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.

Ok so people saying late terminations in the event of severe foetal abnormalities are not ok, what do you think happens?

I don't think anyone has said that on this thread, Not.

Re numbers of late terminations, looking on the Office for National Statistics site, it looks as though there were 507 post-22 weeks. There doesn't seem to be a breakdown by gestation age after that. There's more detail on the datasets regarding medical reasons (I haven't dug down into the detail).

I have RTFT.

I completely see what you are saying about why the pro-lifers (I do like 'forced birth' actually as that's what it is) won't stop talking about it - yes, if you believe that a fetus has agency from conception then it's akin to killing a born child. And if you believed people were killing born children you'd be outraged and protest it!

Thing is, a fetus DOES have rights. Feticide is still a crime. There's a reason why TOP procured outside of the law is illegal. However the rights of a fetus at the moment are quite basic BUT they do increase as the fetus advances in age and likelihood to survive ex utero.

If we say that a fetus has rights, we go down the road of some places where if you smoke, or drink alcohol, or experience stressful life events, or do ANYTHING that could be judged as 'could cause harm to the fetus' then you could be prosecuted. Women have been prosecuted elsewhere in the world for miscarrying because somehow it was deemed to be her fault for not enabling the pregnancy to continue... although it was just a miscarriage, cause unknown.

I'd like anyone who is vehemently 'the fetus has rights at any gestation' to consider how they would feel if they miscarried at 12 weeks only to be told they were being prosecuted for their body's failure to protect that baby. Yep that's HORRIBLE but it happens in the world, so it's not some 'out there' hypothesis. It's also incredibly misogynistic. It reminds me of how women in medieval times were punished for miscarrying or for only having girls.

So much about the fetus' rights, so much less about womens' rights. A born woman is not some kind of fetus incubator. And if she is then we have to also accept that she needs to be given all the tools to make that possible, or she is in a no win situation. Don't expose the baby to toxins - but I have to work in town and breathe in diesel fumes. Eat properly - but I can't afford good food OR I've been brought up not knowing how to cook and I have nobody to show me how. Don't smoke - I'm finding it really hard to give up and I have no support. Don't expose the baby to stress - I have 3 other children, a useless partner and I have to work long hours in a stressful job to keep a roof over our head.

It's bloody hypocritical expecting women to comply with all of this because 'the fetus has rights' when there's no help to do so and mostly any help is being taken away daily.

226 post 24 weeks. 0.1% of terminations.

where did you get the statistic of 3000 post twenty weeks vdb?

I also don't belive for a second that women wouldn't share their termination story with s pro choicer,what ever she feels, as let's face it pro choicest are a lot more empathetic and warm than forced Birthers.

This is just crap

Women won't tell to either group. For one, rather they pro life or pro choice, they still judge and some are terrible at keeping it to themselves

It's not actually crap at all is it? Who is it going to be better to tell your abortion story to...someone who thinks its your right and your decision and that you did nothing wrong, or someone who thinks you are a baby killer who should have been prevented from making the choice at all?

Not exactly a stretch is it?

I can't find the bit you're quoting but why would women "tell their abortion story" at all? Most people want to forget that it ever happened. Or just keep it private since it was a private decision in the first place.

Of course if a woman wants to talk to someone about an abortion she's had she should be able to do that, but she shouldn't be expected to talk if she doesn't want to.

*It's not actually crap at all is it? Who is it going to be better to tell your abortion story to...someone who thinks its your right and your decision and that you did nothing wrong, or someone who thinks you are a baby killer who should have been prevented from making the choice at all?

Not exactly a stretch is it?*

Or to someone who refers to your live, born children as "sibling survivors" because you didn't abort them too. Yes that has happened to me.

It's not actually crap at all is it? Who is it going to be better to tell your abortion story to...someone who thinks its your right and your decision and that you did nothing wrong, or someone who thinks you are a baby killer who should have been prevented from making the choice at all?

Not exactly a stretch is it?

It was the suggestion that all pro-abortion people are warm and cuddly whilst all anti-abortion people are cold and horrid that I think is crap. You just can't make glib statements like this and expect to go unchallenged

lylasmam2012 or on the other hand look at my post and do you think being accused of bringing down the gene pool if you won't have an abortion or a doctor telling you that you have to have the triple or amnio completely ignoring choice. Choice is fine for a lot of pro choice people as long as it is the choice they approve of. Neithr side is perfect.

Actually the stories I read were from an organisation in the US that is pro-life, but headed by a couple of ladies who have had abortions. They're incredibly compassionate and women can share their stories freely. What they say is that at the time they didn't regret their abortions but it was later when they had their families that they felt their loss.

And they don't accuse women of having murdered their foetuses.

I doubt agree with their stance, they're very influenced by the political climate in the US, but there's definitely no judgement or accusations.

All I want to show is that pro-lifers haven't necessarily had an empathy bypass. There are some awful people, I do agree, though.

Yes, neither side is perfect. My MIL is pro choice , but when we first met, she actually told my husband not to have kids with me, I might have deaf kids. I ended up with two kids with him. If I had abortion, she would secretly be relieved. I did not bother telling her about my pregnancy to her btw even though we where together for five years. It made it easy to keep it as a secret because she was never around anyhow

Great, the stat of 20wks+ is 3,354 for England and Wales last year (ONS). Where did you find the 24wks+ one?

The stat I quoted earlier (507) is terminations in England and Wales on grounds of disability (various) post 22wks.

Mittens, some pro lifer usually show empathy if the mother shown they regretted their decision (more like wishing they weren't pregnant in the first place)

There are people who see it as murder no matter how you tried to explain it to them

(Disclaimer: it's Friday and my eyes are shot from too much proofreading)
Where do those Iceland stats come from? 1 birth in 70,000 isn't the same as 22 births in 100,000.
22 births per 100,000 would be about 15 per 70,000.

(Takes proofreading hat off again)

Great
DOH document P27
(iii) Gestation weeks
3 - 9 149,825
10 - 12 20,000
13 - 19 12,738
20 and over 3,033

CoteDAzur Siamese twins share a body. That is how they were born. It is not at all the case of an adult suddenly waking up one day to find an unwanted being living inside her body.

The original comment was "A baby in my womb is relying on my body to survive, is restricting my life, the things I can and cannot do" so while the from birth/new situation difference is a difference, not sure is causes disanalogy.

Besides, life and death decisions are taken about Siamese twins all the time, operations done with a low chance of survival for the weaker twin that is less "whole".

Those cases may be analagous to medical abortions, but not necessarily the ones where there is no immediate or hugely likely danger of death etc.

For a closer fit there would have to be a case where both twins are expected to survive and be healthy (in as far as such things can ever be predicted), they will somehow naturally seperate on their own in several months time, yet the stronger one is assissted in removing the dependent one with the justification that the weaker one is a parasite and the stronger one has the right to decouple themself from an inhibiting dependent.

It's not siamese twins (and hasn't been for a very long time)and they very rarely share one body. What they mostly have is 2 bodies joined together. Not that it is even remotely analogous in anyway, but still.

@mowgeli your panel suggestion is fucking horrifying, for many reasons. Thank God you are not in charge of this issue.

@mowgeli by the way, nobody uses abortion as an alternative to contraception. Your opinion on this issue makes me feel sick

I doubt agree with their stance, they're very influenced by the political climate in the US, but there's definitely no judgement or accusations

The very fact that they are pro-lifers/anti-choicers is a judgement and a accusation. There is a presupposition that you were wrong to have done it, there can't not be.

Post 24 weeks is for severe disability (severe!) only or to save the mothers life. That is 0.01 of total terminations carried out. As I have posted earlier my friend had one as her baby had brain and heart deformities along with a number of other serious issues. Sometimes lovely people are put in awful situations that most of us will never be confronted with.

The question should really be
"Is slavery or ownership of a person ever justifiable"

If women are fully people, like men
and if people should never, ever be compelled against their wishes to use their organs and health to benefit another
even if the life or death of another person is at stake
and if health options exist that not only can facilitate the person's choice over their body BUT actually are safer than NOT

then the consequences are clear.

Either as a society we accept that women can be legally compelled to sacrifice their health and have their organs utilised against their wishes and against their own interests because they are not entitled to the rights that men enjoy

or we accept that women get sovereignty over their bodies like all people. Like men. And we look the consequences in the face and say, yes. That is an acceptable consequence.

It is less acceptable to me to enslave women than it is to give them sovereignty.

Post 24 weeks is for severe disability

Why the need to justify "post 24 weeks" with "severe disability" or health grounds as a caveat?

Pro abortionists (unless they're hippocrites) should support it until birth.

Why should a woman loose her choice not to be an incubator at 24 weeks?

Why should she loose her choice not to be a mother at 24 weeks?

Why would the pro choicers become forced birthers at/after 24 weeks and have a child that will disrupt her life?

Her body, her choice...up to 24 weeks unless the baby is severely disabled

^The question should really be
"Is slavery or ownership of a person ever justifiable"^

How do you feel about prohibitions on being able to sell blood or kidneys? I think most people would agree with "ownership" if they believe there is a justification for removing that particular bit of autonomy. In fact IME most pro-choice people have a time limit that ends some time before birth, after which they support "slavery" and "ownership".

Will just make the point that "abortion ethics" consists of more than just the ethics of preventing a choice or making it illegal.

The ethics of the government trying to prevent or make laws against adultery tell tell us one part of "adultery ethics", but say nothing about the actual ethics of committing adultery.