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.

It depends on the circumstances at this late stage then doesn't it. If mum was given terrible news that the child would have multiple disabilities then she surely is allowed to decide whether to bring her unborn into the world.

My sister is head of an autistic unit and tells me that a lot of these children have no quality of life. Neither do their parents.

Its none of your business to judge this.

It depends on the circumstances at this late stage then doesn't it.

True, but I'm talking about healthy viable foetuses 28 weeks +.

I accept that there are some key differences in the nature of dependency for a foetus and an elderly person needing care. However, the idea that I have the right to terminate the existence of baby (who by late in the 3rd trimester can see, hear, taste and even dream) simply because I provide for all it's needs is morally wrong.... In my opinion you judge how civilised a society by how it treats its most vulnerable and dependent, and a society that places no value on a baby within a womb who has all the attributes of a healthy baby outside a womb is distorted, and is giving undue weight to an individual's bodily autonomy. Like most things in life, there are very few absolutes... bodily autonomy is one of them. Like freedom of speech or freedom of association, bodily autonomy is an extremely important principle, but it doesn't trump everything else.

Given the above, I don't think this should just be a matter of personal ethics, and believe it's appropriate for it to be subject to legal restrictions.... English law has the balance about right in my opinion.

@coconuttella, I agree with your position, I have no problems with first trimester abortions being available, the alternative situation is far worse. I'm not the one dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

But the mantra 'abortion on demand when needed, as late as necessary' is a mantra used by left-wing feminists though that doesn't mean there aren't other women who hold to it. A lot of them are on this thread. But they number less than 10% of the female population.

I'm quite comfortable with the law as it is, in fact.

@silverbell64, I hear what you're saying about autism, but there is no way of spotting that in utero as far as I'm aware. It's spotted at about 18 months hence the so-called link with MMR.

Certainly that could be said about other disabilities, though I think abortions in the case of Down's shouldn't be pushed as much as they are. Some pro-life views on this though are ridiculous.

But the law allows for later abortions on these grounds anyway.

I agree that people have very entrenched views. I was talking to my teenage son about Rees Mogg's views. I am not anti abortion but I can understand the clarity and wisdom and consistency of a view that life begins at conception. The romans used to leave unwanted babies out to die up to a year old on hill sides. Indeed most under 5 died than not at some stages in history and plenty of babies died and still die during childbirth - the most dangerous 24 hours of your life even now by the way. Looking into my family tree recently one poor great grandma had 10 babies but only 5 live chidlren by 1911 and then another died aged 30 at workin an accident. It was not a certainty that most of your babies would live so people had very different attitudes to it all.

I have never really understood why we make a massive distinction between before and after birth either. If my grandchild due next week were disabled it would be lawful to "murder"/ abort it today under English law. If it is not disabled it would not. Whether it were disabled or not it would be murder to kill it next week at birth. Yet if the chance of disability is say 50% surely it is better not to abort at 10 weeks but instead wait until birth so saving an awful lot of non disabled babies and only terminate after birth?

Hypothetically.

If a woman is 28 weeks pregnant and wants an abortion, and the law said we recognise your right to not be pregnant anymore but we also don't allow abortion at this stage so you'll be induced for a live birth instead...

You would end up with a preemie baby in NICU without family there to care for it. What would be the chances of a good outcome?

I feel like comparing this scenario to current live births at 28 weeks is disingenuous. A much wanted much loved 28 weeker, whose parents are constantly nearby providing as much physical contact as possible, talking to the baby, etc surely has a better outcome than one whose only contact is staff. It is already documented that preemies survive better if given breastmilk as it reduces the chances of NEC amongst other benefits.

I struggle to believe there would be many people waiting to adopt a permanently disabled child who was the result of a request to end a pregnancy at 28 weeks, even 32 or 34.

So we would end up with a situation where a lucky few survived the induction / section and resulting NICU stay with no long term problems, and would be adopted as cuddly newborns.

And the rest? Orphanages? What kind of life would that be?

The temptation of course would be to delay the induction. Every additional day inside would increase the risk of being healthy. Then encourage the woman to give a 'first feed' after birth. Maybe encourage some skin to skin. Maybe leave the baby in the room for a bit while staff 'find somewhere to take it'. The emotional blackmail would be horrendous. And hard to blame the staff for when they would all know what hard work the baby would be to look after without a mother around.

If you think a woman has a right to request not to be pregnant any more you kind of have to agree to abortion. Because the needs of the foetus would be in direct conflict with the wishes of the mother. It's just not realistic to suggest ending the pregnancy with a live birth would be a positive outcome.

We need to be a bit more honest with statistics. At 28 weeks gestation a baby is almost definitely going to survive. The percentage is 92% and if you add to that the fact that often they are born early due to complications so a healthy fetus would almost certainly survive.

www.newsweek.com/babies-born-22-weeks-can-survive-medical-care-new-study-find.

This study shows that from 22 weeks there is a 25% survival rate if actively treated in hospital . At present there are over 3,000 abortions in the UK annually at 20 weeks or later. This is why at this stage they use feticide as they know these babies will be born alive and have the ability to survive. Whilst I believe that life starts at conception, I accept that there should be access to abortion for those to whom having a baby would cause extreme distress or endanger life (as per the original abortion law that was passed) I am personally horrified that in a civilised country, in circumstances outside of this, it is considered okay to end the life of a baby capable of surviving outside of its mothers womb. I think at that point, the babies rights to live outweigh the mothers rights. She should have the right to no longer incubate the child, but not to chose to end its life. I think that is where many women stand and I think that is why more women that men want the current 24 week cut off point to be lowered. Anyone who has carried a baby knows that from the first 12 week scan it is identifiable as a baby and not a 'blob of jelly' and the launguage used by the pro-choice lobby is very deliberate to de-humanise the baby.

Unless you're rolling in money with 24/7 support, life with a disabled child is very hard I'd imagine. But as most disabilities can be detected very early now ( Down's syndrome is a simple blood test in 1st trimester ) late abortions are probably quite rare. Even if something is picked up on the 20 week scan you'd decide what to do within a week or two?
Abortion when there is nothing wrong with the baby should be completed by 12 weeks imo. Only in exceptional circumstances should it be allowed later.
The earlier the better, for the mothers sake as much as anything else.

It isn't clear that any healthy 28-weekers are being aborted, though. It's a straw man.

This is why at this stage they use feticide as they know these babies will be born alive and have the ability to survive.

Born alive and ability to survive a day? Delivery is hard work and potentially traumatic for baby and mother: if you know the baby will die then it can certainly be kinder to spare it that step.

Batteries,Studies suggest that at 28 weeks gestation, only 10% of babies would have severe disability.45% would have NO disability. Add to this that these are babies who have been born prematurely which can in itself be because there is an issue with the fetal health. If we were just talking about healthy fetuses the survival rate would be higher and severe disability rate lower.

The reason we are talking about healthy 28 weeks gestation, apart from the fact that Batteries used it as an example, is to counter the argument that women can choose at any time for any reason to end their pregnancy. If the baby can survive without the mother she should have the choice not to carry it, but not the choice to end its life.
As is evident from this thread, many abortions are carried out on the grounds of inconvenience these days and this is why the regulation is needed and honesty is needed about the development of a fetus.

I do think it's horrible that some people even think that abortion shouldn't be allowed in circumstances where the disability is incompatible with life. Cruel to both mother and foetus.

But with a healthy baby at 28 weeks, there is a good chance of a normal quality of life and there are a lot of couples waiting to 'foster to adopt'. My DSis and her DH adopted a relinquished baby where the mother didn't know that she was pregnant until 25 weeks gestation and didn't want anyone to know about her pregnancy.

And my DD2 was born at 32 weeks and in hospital for 6 weeks, she went straight into care and her birth parents hardly visited, but she's now living a happy life with her birth sister.

There wouldn't need to be emotional blackmail, simply the 6 weeks 'cooling off' period where the mum can change her mind.

But that's the law anyway, there needs to be a cut off somewhere.

Sorry it was the OP talking about 28week plus foetuses, that's why I used that gestation.

I am not a left wing feminist.

I agree with abortion on demand to term because any other position means a woman has no control over her own body. Any other position imposes laws to control the autonomy of women's bodies.

Late abortions are carried out usually due to catastrophic conditions of the foetus or to save the woman's life, obviously the latter rarely as a c section could be performed. They could be due to rape/incest and involve a very Vulnerable women or girl.

I don't see any examples of later term abortions due to a whim.

Trust women.

Mittens, I do agree with you but I also think there is very strong pressure on mothers to abort in those circumstances, to the point where they have to fight with the doctors to carry their babies to term. There should be an honest discussion with the parents wishes at the centre of that and no pressure in either direction. There are many situations where the mother has found it a great comfort amidst the sorrow, to give birth to and spend final hours/days with her baby whilst it dies rather than have to terminate. There are also a scarey amount of stories of mothers encouraged to terminate for medical reasons who went on to have completely healthy babies.
www.liveaction.org/news/mother-with-rare-pregnancy-complication-refuses-abortion-gives-birth-to-healthy-baby/
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2274668/My-baby-perfect-Why-did-doctors-push-abort-her.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11325799/Parents-who-ignored-doctors-advice-to-abort-premature-baby-celebrate-his-first-birthday.html
www.liveaction.org/news/parents-pressured-abort-show-beautiful-healthy-daughter/

I feel that things have now moved in a wrong direction and the choice to keep a baby is being eroded. There are women who have been raped who everyone assumes will not want their baby but they sometimes do, and have to fight for it. That is so unfair.
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1043041/I-raped-left-pregnant-16--I-love-baby.html
People should not make assumptions and should LISTEN to the woman involved compassionately .
My sister-in-law has a cousin who had 2 babies with anancephaly. She had such a battle to be allowed to carry them to term and nurse them for a few days until they passed away. It should not be a battle for women in these situations and they should have balanced counselling to weigh up which option is going to be the best outcome for them and their longterm mental health.

@vdbfamily, I agree absolutely. I've spent a lot of my time in Christian circles where the pressure is the opposite, hence what I said.

The mum really needs to be left to make her own decision.

Loving.....later abortions are not currently legal on a whim which is why they do not happen but there are women who genuinely consider that their baby is not ALIVE until it is born and is just a cluster of cells. If given the legal right to terminate AT ANY TIME for ANY REASON, why would they not at 30,36.38 weeks. It would only take a change in circumstance to decide it is no longer convenient.
I do genuinely believe that most women would not take a decision like that lightly, but from this thread, it is evident to me that there are some women who would not think twice about it, because they have successfully dehumanised a fetus in their minds up to the point of birth.

why would they not at 30,36.38 weeks

Why on earth would anyone continue with the hassle of a pregnancy they were planning to terminate just in order to be able to make a point about late abortions?

Pregnancy isn't a walk in the park, and the later you terminate the more difficult it is to pass the termination. It would be crazy to wait just to make a point!

It strikes me that those who believe in "abortion on demand to term" do so as it's seen as an article of faith to be a bone-fife left-wing feminist. Your credentials to be a member of this club depend on your agreement with it!

Are you going a medal for the amount of times one person can be both wrong and insulting at the same time?

As is evident from this thread, many abortions are carried out on the grounds of inconvenience these days and this is why the regulation is needed

In other words, regulation is needed to keep the feckless women in line.
Only the worthy should be permitted to decide the outcome of their unwanted pregnancy.

I do genuinely believe that most women would not take a decision like that lightly, but from this thread, it is evident to me that there are some women who would not think twice about it, because they have successfully dehumanised a fetus in their minds up to the point of birth.

Can you point me to the posters on this thread who said they'd be totally cool & indifferent re terminating a late term pregnancy?

Try as I might, I'm struggling to locate these posts.

A baby being inconvenient is a perfectly good reason to have an abortion. As is any other reason a woman has.
Sanctimonious gits who think they should have an opinion on whose reasons are good enough are the very reason we don't ask people why they want one!

Sorry, I meant a late term healthy pregnancy.

I imagine that would be me Faith. Despite no-one knowing (or bothering to ask) my personal feelings on the matter rather than my stance.

I was asked for a reason why I wanted an abortion by my GP at 8 weeks - he didn't refer me and I had to go through BPAS. This was 18 years ago though.

However, if people think that times have now changed, even the morning after pill has problems for a major chemist.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/10/boots-the-morning-after-pill-apology-bpas-price-women-contraception-lawyers

But you know I guess there are some posters on this thread who are happy with having prescriptive viewpoints on abortion.