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.

Of course people are kept technically alive for organ donation to keep blood supply but they are clinically dead. That is for organs needed to sustain life. Chester what are you on about. Do you think hospitals grab hearts from the well to give to the ill

But why on earth organ donation is being discussed alongside a woman's right to abortion is frankly bizarre.

*in the constitution

That article demonstrates my fear that putting arbitrary conditions on abortions is a sliding scale to prohibiting all abortions.

Elendon

Utterly terrifying just terrifying

"If babies can be born and survive at 21/ 22 weeks then they are worthy of human rights at that stage"

Abortion rights don't even depend on personhood.

Let's say the fetus is a person, from conception, even as an embryo.

Can you force a person to allow another person to benefit from their body? To live inside her? To use her blood and organs, even temporarily?

You can't. You can't even force someone to donate blood, even if another person will die without her blood.

That is why a pregnant woman has and should always have the right to kick out a fetus from inside her body even if it's considered a person at that point.

By all means, try to keep the fetus alive when it's out. That's a separate concern. But you can't force the woman to carry it to term.

Equal rights of the mother and the foetus is totally and utterly ridiculous.

I remembered reading somewhere an analogy that compared anti-choicers to the way comic book fanatics feel about rare comics. If it's in the wrapper, it is precious and sacred and must be kept safe and not damaged in any way.

Once it comes out of the wrapper, it loses all value and they don't give a shit about it any more.

It's much the same with anti-choicers. They're all for campaigning about the rights of "unborn children", but what are they doing to protect born children? What do they propose should happen to every unwanted child should abortion become illegal?

I suspect none of them would give a crap.

Still waiting for the posters agonising over when it's right for a pregnant woman in their view to abort an unwanted pregnancy, just waiting to see who is on the fostering or adoption register?

I have some friends who have had abortions because they weren't ready for a baby, I may not have fully agreed but I supported them. The one that upset me was a friend having a much wanted baby who found out (late on) that there were multiple deformities of the brain, heart and limbs. It only got flagged initially because her amniotic fluid was twice the normal level. She got second opinions from specialists and ended the pregnancy. I was heart broken for her.

X post angelo

Er none I think. Assorted wierd women and men championing the rights of the foetus and forced birth most probably tories voting for welfare cuts.

JSAM how awful for your friend. My friend too had s late abortion due to her baby having massive brain abnormalities. We were pregnant together and her much wanted girl would have been now 18
Like my dds.

Truly heartbreaking but thankfully she lives in England so had awonderful caring and supportive obstetric team.she wasn't forced to give birth to a baby who would have either died or needed life long care.

We need to Keep fighting for our rights.

Still waiting for who wants to foster and adopt all of these unwanted babies??

There are long waiting lists to adopt babies in most areas. And as many people have pointed out, allowing all abortions except late ones (unless health of mother or child is an issue) would result in virtually no babies anyway.

It is also not absolutely necessary to be prepared to adopt a baby in order to be anti abortion/late term abortion. In the same way you can be against forced euthanasia of the elderly without wanting to provide personal care to an older person.

@Lovingmybear2 someone else. Always someone else.

Again this is in Ireland but adoption isn't an option if you're married, unless you want to risk losing your other children as you have to declare yourself unfit to parent another child. Considering 54% of those accessing abortion are already parents and around 70% of those are married......adoption isn't really a viable option.

It is also not absolutely necessary to be prepared to adopt a baby in order to be anti abortion/late term abortion. In the same way you can be against forced euthanasia of the elderly without wanting to provide personal care to an older person

It makes you a bit of a hypocrite though. You want these kids to be born, but you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is and actually do something that helps these kids. So, because you aren't a fan of someone having rights over there own body, you want people to be born into shit lives and leave them there. wonderful.

For those talking about abortions based on the sex of a baby:

drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/check-your-privilege-and-your-facts-before-discussing-sex-selective-abortion/

In fact, I recommend reading anything by Dr Jen Gunter with relation to abortions. The woman is brilliant.

This whole debate has heartened and disheartened me in equal measure. I'm pro-choice. Indeed, I've had abortions (2) and miscarriages (2 - one would think there's a karmic balance there), and the miscarriages were more emotionally painful than the abortions.

I've always been pro choice, even when I experienced fertility difficulties. After 5 yrs we went through IVF and I had consent forms for medical testing. I had no issues with them using unfertilised eggs for testing and training. But I could not bring myself to consent to testing and training on non viable embryos. They were 3 cells and if they were embryos inside my womb they would have a chance at life. There are so many benefits to allowing the testing but I just couldn't and still can't explain exactly why, just that they were little chances at life that needed to be treated with respect. I'm still pro choice - this was my choice.

I worry greatly about vulnerable women and girls who may find themselves forced to terminate a wanted late pregnancy should it be legal to do so.

At the moment, the 16 year old who successfully conceals her pregnancy from her family until she is 33 weeks gone cannot (legally) consider termination. The woman who has an abusive DH is protected from him pressurising her into an abortion because he has changed his mind / never wanted the baby anyway. And the window for having a sex based termination (almost always to abort a female foetus) is currently fairly small between being able to find out the sex with some certainty and being able to access a legal abortion - if we permitted termination at any point, we are adding nearly three more months where a woman could face pressure to abort rather than have a(nother) daughter.

It isn't as straightforward as saying that we should trust women to make the right choice for them without accepting that some (many?) women are not able to make a genuine choice because of their circumstances

It's not as easy as just walking into a clinic at 33 weeks and asking for an abortion. I'm telling you it literally will not happen, and even if it did, why would you punish those who genuinely need abortions at that stage because some people might (can't, won't) abuse it

Completely agree Olenna and that article over simplifies things to me, it only talks about womens' choice when we know full well that there are plenty of women in vulnerable situations who need to seek abortions. I've seen many posts on MN about women wanting to keep a baby but being pressured into an abortion,with their partners doing everything they can to engineer the situation so that their pregnant partners are not able to get any guidance independently of the man's influence.

It's massively over simplistic to say that it's simply a case of trusting women and their judgement.

So your in favour of restricting abortion for everyone to protect the minority who might be coerced?

Just like those bloody Women Hurt bastards who claim abortion should be banned because less than 5% of women regret their abortions, fuck the 95% who don't regret them.

Even if you completely ignore the enormous elephant in the room with adoption, and you pretend that women who want an abortion can just as easily give birth and give the baby up for adoption because there are waiting lists, it still proves nothing.

There aren't any waiting lists of people waiting for older, troubled dc who were removed from their parents care. And yet the pro life lobby are quite keen to raise the number of troubled older kids by forcing people to choose between a back street butcher or raising a child when they've already decided they aren't in a position to.

Not that everyone forced to give birth would become a bad parent, but those who wanted abortions because of their own issues would certainly be more likely to struggle with parenting.