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.

category you're not seriously suggesting that we should be able to terminate a baby at 39 weeks surely i mean i accept that in practice it would be exceptionally rare, but surely it shouldn't even be within contemplation (medical issues aside).

Sterilisation should be more openly available to people who know they do not want any children.
The number of threads i've seen on here of women being refused "Because you might change your mind and want a/another child/ you're too young etc" disgusts me.
It's like women can't win, they try to take the absolute option to never get pregnant, and are told "it's your body but it's NOT your choice to become voluntarily infertile"
And if they get pregnant accidentally, because nothing bar celibacy is 100% protection, they then get bashed for choosing a termination.

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

Exactly. Ethics is the debate, in a sense.

If it was clear cut, (for example if abortion was clearly deemed equivalent to murder) there wouldn't be an ethical debate.

Really adviceplease? 91% of abortions are under 13 weeks as it is. The vast majority of abortions past this point would be due to medical conditions I imagine. Why would you feel the need to bring in some kind of law dictating what kind ownership a woman has over her own body, considering the statistics? It's a slippery slope IMO.

For some people this includes Possibly a bit about belief and religion too...if you have been brought up to belive in a life after death,where we are accountable for our actions,that can impact on your choice ..say for example someone believed that their deceased relatives were looking down on them from a happier place? How would that be any different than a child that died in a termination? At what point does a fetus have a soul? ,become a being ,a person,at conception,or birth...

I don't what the discussion you want would even be?
It's basically one side arguing for their own personal rights and the other side saying they should not have those rights. How can that ever be a balanced argument?

I am pro-choice. I would think very, very hard about having an abortion and I believe most women would. It is a serious decision. I am very receptive to the posts here that talk about the difficulties of that position, and what pain it causes to those who believe it's wrong.

I do know one thing though. Rightly or wrongly I have learned to be suspicious of specifically men (or rather, people who cannot generally get pregnant) who are vehemently pro-life. They typically in my experience come with a vast dose of privilege which means they would never have to face the worst consequences of an unanticipated birth. I do not find I can take their interventions seriously. It is a very serious subject, and they are no better than soap box ranters.

Generally I find a discussion on this subject that is all or mostly made up of women or at least where the tone is set by women (there may be some men on this thread too, which is all well and good) to be more sober and considerate, as this one is.

So I think my answer to the OP's question is, sadly, "YANBU, but the reason it's very hard to have a serious, two-way discussion is that many discussions (outside places like Mumsnet) involve privileged men."

Absolutely no way should there be a panel and no way should a couple trying to conceive be involved, they would be not all objective, couldn't possibly be, and it's totally up to the pregnant person and their conscience. I am pro choice

I really like niminy's post. These are pretty deep philosophical questions that don't have easy answers. In the practical/political world we've settled on viability as the yardstick, with exceptions for life-limiting conditions and so on - but this sort of statutory approach can only ever be very blunt (although it does make a certain amount of intuitive sense, which is why it's become a fairly settled issue in the UK).

I see some people arguing that, theoretically, a woman should have the absolute right to terminate pregnancy up to term for any reason. Just as a moot debating point, not a real-life case - but that's how we test our ethical beliefs. I could not support that; a 39-wk foetus is near as dammit a baby, and I don't want to kill babies. (I'm sure nobody else on here does either)

So the 24-week limit is an ethical fudge based on what the public and the medical profession are broadly willing to accept. I support it, but it is a fudge. Very few people would carry the logic of pro-choice to its limit.

The issue for me is that it is very difficult to disentangle the rights of a mother and that of an unborn child because the child cannot survive before a certain point.

It's all very well to say "well the mother shouldn't carry the child if they don't want to" but that's quite selfish because it assumes that the mother has good reason for her decision. What if she doesn't? What about facing up to consequences of your actions? Why is it ok for a mother to reject her child when it's inside her body - what about when it's born? The child didn't ask to be conceived....

I'm not sure how I feel about abortion. I think that it is up to the woman to make the choice but I think that any woman needs to make sure she is fully supported in the choice that she makes. It's not so simple as saying "after X weeks there should be no abortion, full stop".

I need to do more reading into this. But I don't like the idea of men, and it's usually men, publically spouting shit about this when they have no clue what it's like to actually carry a baby.

"A baby is as dependent on its mother (or at least others) after birth as before it," The key words here are (or at least others). You have answered your own question.

Not really... I don't see why it is self-evident that "someone being dependent on some other person = they have a right to life" whereas "someone being dependent on their mother alone = they don't have a right to life".

Lazy logic! The real Bertram would be turning in his grave!

I'm not sure I get your OP. Abortion rights are a bit like pregnancy - you can't have just a bit of them. Either you think women should have the ultimate say in what goes on inside their own bodies, or you don't. I'm not sure what sort of half-way position you could have on this one.

Very few people would carry the logic of pro-choice to its limit.

A surprising number of people on MN seem to!

It's ridiculous to suggest women would choose to go to term and then end the pregnancy then - it's just not something sane people would do.

The vast majority of terminations are performed in the first trimester - the very few that are late term are usually performed in heart-breaking circumstances where it's a choice between the mother's life or the foetus won't survive anyway.

We should trust women to make decisions about their own bodies.

Advice have you got a link please for a 19/20 weeker that has survived ?

Hi khajiit, I guess because after having a 12 week scan, I can see a real little person, a baby and I just can't understand that even after that stage a child can be aborted. I personally know someone who was strongly advised to abort a baby with a medical condition, she didn't and gave birth to a healthy non disabled baby. Doctors can get it wrong and the idea even one child is aborted breaks my heart

I am firmly pro-choice but I would not describe myself as pro abortion. Personally I had scans but no blood tests for abnormalities as I realised I wouldn't be able to abort so it was rather pointless. That was my choice, I don't think that means it should be everyone's choice. I think a sensible cut off point for abortion is when babies can survive independently if born. My understanding is that there are very few late abortions anyway so I am not convinced the current law needs changing.

ISA that's just your opinion too.

I said it was my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
Why isn't it a good idea to have a variety of perspectives from people before a woman makes a life changing choice? Would you make such a life changing decision blind?
That's like going to university to get a degree without reading the syllabus. It's like buying a car without having a test drive? I am confused.

Why are you so adamant?
When people get so strict with their opinions it becomes unviable to discuss such a sensitive topic.

I personally know 3 people who've had abortions post 14 weeks, one being at 23 weeks, the 23 weeker needed an injection to the heart to 'kill' the baby and she had to deliver. Incredibly wrong in my view, pre 14-16 weeks, then choice is fine. Past this point then the child needs to have rights and protection unless rape/profound disability is found.

Agree with a lot of what ChocolateWombat says.

I don't think most people fit neatly into pro-choice or pro-life positions. I think many people (myself included) are broadly pro-choice regarding early terminations but find it increasingly difficult to reconcile that position the further the pregnancy progresses (unless TFMR).

Few people (even professed pro-choicers) feel entirely comfortable with a 38wk termination.

What specialsubject said with fucking bells on.

I apply the same logic to same sex marriage, if you are neither Partner 1 or Partner 2 does it really fucking matter?

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

There is also a very interesting legal argument to be had here. If they are alive/human from the moment of conception then all abortion indcludibg in the event of severe disability, maternal danger and rape would be murder. If they are not alive until birth (current legal position) then not only is it ok to terminate at any point (think about it, at the end of pregnancy the status of foetus is purely a question of out or in) but there is also no legal redress when a mother (or someone else) has harmed a baby in utero and causing lifelong disability (e.g. By taking drugs knowing that they are pregnant with no intention of having abortion). Many jurisdictions when setting abortion cut off points look at the point at which a baby is able to survive outside its mother to provide an example of a halfway point which would enable to give women autonomy over their body whilst protecting the interests of those who were maliciously harmed before birth (and those who are left to care for them). But can we have a nice reasonable discussion? No. People are so emotional about this that it has to be all or nothing. Recognising that a woman has rights over her own body undermines the sanctity of life apparently (ignoring the sanctity of her own life for a moment). At the other extreme, recognising the need to protect feotuses that will eventually be born objectifies women. Then you have people making idiotic throw away statements like you aren't entitled to an opinion if you don't have a uterus (as if women are the only ones effected by abortion laws). In this day and age we should all be able to get over the fear of the evil 'patriarchy' and act like reasonable, rational beings.

I'm not sure I get your OP. Abortion rights are a bit like pregnancy - you can't have just a bit of them. Either you think women should have the ultimate say in what goes on inside their own bodies, or you don't. I'm not sure what sort of half-way position you could have on this one.

But we have a half-way position at the moment legally with the 24 week limit. It's perfectly possible to have a compromise.

We compromise regarding our rights all the time... I have a basic human right to do as I please unless it adversely impacts someone else, in which case I'm required to modify or desist from my behaviour. That's someone we all accept. If (and I accept it's a big if) a foetus has some level of rights, then we should apply that principle to the matter of abortion. In other words, we wouldn't automatically have an unfettered right to do as we chose.

I am pro choice.

However, I felt my baby kick at 20 weeks. That made me think hard about late abortion. It made me very uncomfortable with the concept of abortion post 20 weeks. My best friend had an abortion post 20 weeks. I now know how hard that was for her, and that she did it as she didn't use contraception and she ignored pregnancy tests and lack of period. She deeply regrets having a late abortion, but knows it was the right choice for her. Her partner was devastated and they split up shortly after.

However I'm still pro choice. It was her choice not to continue that pregnancy.