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.

The abortion debate has coincidently kicked off on a friends social media page. I've stayed clear!

On one hand, it is the woman's choice. I generally went along with this for many years until my mid 20's. I had a really good friend who fell pregnant, her Dp left as he didn't want a child. We went baby clothes shopping, I even felt the baby kick and move. At 20wks, she booked herself in for a late term abortion as to reconcile with her Dp. At that stage in pregnancy, and for her reasons, I felt it nothing more than infanticide. Her foetus was not a bunch of cells, but a viable human.

If anything, the laws should lower the abortion limit timeframe, and only allow late term abortions if it posses a significant risk to the mother.

In the last few years, an asylum seeker who came to Ireland seeking refuge discovered she was pregnant as a result of rape in the county she was fleeing.

For the majority of women in Ireland, the main thing stopping you having an abortion is money, but the recent cases through the courts have been for an underaged ward of court - legally her guardians couldn't let her travel- and for this women, who as an asylum seeker couldn't travel to the UK. Which meant her only legal option was to prove she needed an abortion for her mental health, but due to a series of fuck-ups, it was left too late and instead she had what amounted to a forced cesarian which left a profoundly disabled premature child who will always need care and who she has refused to ever see.

This is what happens when you have strict rules about abortion, and panels. She realised she was pregnant late, but at least a month before the foetus was viable. The need to have panels assessing if she was suicidal enough to have an abortion, and the legal situation, all led to the tragic situation that occurred.

Other incidents in Ireland include a pregnant women who suddenly died but was on a life support machine whose family had to go to court to have it switched off- the hospital were worried that legally they were required to keep the dead woman's body breathing for MONTHS until the baby was viable, despite the fact that this had almost no chance of working as her own body would start to shut down.

We are not vessels. That is what this comes down to. I miscarried a much-wanted pregnancy earlier this year. With all the grief associated with that, i do not grieve for that child because it was so damn early there really wasn't anyone there to grieve for. 20% of pregnancies before 12 weeks end in miscarriage: with those odds then yes, I can see no problem with women choosing abortion at that point. Beyond that, I think the cut-off of viability makes sense, but it gets very, very complicated very quickly and unless you've gone through a late term diagnosis of a potentially fatal condition or discovering late on your pregnant wit your rapists child I certainly don't feel in a position to judge.

1.20 weeks is not viable.

1. Why is one person behaving in a way you find unacceptable a reason for restricting the choices of others.

Completely unregulated legalised abortion, like all things, is open to abuse,

But surely if it's legalised then it's not unregulated? What do you mean by abuse?

and I find the deeply misogynistic practise of discarding and not valuing baby girls quite a good example of why it could never be an ethically sound case to allow any and all abortions at any term

So who should decide what good reasons for aborting in the early stages, and on what criteria?

or for any reason (if late term).

I agree with you on very late term abortion except for on medical grounds.

@Mittens1969 I'm sure that is sometimes the case but I'm not sure how we could quantify it - all women internalise misogyny to some extent and some to a very great extent. In my opinion the best way to counter that possibility is to put measures in place to make sure women are making their own choices if they go to have an abortion, like we do in this country, not to restrict choice on those grounds.

Bold fail there. First bits were responding to @CherriesInTheSnow.

How ironic to use misogyny as a reason to force women to continue with unwanted pregnancies.

What I mean is, currently anyone can have an abortion up to 24 weeks in the UK for example. It sounded like you were saying abortion should be legal at any point in pregnancy, which for the reasons I mentioned are unethical. No one has to give reasons for an abortion at or before 12 weeks, do they? Not that I'm aware of, and I wasn't arguing that shouldn't be the case. My objection was to the concept that an abortion at any gestation for any reason (i.e. completely unregulated, with no contingencies or restrictions) is not ethical.

But your argument is based on medical advances Cherries. If we get to a point where foetuses can be grown in an artificial uterus, does that mean all abortion should be banned?

And actually you do have to give a reason for abortion at any time in the UK - it's not unrestricted at all. You need the approval of two doctors.

@pigeondujour, I'm not, I'm just demonstrating that the issue isn't as clear-cut as people on both sides want it to be.

Yes, counselling could work, but I think there would be women too scared to admit that it's not their choice. And women frequently would not allowed to see the counsellor without her partner/MIL there. I've worked with a women's project for Central Asian women so this has coloured my views.

Enabling women to get away from the situation would be the answer really. It's not possible in their own countries but it is here.

Bertrand Not sure if your comment was aimed at my post?!

At 20, Or 24wks as is the limit, the baby is kicking and moving. Most of us who have carried babies remember what it feels like to be pregnant at 20wks. No pregnant mother at that stage would refer to their pregnancy as a bunch of cells, they are more likely to comment ''Ooooh, I felt the baby kick''.

My belief, as with many others remains that late term abortion is unethical. It will never sit well with me, no matter how pro-choice I feel. I'm certainly not posing to restrict the choice of others, in the same manner I don't have to agree with their choices either.

Incidentally, I was a Pre-term baby. Very much so! I was born only weeks after what is now the abortion limit, I weighed a little over 3lb's at birth, and My Dm has a newspaper cutting of me hooked to wires measuring no bigger than her hand. I grew up healthy with Dc's of my own.

for me its a necessary evil

I am pro abortion, and I have had one

But I think we do skate over the ethical issues in a pretty major way, and like you I can see both sides

so yes, all woman should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy
and they should not be harangued with people showing vile photos on their way in

and I agree there needs to be a limit, and people should take responsibility

I also 10000% agree that we need to totally rebrand how we handle foetus with Down Syndrome, and not treat it as an automatic "if you have Downs, you can abort" there needs to be a more balanced and less disbalist approach to this issue.

we both save early births, and accept late abortions - this disturbs me and I think we need to hold the mirror up a bit on this issue

I don't hate Jacob for his beliefs, he is entitled to have them, and as far as I am aware he is not trying to foist them and change the law. If people cant have an opinion... and again I state I have had an abortion, and would have one again if I had to,

and as far as I am aware he is not trying to foist them and change the law

He votes in line with the rest of his vile beliefs, though.

I'm not sure what you mean by that Jiggly, I was just giving an example of the restriction date currently in place. We can only go by what is available now and what has been in the past, because everything will bring it's own complications and ethical questions that cannot be completely forseeable until these things happen. There are already people who believe the abortion limit should be lowered because they believe babies, due to advances in neonatal care, have chances at life before 24 weeks.

That's makes sense if people consult doctors before abortions and it's surely a precaution and safety measure to attempt to protect women from the kind of abuse I was on about. That's what my whole point was - I object to the idea that any abortion at any term should be carried out for any reason because I strongly feel it leaves women very vulnerable and open to abuse - it's not about women having to have "good enough" reasons.

Abortion has been going on forever. My granny had one..Whichever side you fall on, more people will die if it's not legal then if it is.
And I agree that we must consider the type of life that would be preserved.
Besides, top can only be obtained with the agreement of medical professionals, and for specific reasons. Late abortion is very rare.

No woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy, of that I think we would all agree. Similarly no woman should be judged by deciding to keep a pregnancy, of that we would all agree.

It's about women as humans. Their bodily autonomy and their choice.

Late abortion is very rare.

I agree IfNot

I agree, this is a really complex ethical issue and it's always interesting to read discussions that don't resort to mud slinging. I think the same could be said for many ethical and topical issues these days: some things are almost impossible to rationally discuss for fear of arguments degenerating into insults.

An interesting argument I heard recently for pro choice is as follows. I agree with it to an extent, but also am aware that it massively oversimplifies the issues:

A principle of law (in this country at least), is the notion of informed and continued consent. Without those things, nobody else can lawfully do anything to you, whether a medical procedure, sexual relations, open a bank account, whatever. You can withdraw your consent at any time. These principles also apply to your body after you die. A foetus depends for its own survival on the mother's body (at least up to the point of about 24 weeks), and so, under these principles, it exists with the mother's informed and continued consent. Abortion allows the woman to exercise her right to withdraw her consent if she wishes to. By extension, if you take away her ability to have an abortion, that is essentially affording the foetus more rights than any other person to another's body, and affording the woman fewer rights even than a dead body.

I also think that an unwanted child that is forced upon a mother will likely have a very poor start to life, which will inevitably cascade into their adult life, their well-being and self esteem

I think a great deal of people stay away from abortion debates simply because it's such an emotive topic and people get fired up about it. It's not like debates on Tomorite versus generic brand tomato food, it's a debate where people's emotions run higher than pretty much any other subject.

I'm respectfully guarded when it comes to opinions on abortion because I go with the 'not my body, not my choice' thing and firmly believe that it's none of my business. I don't get into debates any more about it because each side believes themselves to be right and you can't debate something someone else is declaring 'facts'.

I'm strongly against any healthy viable foetus being aborted

So what should happen to these babies once the woman involved has been forced to gestate the pregnancy and give birth against her wishes?

I'm becoming more pro-choice as I get older, curiously. I don't think it's a good thing, but the best way to reduce the numbers is to provide better access to birth control and better sex education in schools. And also to improve the economic situation for families so that fewer women are trapped by their poverty into having abortions. That's why there were fewer abortions during the Democrat presidencies than during the Republican ones, despite their opposition to abortion.

What I was talking about were circumstances in which it isn't the woman's choice, but when she's being pressured or coerced.

A principle of law (in this country at least), is the notion of informed and continued consent. Without those things, nobody else can lawfully do anything to you, whether a medical procedure, sexual relations, open a bank account, whatever. You can withdraw your consent at any time. These principles also apply to your body after you die. A foetus depends for its own survival on the mother's body (at least up to the point of about 24 weeks), and so, under these principles, it exists with the mother's informed and continued consent. Abortion allows the woman to exercise her right to withdraw her consent if she wishes to. By extension, if you take away her ability to have an abortion, that is essentially affording the foetus more rights than any other person to another's body, and affording the woman fewer rights even than a dead body.

I don't think that is massively oversimplifying the issue at all. It's clear and concise. Like any consent agreement.

I knew someone who decided to keep her pregnancy to term, despite having been diagnosed with breast cancer during the pregnancy. She died when the baby was 9 months old. She asked us as friends what she should do. Basically, the advice was it was her choice if she choose to continue or not and no one had a right to 'judge' her decision.

So what should happen to these babies once the woman involved has been forced to gestate the pregnancy and give birth against her wishes?

Baby put up for adoption presumably.... There's more demand than supply for newborn babies, at least in the U.K.

If you believe that an unborn child should have no rights, then it is logical to believe that a mother has unfettered right to abort. If you believe the unborn child does have rights, then it's a dilemma involving two individuals with rights, and those rights shouldn't be automatically withdrawn from the unborn child simply because the mother doesn't want to give birth.

The question is therefore "does an unborn child have rights?". If so, why, and if not, by not.

If not, why not