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.

So if I had an elderly relative, totally dependent on me, it would be reasonable for me to kill him/her if I so chose simply because of that dependency? And you think that wouldn't be barbaric?!?

I mean look at this: not only is it offensive to the elderly, its also not analogous as well as bloody stupid!

What haven't I understood about it?!

How can we debate this without emotion? It's about life. So emotion does come into it.

It is entirely subjective as to whether it's about 'life' though Firefries.

For me, it's not a life until the baby is born, for some it is life from the moment of conception.

I can debate it with no emotion quite easily, as can others - some people can't - this is the way with all things though.

If you believe that life is sacred & begins as soon as there is a viable foetus, then what are your personal views on IVF?
Particularly the disposal of/experiments on unused foetuses.
Should IVF be outlawed?

Medical limits for abortion are currently 24 weeks for good reason. They are drawn up by people with clinical knowledge, people who know more than your average 'i read that they dream' person.

It was actually a prediction line drawn regarding where survival may exist in the future. There's nothing scientific about it at all.

When my mom had cancer and unconscious, I had to do the do not rescue.It was hard, but you know people make hard life decisions all the time

Can't beleive you need telling, but if you can;t see the difference between an elderly relative who is an actual person who could easily be cared for by anyone other than you if you didn;t want to, and a foetus in utero, then me explaining it won;t help you.

That's interetsing fruit. I didnt realose that was the origin.
The documentary I watched was talking about survival rates at 23 vs 24 weeks.
There was some discussion a few years back of some groups wanting it reduced to 20 and survival rates came up then too. I figured it's something discussed by experts and the line certainly seems to stack up with viability outside the womb.

Either way, it still comes down (in my opinion) to whether we think our personal views should be unilaterally imposed on someone else. If people want to restrict access to safe legal procedures they afe anti choice.

Because an elderly or disabled person may be utterly dependent on other people, but not on one particular person whether that person is keen or not. Carers, nurses and doctors can go on and off shift or have sick days or resign altogether; people can decide that care isn't a profession for them.

As discussed upthread, if a foetus could safely be transferred to a willing host then only the very very bigoted could possibly object to ending a pregnancy. We might have societal expectations about elder care but they can be overridden by logistics, practicalities and preferences with no loss of function in the patient.

As discussed upthread, if a foetus could safely be transferred to a willing host then only the very very bigoted could possibly object to ending a pregnancy

I don't know about anyone else but I would still be campaigning for abortion to be available as well as such a solution. Transfer would not be an acceptable thing for a lot of people.

What the OP originally stated is exactly what is happening here around the debate. The thing is we need to be able to hold our own view without having a problem that others have a different view on it, and we shouldn't mock or discredit others on these differences. See my original comment about what happens when we die does enter into the debate, whether you like it or not, yet people cannot handle that idea. And I can say that people may call a baby in the womb a cell or fetus or a whatever. See I'm okay with that. It doesn't shift my perspective. I also won't condemn people who have aborted. My feelings on what you have done are not relevant. I'm still happy to say a baby is a baby from conception, and if it is aborted then we are ending human life and we may face that human life one day. How I feel is not how someone else feels. I think we should be able to discuss all the possibilities around this though, because we don't really know what's what. We are not 100% accurate on anything and we cannot claim to be. I still suggest we try and understand someone else's position on it, and accept there are possible differences. I think that's the only way forward. There is no one right way on this.

I agree with you. It become a problem when people start saying abortions should be banned.

when people say they are pro life, it make me think they want abortions banned. Those who are against abortions but understands not everyone agrees with them seem like they are more pro-choice

Surely those who would like abortions banned should be campaigning loudly for more support systems in place for mothers and families in general, just to try to impact and reduce the amount of terminations? More (much more) financial and practical support throughout the childhood,better employment protection, emotional support etc? I don't think there is anything ethical with concentrating on saving a foetus and not acknowledging/addressing the quality of life it and its mother/other family will have after the birth.

I'm still happy to say a baby is a baby from conception, and if it is aborted then we are ending human life and we may face that human life one day.

Do you believe that people who have unused foetuses following IVF will meet those foetuses in the afterlife too Firefries?

Or is it just terminated ones that will meet us in the ghost plains, demanding answers?

Can't beleive you need telling, but if you can;t see the difference between an elderly relative who is an actual person who could easily be cared for by anyone other than you if you didn;t want to, and a foetus in utero, then me explaining it won;t help you.

Firstly, a viable foetus (i.e. healthy and over 28 weeks) could be cared for by someone else too.

Secondly, an elderly person is clearly an "actual person". My question is whether a foetus, especially one near term, should be regarded as an "actual person" too in terms of rights. My issue is with the argument that the foetus shouldn't be regarded as an "actual person" because they are fully dependent on someone else. (There may be other reasons why a foetus shouldn't be regarded as an "actual person" but I'm focussing here in the validity of this particular argument). If, and it's a big if, this argument is valid, then it has a profound implication on the status and value of severely disabled or elderly people who are fully dependent on a family cater who, similar to the late-term foetus, could be cared for by others.

Surely those who would like abortions banned should be campaigning loudly for more support systems in place for mothers and families in general, just to try to impact and reduce the amount of terminations?

Contrary to those who would frame it is as a black or white issue, I really don't think it is, and the majority of the UK feel the same (single digit % believe in fully unrestricted abortion so popular on this thread, with a similar single digit % in favour of a total ban). Most people struggle with the ethics, as I do, and are somewhere in the middle. English law recognises this with its 24 week limit.

A foetus/baby is not an actual person yet because they have not been born and become an independent separate entity from their mother. To me the only two points where you could consider them to have become an actual person is conception or birth. From conception makes no sense to me because the idea of giving full human rights to a clump of cells is nonsensical. So birth is the only other point that could be considered. Anywhere in between is subject to opinion and debate about consciousness, viability etc etc. Impossible to decide on a point in between that makes sense in all situations.

Firstly, a viable foetus (i.e. healthy and over 28 weeks) could be cared for by someone else too

Only if the woman chooses to push it out of her body first, and you didn;t say "heatlthy and over 28 weeks" did you?

My question is whether a foetus, especially one near term, should be regarded as an "actual person" too in terms of rights

If that is your question (which it wasn't) the answer is simple. No.

HTH

Legally, a foetus becomes an 'actual person' when it is born.

Of course, an individual, for example the woman who is pregnant with said foetus, can call and think of it as her baby, but legally it is not a baby.

In the same way that people refer to dead bodies by name or relationship, but legally it is a corpse and does not have the same rights as a living body has.

Given how vanishingly few abortions are carried out after the viability cutoff, and how many of those vanishingly few are for conditions incompatible with life, it seems like arguing for argument's sake to say that a 28-weeker would survive when the statistics suggest that it's more like 50/50 at that point and of the survivors a further 50% have significant life-limiting conditions (see eg this study). The vast, vast majority of abortions in Britain are carried out at 3-9w gestation, when the foetus weighs no more than about 2g and the placenta hasn't taken over fully. More crucially, the first sense (touch) only begins to develop at around 8w - this is by no means a sentient being. A close look at the statistics reveals that less than 0.1% of abortions in the UK are carried out after 24w (and only 2% after 20w). In fact there are fewer post-20w abortions than there are abortions on the grounds of anomalies in the foetus (eg 2877v3023 in 2015).

Comparing a foetus at 3-9w gestation to a premature neonate is at best disingenuous. Casting doubt on the morality of all abortions based on hypotheticals about late abortions shows a lack of understanding at best, and sheer bloody malice at worst.

Abortions have been legal in Britain for fifty years this year. Rates bulge around times of financial crisis (the peak is 2007-2008 and is now reducing again). The abortion rate is around 25% of the live birth rate ... so we aren't talking about a few extra babies looking for adoptive families, but another 25% pressure on school places, medical provision, social security, etc. Put bluntly, abortions make sense for Britain: socially and financially. We cover the morality by providing guidelines to ensure those abortions come as early as possible, and with feticide before delivery where necessary.

If that is your question (which it wasn't) the answer is simple. No.

The fact 90%+ of the British public don't believe in abortion on demand to term shows the answer to this isn't so blindingly obvious.

English law recognises this with its 24 week limit.

Yes, but the 24-week limit only applies to some grounds. There's no time limit for emergencies (eg to save the pregnant woman's life or protect her from significant harm).

Only if the woman chooses to push it out of her body first

Near term the woman has to push it out regardless.

Yes, but the 24-week limit only applies to some grounds. There's no time limit for emergencies (eg to save the pregnant woman's life or protect her from significant harm).

Fair point, what I should have said was English law recognises this by placing a limit of 24 weeks on abortion on demand.