specific person", and that certainly has nothing to do with being an independent person as I wrote it. A dependence for life on another is one of at least 5 meanings of the word independence -of which "separate" is also a valid meaning.

A child of 1 is not independent in terms of subsistence of another human - if only one person had the child, they would be wholly dependent on one specific person after birth. But the baby is an independent human (distinct/separate or any other synonym) irrespective of whether or not they are wholly dependent on one specific person. Equally on the other hand, why choose breathing, a baby before birth has a heart-beat and responds to stimulus - so by the same argument is equally independent given the meaning you are using.

It is a fact that in the dreadful circumstances that a mother has died, the child can still be alive (i.e. has brain activity). The life of the child is therefore completely independent of the life of the mother.

I do agree the child before being born is dependent on the mothers body for life support - but that neither means the baby is not an independent organism nor that it is dependant upon the mother being alive (the way we usually define it).

Anyway, time for sleep!

I think you're tangling yourself up in semantic knots trying to prove that a baby in utero is objectively a person equal to a born human. The relevant point for me is that a baby in utero is wholly dependant on the mother (by which I mean it gets everything it needs from her body whilst it remains in utero) and is also wholly within her body. Therefore it is the lesser consideration compared to the woman who is carrying it. Her wishes supersede its needs at that point.

I don't think you can state that as a fact - it's just a choice of dimensions you choose to take as being separate.

• The baby is certainly alive before being born.

• If the neurological functions of the embryo are separate to the mother, then as an conscious being the mother and child are separate.

• Physical connection has nothing to do with whether humans are discreet. Humans are generally identified by their separate consciousness. In the same way, Conjoined twins are two separate people with independent identities - despite often having dependence of organs.

My liver is alive too, whilst it's inside my body.

Yes they have separate consciousnesses, I agree. Not sure of the relevance?

Conjoined twins are very different. One is not wholly within the other's body, which is the relevant part imo. They may well be dependent on each other, but one is not wholly dependant on the other.