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.

Well that's your opinion Serf, very much informed and rooted in the geographical location and historical period in which you live.

It's mine too.

The Incas saw life in a completely different way. To them, an early TOP and a sacrifice of a toddler were ethically no different. For us, that thought is horrifying. And for some, those two acts are still no ethically different, except they view them both as horrifying.

95% viable after 12 weeks? What a load of rubbish!

The question is really about weighing the right of the foetus to life against the mother's right not to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want. I support the mother because it is, after all, her body. The farther advanced the pregnancy is, the harder I find it to defend this position.

I support women's rights to abortions BUT I feel the 24 week limit is seriously outdated. Some babies are now living viably born at 23 and even 22 weeks gestation. I feel a limit of 16 weeks is more than sufficient unless there are extenuating circumstances. This is due to personal experience of a preemie and seeing these tiny babies live.

Isn't the point about 'don't impose your beliefs on others' and 'don't like abortion,domt have one'
making the assumption that the right of the mother to choose always supersedes the right of the foetus to life, which they personally cannot protect?

For me the area of interesting debate is partly the issue of rights of the unborn. Some pro choice people don't seem willing to even consider this issue or debate it. Hey take it as a given that the woman's choice or rights supersede those of the unborn. I think it is this assumption and unwillingness to engage in debate about that that the OP finds difficult.

A view that many hold is that the foetus is unable to speak for itself or choose and in certain situations needs protecting. I guess that lots of people would say that right is equal to or greater than the right of the more to choose in certain situations - therefore those supporters would say that it Isn't always true that people must all make their own choice - because sometimes their choice is against the interests of the unborn, so simply saying everyone has a right to choose in any circumstance neglects those rights to protection.

I imagine most people are not positive about late abortion. People vary about what that means or under what circumstances it should be allowed in. Would many people say the right to choose exists for all women at any point up until the birth? If yes, why? If not, until when and why? Perhaps these ar issues OP wants to discuss, rather than the discussion being shut down by 'everyone's own choice'?

95% is about right, variable to race and age.

You are either pro-life of pro-choice (there are many choices, one of which is not having an abortion!). Pro-choice doesn't mean you are pro-abortion per se.

Nimimy Great post. You identify exactly the type of ethical issues which need considering but are drowned out by the very simplistic "choice" versus "life" positions.

....as if abortion on request for any reason and at any stage was an ethically neutral position.

It's this insistence that an abortions is obviously and ethically neutral, and no different from removing your appendix, that I have a real problem with.

I thought i was pro choice. Until i read a thread on here a year or so ago about late term abortions.

Turns out i am pro choice within limits.

I agree that no one on either side should consider their opinion to be fact, or right or wrong on this issue. People just have different takes and views on this matter and that's ok.

You are either pro-life of pro-choice (there are many choices, one of which is not having an abortion!)

Why must some people insist on being so superficial! It's like saying, there are only two colours, black and white...

But the debate is about modern ethics via a cos abortion isn't itHTKB?

I really actually find it very hard to have a conversation with someone who is "pro choice" which is a polite way of saying pro abortion.

I fundamentally disagree with it unless it is for medical reasons and I myself would not have one unless mine or the baby's health was at risk.

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? I will probably get an absolute flaming for this but I just feel that many people use them as contraception or a safety net for not having safe sex.

Many women who need or should have access to abortions do not. I lived in ireland and it is illegal there, this forces many women into debt as they fly to the UK in order to obtain a service which they need so much.

We always debate this one in and out in and out in my family and it's very hard to come to a conclusion.

There is a very definite point during a pregnancy that if the foetus dies, induction to actually give birth is necessary, as the body can no longer break down the tissue to pass it as a miscarriage.
Maybe that's the point a foetus becomes a baby and should have rights, as it has to be physically born.

But does pro-choice mean you are pro-choice at every and any point in a pregnancy? That a pregnant woman should be able to choose (and yes she may choose to remain pregnant and have the baby - I can see pro choice isn't always pro abortion) anytime to have an abortion if she wishes......or are there limits to do with time or health of baby or mother? Surely most people who are pro choice are pro choice within limits, which someone earlier used as a term. And recognising those limits at least makes the whole issue much less simple and clear cut than a lot of the pro choice people who say 'everyone's own personal choice' suggest.

For me the area of interesting debate is partly the issue of rights of the unborn. Some pro choice people don't seem willing to even consider this issue or debate it. Hey take it as a given that the woman's choice or rights supersede those of the unborn. I think it is this assumption and unwillingness to engage in debate about that that the OP finds difficult.

That's exactly what I find difficult! Ironically, it's the liberal pro-choicers who seem more dogmatic than the religious pro-lifers in their refusal even to engage with the issues!

We don't force anyone to give blood or bone marrow - we don't have the right to force any woman to carry a foetus to term either.

That's an extremely good point sandwich. I can't believe I've never heard that mooted before.

Cos abortion? Not heard that term or it's a typo I can't figure out, sorry.

I think you can perfectly understand the point. There is no one ethical viewpoint on abortion. Your use of the term modern ethics is interesting, as it implies as pp said above, that there is only one "modern" take on this and it is obviously and without question pro choice.

But millions of people disagree with you. And dismissing them just doesn't work.

Vis a vis. Bloody autocorrect.

It's horrifying to think babies are aborted who could survive outside of the womb, thinking of a 19/20 weeker in America? Survived and is absolutely fine, the limit I believe needs to be lowered to 12 weeks and in very specific cases should abortion be allowed. The current situation is crazy, aliens would think us mad for allowing an unborn child to have an injection in the heart causing it to die. Horrific.

coco, I agree with you entirely.
And Bertrand ( (who I have often agreed with) whether or not the foetus/ baby/ whatever language chosen, is dependent only on the mother- being the only important factor assumes that there is no debate about when a 'life' matters or even happens.

'Is there any scientific evidence on if a foetus can feel pain prior to birth, and if so, at what point in development that happens? ' yes there is- and babies in the womb do feel pain (known after certain number of weeks- would need to look it up to remind myself). In the 80s, it was still thought that babies outside the womb didn't feel pain and they had open heart surgery without pain relief- only something to keep them still.

Like you OP, I would count myself- if I had to pick a side- as pro choice, but ethically this is not obvious or clear cut.

the problem I think is that by 'ethics' people often mean 'judgement' and that's where you get sticky

for me - as someone who is pro choice my ethics would only apply to MY choice - for everyone else I simply support their need and choice without judgement

a fetus doesn't really have rights but a woman does

I think there are many areas of abortion law that we should be talking about, but we can't because any suggestion that we should restrict/re-examine abortion law is seen as being anti choice.

For example, how come we think that a foetus has the right to life at a set point (is it currently 24 weeks?) but that a disabled foetus doesn't have the same right? How does that fit into our disability laws? If we believe that it is a baby is a baby from a certain point, it shouldn't matter if it is disabled or not. (I am not talking about conditions incompatible with life, that is a different issue)

How is it right that a tiny baby in one ward is being given every effort of modern medicine to save it, and a foetus of the same age is being aborted in the ward next door, because we allow quite late abortions?

Or that female foetus get aborted because they are female. Is that not a feminist issue?

That is all bonkers.

If we were honest we would re-examine the definition of when life starts, and then make that a line which applies across the board.

And just by writing that, some people we get all upset and think CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE. But that is really dishonest. You can't ignore that changes in medical advance and in our understanding of disablity mean that we must go back and look at the law again.

I used to go to uni with a friend who seriously believed that the woman's right to choose was sacrosanct right up until the point of birth. Really? I mean really?

HTKB I love what you said.
I'm pro-life. I genuinely believe that life begins at conception. I was desperate for a baby and looking into IVF. In the end I couldn't go ahead with it because I couldn't cope with what would happen to any unused embryos. I would have been killing a baby. I genuinely believe that from conception/fertilisation, the baby has human rights. I get really upset when I hear about abortions.
However, I will never judge someone who has an abortion or IVF.my best friend had an abortion because she wasn't ready for a baby - something I disagreed with and talked to her openly about but I still went and met her and supported her afterwards and we are still best friends to this day. These are my views. I might talk to someone seriously and try to put them off - telling them why I believe such things BUT in the end, everyone has their own views and everyone is entitled to do as they believe and I respect this. I hope my views can be respected even if people disagree.

If you look at it pragmatically, making abortion illegal doesn't tend to stop abortions. It just means women have illegal abortions, putting their own lives at risk.