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.

Some arguments in here are good, some not... The following frequently used ones really grate:

1. You're free not to have an abortion... so you should let me be free to have an abortion. Don't interfere in my choices...

That presupposes that the "pro-lifer" already accepts that the foetus doesn't have rights, when clearly the converse is true. If the pro-lifer does believe that a foetus has some degree of rights, then demanding that they just ignore your choice to deny those rights to the foetus is completely futile and unrealistic. It would be as futile and unrealistic as demanding that someone ignore it if you killed your elderly dependent relative on the basis that it was 'your relative; your choice'.

2. "It's hypocritical to hold a view that isn't pro-choice on demand if you won't also commit to adopting any unwanted newborns." (As an aside, newborns have no problem getting adopted but that's besides the point.) To insist on this would mean it would be impermissible to hold any view unless you were personally committed to invest heavily, and change your life completely, to help resolve it. For instance, if someone believed more help should be given to help migrants crossing the Med, would their views be illegitimate if they couldn't back this up with a boat of their own to support the rescue effort? Of course not!

3). "The foetus doesn't need have rights because it is completely dependent on the mother". It may not have rights, but this particular reason for it not having rights is barbaric!.... And wouldn't be used anywhere in civilised society in any other circumstance. Of course, making a mother birth her foetus may also be barbaric... it's just this argument that I think needs calling out for the horror that it is!

If you deny a woman her right to an abortion because it's murdering a foetus. Who is then classed as the murderer if the woman dies due to complications with her forced labour? The baby or the people who denied her the right to abort? As it can't be classed as murder of the foetus but not murder of the unwilling mother...

Pro choice to whatever point in your pregnancy you choose. Your body your choice no one else should have the right to force you to become a living incubator

I disagree that it wouldn't be helpful, if only to help people better understand the other side of the argument, because to imply that pro choice is not pro life is (for the most part) completely inaccurate.

On a personal level I don't agree with abortion in terms of emotionally I couldn't do it, unless the baby would die anyway upon birth. So you could say I am pro life.

However, I do not hold the belief that people should be bound by my beliefs because I know the world can be a shitty place and there are unfortunately circumstances where abortion is necessary or the least life destroying option. So I am pro choice.

It may not have rights, but this particular reason for it not having rights is barbaric!

in your opinion. In mine it's a perfectly logical and straightforward argument with no emotion attached.

It seems to me that it isn't actually difficult to understand the different views on this topic at all. I honestly don't see the point of discussion because there isn't anything complicated at all about the different standpoints, and people are very unlikely to change their minds.

imply that pro choice is not pro life is (for the most part) completely inaccurate

It's entirely accurate. I am not and never will be "pro-life". I don't recognise the term anyway since I don't believe foetuses even have life.

That's your opinion that you are entitled to but my point is to blanketly assume that anyone who is pro choice is also pro life is not accurate, hence why it would fit both people's perspective (I. e. yours and mine) to remove the"pro life" term and have pro choice and anti choice.

People who consider themselves "pro life" may not like the term anti choice but if you are going to stand by your convictions then you might as well admit the reality of what you are saying. You may feel very strongly about the rights if the unborn or whatever motivates you, but essentially what you are advocating is no other option for women, hence anti choice.

Whereas pro life and pro choice implies that anyone who identifies as pro choice is automatically not pro life, when it is not always the case.

And even though I am also pro choice, in the least offensive and emotive way, it's people like you who say that it is "entirely accurate" to make blanket assumptions is one of the biggest problems with debates like these.

@hairymaryquitecontrary, It's not correct to say that foetuses don't have life, or the potential for life. But once it gets past point of viability, which is legally put at 24 weeks, then you can't argue that it isn't a life. After all, from then onwards it can survive outside the womb.

Besides, if it isn't alive what is all that kicking???

You are the one choosing to use labels for something completely different from what they are understood to mean.

It IS completely accurate to say pro choice people are not pro life, in the context of what we all know them to mean. You can't say "I'm using them differently" and then tell the rest of us we are wrong! If my accurate use of terminology us your biggest problem with these debates, you shouldn't be in them.

It's not correct to say that foetuses don't have life, or the potential for life
Of course it is, when that is my opinion. I believe life begins at birth, so within that stance, a foetus is not alive. It does not have an independent existence, it is not an independent human life.
You can have a different opinion, but you cannot claim mine is wrong as if their is an objective fact there.

How can you argue that a fetus is not living??

I know people seem to like to argue that there might be some arbitrary point in life other than conception where life actually begins, biologically that is not the case at all.

You may argue the value, validity and worth of a life at different points if you feel such inclined, but don't be ignorant and try to change reality to fit in with your view point.

Sorry hairy but some things are open to opinion and some things are fact. You need to learn the difference.

There is an objective fact!!

@hairymaryquitecontrary, but actually it's not completely true, a foetus at 39 weeks is bigger than my DD2 was when born at 32 weeks. And now there is evidence that children are born traumatised whilst in utero by stress that the mother suffers. We read studies by experts whilst doing adoption training.

I think you do.
I am a living human being. I breathe, I have independence and sentience. I am born. I am alive.
Is a foetus?
Well if you think it is an obvious fact that it is, at what point is it? Is a fertilised egg alive? Is an embryo? A zygote? What point does life begin?

I say at birth, and I am far from alone in that. Your contention that it is alive and that is a fact is not actually the truth, I am sorry to tell you.

but actually it's not completely true, a foetus at 39 weeks is bigger than my DD2 was when born at 32 weeks

So what? since when was size the determination of life?

Literally a fertilised egg at the point of conception is biologically a living organism.

This is the problem with humans, we spend all this time learning facts and people literally dedicate their lives to discovering how this stuff works, and yet there are people who just come along and decide, "no, that's not the case, I don't believe it".

If the concept of "when life begins" as a nuance of the abortion debate is new to you, what rock have you been living under?

firefries Should I ever come face to face with the pregnancy i aborted, I would tell them the reason i did it was because I didn't want them to come into the world and have a shit life with a mother completely unequipped to deal with being a parent, a dad who was more interested in sticking speed up his nose and a family who didn't give a shit. I'm hopeful they'd understand it was done out of their best interests, but if not then i'd live (or, like....not) with it because I still believe i did the right thing even if its not what I wanted to do.

I have commented a lot on this debate and have spoken about that very subject on this thread too.

As I said, people may argue validity and value of life in its earliest stages but its just so frustratingly ridiculous and ignorant to see people say stuff like a 32 week old fetus isn't living. Can you not even rationalise how pointlessly arbitrary and stupid that is? So the exact same baby to you can be in its mother's womb and then 1 minute later be born, and somehow all the brain activity and other biological functions that had been going on for the last however many weeks meant absolutely nothing until that baby suddenly comes out of a vagina means nothing??

Are you aware that babies see, hear and dream in the womb? Im not being emotive pro life or anything I just genuinely can't comprehend why you think being pushed out of a vagina suddenly creates some kind of separate entity that is somehow different to the baby that has been simply inside a uterus instead.

I think it's more the case of not wanting to believe it, **hairymary. Because you don't want to think that you're aborting a living human baby. It's uncomfortable.

Thankfully the law considers that life begins at 24 weeks so abortion isn't allowed after that point, except for medical reasons.

There are people who believe that newborns are also also expendable so the argument that life miraculously begins at birth is not as clear cut as you would like to think.

I think the reason the abortion limit is 24 weeks is because this is the point at which a baby is generally considered viable outside the womb :) I am going to Google as I'm interested to see the exact legal terminolog!