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.

I am always that any discussion about abortion always focuses on the vanishingly small number of very late abortions. And the even more vanishinly small number of late abortions which are not for medical reasons affecting the woman or the foetus.

It's almost as if we are being distracted from the potential assault on women's reproductive rights that we are being threatened with. Starting in America - but, as the old saying goes, when America has a cold, the rest of the world sneezes.

Katherine that's the whole point though isn't it?

It's not about a line in the sand for me or for you! It's the line in the sand for the pregnant woman and as Bertrand says the minuscule amount of later terminations, usually done for reasons of foetal abnormality by the way not the whim of the 8 month pregnant woman should not in any way push the pro life agenda.

My view is ot really doesn't matter where lots of people's views fall. It only matters what the pregnant woman thinks and feels because it's her body.

You can't have it being her body for just a few weeks and then she looses her rights over her own body!

You make your choices and let others make theirs.

As early as possible, as late as necessary - and limitations should not be in the law of the land but in the private medical decision between a woman and her medical team.

I have absolutely zero time for pro-lifers - I'm Irish and absolutely sick of their bullshit polluting women's lives and the maternity services back home.

The thing is, Bertrand, that is the absolute pro-choice position - abortion on demand, whenever, for any reason whatsoever. The absolute anti-abortion/pro-life position is no abortion ever, for any reason at all. So understandably any discussion of the ethics of the two positions is going to need to unpick the problems inherent in either position.

I think the more interesting ethical discussions are around the middle. Also around how we as a society view disability - I think that is a massive issue tied up in the question of terminations for reasons of disability (not so much the incompatible-with-life conditions, but various others).

Loving, that's the whole point for you (that's it's a very simple matter of bodily autonomy that concerns one person only), but you have to see that that's a matter of ethics/opinion, and not a matter of fact. So it is possible (and likely) that others will have an alternative view. I was picking up on your "nonsense" statement - that you seem to think it is a strange idea to terminate a healthy 36wk foetus - whereas a pure pro-choice position is that that's a totally reasonable choice. I'm not trying to obfuscate matters or construct strawman arguments here - that is what the pro-choice position is. And I'm not saying it's not a logical position, just that it's one that many people will have difficulty with, because there is the conflicting issue of the foetus's personhood (or not).

I'm sure the poster who talked about the 95% chance of a baby surviving after 12 weeks, meant that once a woman's has reached the second trimester, the baby has a 95% chance of going to term and being born alive. Not that a baby born at 12 weeks will survive.

You can't have partial bodily autonomy it doesn't make sense.

Well today you do have it, so even if it doesn't make sense - it's what the situation is today.

If you refuse to give a DNA sample, the police can force you to give one. If you are held in custody, you lose the right to decide whether you have intrusive searches. In similar circumstances you can be forced to give blood. If you are mentally ill you can be forced to take medicine. Children can be forced to undergo procedures without their personal consent.

The state already has many situations where it reserves the right to violate your body - and as a parent you have the right in many cases to decide on your children's body - so any argument replying on that right can be argued, but is far from normal expectation.

In general we also do not allow people to exercise their usually legitimate choices if it would put another in danger. If despite being able to carry out an action lawfully you killed someone it would typically still be manslaughter. In general the right to life does easily override somebodies wishes - and in general you have a duty to not act or omit actions that would preserve it. In France, but not the UK, if somebody is in trouble (e.g. drowning) it is a criminal offence not to assist.

So clearly the child could be assigned rights before birth, and there isn't an absolute argument that the woman has a right to choose.

It is simply a balance of rights and responsibilities - there is no right or wrong answer. We will chose as a society what we want to balance these as of today, and the generations of past and future may choose a different balance. The law certainly does not recognise the unfettered choice to do what we want with our own bodies - and so whatever society chooses trumps what the individual may want.

Personally I believe the mothers life is always a priority compared to the baby once the baby has brain function - but the babies right to life overrides a choice of the mother once brain function is present (25 weeks). Open to persuasion though.

I am pro choice as I don't believe anyone has the right to make a woman carry a baby they do not want. In most cases abortion happens before 12 weeks and it is only exceptional cases that are after this stage. I think we have to trust the woman is making the right choices for herself.

"In highschool i knew a girl who had 3 abortions by the time she was barely turned 14, because she refused to practice safe sex

I can't support the first girl who was so dismissive of getting pregnant as she could just abort it, and it has coloured my judgement of her as a person."

Ok, I am sorry but 12/13 years old getting pregnant (before the age 14) several times? case of rape?I doubt she knows how to ask an older guy who knows what he is doing to wear a condom

You can't have partial bodily autonomy it doesn't make sense.

Of course you can. You DO in fact. Are you sure you don't support it in any respect?

At what point does the risk to a women of carrying a pregnancy to term outweigh the 'rights' of the foetus?

People thinking oh abortion is OK where the mother has a heart condition for example... how high does her risk of death have to be? Greater than 50%? Pregnancy and childbirth is a risky business even for a healthy women, so a certain baseline of risk to life is acceptable?

One of the reasons we don't compel alive people to donate organs is because of the risks of surgery. It is wrong to compel someone to undertake a (small) risk of loss of life in order to potentially negate someone else's much higher risk of loss of life.

In compelling a pregnant women to continue pregnancy you are saying she must accept the risk to her of loss of life because doing so may save the 'life' of the foetus (only may, as there is a chance the pregnancy would result in a stillborn if continued).

I can't get my head around why it should be acceptable only in the case of pregnancy to compel someone to accept the risk of loss of their own life on someone else's behalf.

I find what I'll the "absolute pro-choice" position very odd regarding late term abortion.

On the one hand those in favour are very clear that a woman should have the right to choose to abort right until birth under any circumstances. Then, if this absolute position is challenged, the response is often that late abortions hardly ever happen so it's wrong to even bring it into the discussion on abortion, and they refuse to discuss it but reprimand the questioner for daring to bring it up!

Basically, they have an opinion on the rights of late term abortion, but won't answer when challenged on it, attacking the questioner and supposing they're promoting some extreme pro-life agenda!

If that was directed my way, coconella, that was not my intention. I am a supporter of "as early as possible as late as necessary". I make no exceptions. Is that clear enough? I think we should trust women.

Batteriesallgone

If you have a child then you are already compelled to do some things, such as support them and ensure they have an education. Even if doing this in life (such as walking down the street) increases risk to your life, you still have to do what is necessary to do it.

It's certainly also valid for people to take risks with your life - they are entitled to fly above you head despite a plane could fail and kill you.

Society demands people do all sorts of things that could expose you to risk - this is just another one of those choices where the risk will have a limit decided by society as a whole.

As for the judgy post about the 14 year old having three abortions because she refused to use contraception- that young person was a CHILD, who was being abused. Did nobody care about her well-being? Did no-one try and find out who was having sex with her- illegally?

Yeah, this, with bells on. Fucksake. If a 13 year old repeatedly turns up pregnant, someone needs to go to jail (and I don't mean the poor kid who is having the abortions).
And if men don't want abortion to exist then they can put a condom on their dick.

But you can choose not to take those risks, can't you? You can live next door to your child's school somewhere nowhere near a flight path, for example.

You may not choose to negate those risks when weighing up your life options but you could. No one can compel you to undertake the risk of living under a flight path for example.

When is it acceptable to actually force someone else to risk their life? Very few situations I think?

I can't get my head around why it should be acceptable only in the case of pregnancy to compel someone to accept the risk of loss of their own life on someone else's behalf.

Serious health conditions aside, the risk of maternal death in childbirth in the developed world is very low indeed, 1 in 7,000 I believe. Ethically, refusing to accept a 1 in 7,000 risk of dying versus the certainty of another dying is a bit like refusing to take a dying person to a hospital because you might be killed in a car crash on the way (yes, I know the odds of a fatal car crash are almost certainly lower, but the principle applies).

Of course the above depends on whether a viable foetus should have partial or full human rights. If not, the pro-choice argument is simple. If so, all the arguments put forward to date simply don't hold water.

On the one hand those in favour are very clear that a woman should have the right to choose to abort right until birth under any circumstances. Then, if this absolute position is challenged, the response is often that late abortions hardly ever happen so it's wrong to even bring it into the discussion on abortion, and they refuse to discuss it but reprimand the questioner for daring to bring it up!

Thats not why people are loathe to discuss the late term abortion. The reason its annoying is because it just doesnt happen that someone of 36 weeks suddenly decides that actually they can't be arsed with a baby and wants to terminate. But, for the record, should a woman want to do that, I support her. for me, if i'm pro-choice, that means i'm pro-choice even when I don't like it.
Its annoying when brought up so much abortion debate because the reality is late abortions are rare. so, using the emotive point as a way to 'discredit' abortion is just used to distract from the point.

coconutella, far more women die in childbirth than have late term abortions! 24 in every 100,000 births in the US, thats not a small number at all!

I would not donate organs as I believe that you are not dead when they are removed and that no aneasthia is used during the removal process. I am not in agreement with late-term abortion on demand as I personally find it horrific that someone would consider it at such a late stage. Old fashioned.

Chestervase
You think they take organs from loving people?

It is a nonsense to say that abortion should only be allowed in certain circumstances. What you are saying is 'I don't agree you are worthy of an abortion, shame on you, your punishment is to carry and give birth to a baby you don't want and by the way, this. punishment is for you, not the man who also contributed to this situation'.

Women should have autonomy over their bodies. If this means that a very small number of very late term abortions of viable foetuses happen, that is a necessary evil.

Everything else is interesting to debate but it's not as if pro-choice people go around saying abortion is great, let's all have one. It is a necessary evil and more civilised and humane than the alternatives.

It is a nonsense to say that abortion should only be allowed in certain circumstances

So it's nonsense to believe that a healthy foetus shouldn't be aborted at 39 weeks?

Late term abortion of healthy foetuses is not a necessary evil. It's not necessary at all!

So we should introduce a law saying that if someone is dying you must drive them to hospital? Some kind of generic law saying if the risk to you is under 1 in 10,000 (for example) you must do whatever is possible to save another's life?

The law in France that someone mentioned is along those lines it seems. I wonder how you prove you can't swim? Or if you still have to try and save someone if there's a current and you fear for your own safety? What level of risk are you obliged to undertake in order to save that person from drowning?

It's a total minefield which is why we don't have those laws. But apparently when it comes to pregnancy it's clear cut and I don't really understand why.

sigh but 39 week abortions of healthy foetuses DOESN'T HAPPEN!