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.

khajiit13

What are the reasons for the 0.1%?

Are we talking non viable baby? I.e. Serious heart/lung defects? Or social choice? I.e. I don't want another child or I didn't use contraception?

If you kill a baby four months after it's born its called murder. If you terminate a fetus four months before it's born it's called a legal abortion. The end result is the same, the loss of a life. What should be debated is why so many woman are so stupid that they get pregnant when they do not want to when there are so many ways to prevent it and so much information on this subject freely available to them. Pro choice for a woman means no choice for the baby!

if you do strongly believe that a foetus has human rights then it's perfectly natural to want to protect those rights by opposing abortion. It's not the same the other way round as whether you choose to keep you baby or abort it, it's still your choice. For instance, if we happened to go back in time and cross continents to Inca civilasation, and we saw people killing their own babies/toddlers under the age of 'humanity', would it be reasonable to say "well, I wouldn't kill my 18 month old, but if they want to kill theirs, it's their choice and none of my business"

Exactly!

GreatFuckability

Interesting points, duly noted.

"Are we talking non viable baby? I.e. Serious heart/lung defects? Or social choice? I.e. I don't want another child or I didn't use contraception?"

Well, in the U.K. it wouldn't be "social choice" [shudder]

CherriesInTheSnow
The anti choice people will go on to paint a romantic picture of a baby being presented to adoptive parents who will give it the best upbringing.
They always seem to avoid discussing the realities of a child acting as a parent to the latest baby thay mum can't cope with, or the teenager with cognitive delay because his mother drank so much during pregnancy, or the children who get neglected because parents can't cope so go through the child protection system at 5, 6 years old.
I see a lot of anti choice people feeling virtuous about how they are saving babies but have very little to say about their lives once they've been saved.

Personally, i am pro life other than medical reasons for ME. But I have the CHOICE to choose that view. I would never want to love somewhere where children are born into a life of suffering because some moron witj a placard wanted to emotionally manipulate a woman into kreping a child she doesn't want.

post 24 weeks there must be real danger to the life of the mother or the foetus for mental or physical health reasons littlecaf TOP is not given to people at that stage because they didn't use contraception ffs.

Genuine question - is it worse for someone to have an unwanted baby than to end an unwanted pregnancy,me specially in the later stages.

It is often an assumption(and this thread is all about challenging assumptions and showing the areas that can be debated reasonably and sensibly) that if a child is born unwanted that it cannot have a good life and somehow would have been better aborted.
Another assumption which is often taken as a given is that a Foetus with a disability cannot have a decent life and is better aborted.

Surely these assumptions should be questioned. Sometimes people with unwanted pregnancies find they actually love their child when it is born and babies relinquished at birth for adoption are often hugely wanted and loved by adopters and can go onto have great lives. So, this makes me think that when people try to justify abortion in terms of the future child having a terrible life if unwanted, this is a weak argument.

Regarding the impact of unwanted pregnancy on women, I think again it is difficult to say what that effect is. The assumption that going through to birth with an unwanted pregnancy will tip every single woman over the edge into suicide or severe mental health problems, doesn't seem borne out to me. I can see it could have that effect, but to assume it is always the case, again doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence. Of course, it is very difficult to make judgements about these things and whether anyone should be making such judgements is another area for debate. However, to say that everyone who doesn't want to have a baby (especially in late stages of pregnancy) should be allowed to due to mental health issues, just doesn't seem right to me.

I accept that sometimes pregnancies are the result of rape or abuse or other terrible things. Of course it is important to acknowledge this and a strong case can be made for abortion in these cases perhaps, but many many pregnancies are not due to these things. Is there a point where a woman who is carrying a foetus in the late stages, who doesn't want to bring up a baby, has to accept or should accept that the foetus is at a point where it has a right to life and protection and they will just have to finish the pregnancy? I think a lot of people do feel like that. That sometimes there is no 'good reason' to end the pregnancy and the foetus has a right to live.

So this then raises further questions of what a 'good' reason for abortion is and if there are good reasons and bad reasons? Is medical issues or early pregnancy or health or mental health issues of woman a good reason? Is simply not wanting to carry a baby to the end of pregnancy and go through birth an equal reason or can one not say? Is there ever a point when the foetus gains rights to life because the mother loses the right to choice, perhaps due to the stage of pregnancy?

BertrandRussell

Sorry, I don't understand your point, women do have abortions for social reasons, even if legally it's for medical reasons, see my post above.

Littlecaf I imagine most pro choice women are people who understand that the vast majority of abortions happen well before this point. It is unnecessary and inaccurate (as with most things) to blanket assume that anyone who says they are pro choice, are automatically okay with abortion no matter what. The reality is I think, a lot of people are like me, not actually okay with abortion in principle but can understand and put their own emotions aside and realise that for some people, it is the least heartbreaking and life ruining option.

I am 30 weeks pregnant and I can't imagine, even considering aborting an embryo. But that is my problem and should some awful circumstances ever occur where I am pregnant against my will, I know that I will very very likely carry that baby to term no matter what. Does that mean all women should have to make the same decision because of my beliefs?

Abortion isn't nice, i just think it's necessary and the alternative of no abortion would be awful for women and girls.

My issue with the more militant of "pro-life" campaigners is they're not "pro-life" they're just "pro-birth".

GreatFuckability

Yes I know that, I was asking a genuine question, and noting your point.

Don't be so rude. I'm being genuine in trying to understand and be respectful of others opinions.

So we're saying that women pretend to have medical problems so they can have very late abortions because they "couldnMt be bothered" to use contraception.

Right.

AHedgehogCanNeverBeBuggered
That's all good and well but it does not always work out that way and adoption agencies are overrun.

What should be debated is why so many woman are so stupid that they get pregnant when they do not want to when there are so many ways to prevent it and so much information on this subject freely available to them

Man this is depressing.

Contraception isn't just the female's responsibility.

In any event contraception fails

Honestly chocolate.

It's almost irrelevant in my opinion.

I am pro life. But whatever reason a woman seeks an abortion, it is not my place to challenge her reasons or try to sell parenthood to her because if the baby is born she might end up loving it.

The way I see it is the baby is relying on the mother for life. It is, essentially and bluntly, a parasite. Survival rates have gone up at births after 24 weeks but there's been almost no gains at less. There's a tiny tiny number of late abortions for whateever reason. Bottom line is a baby at 13/20/23 weeks isn't viable on it's own, therefore the woman's right to choice is primary.

chocolate My opinions on it being better to abort come from my own experiences growing up in foster, i had a disinterested father, a mentally ill mother and my life was chaotic and awful at times.
I know this isn't everyones experience, but consider that children who grow up in care have a dreadful record of going into higher education. this means their life chances are significantly damaged, possibly from birth. it can mean a life of poverty and hardship. a life of being stigmatised and looked down on. this is the reality of being born into a family who can't or won't take care of you. so, yes, we can't say for sure a woman won't be a perfectly adequete mother if she has an unwanted baby, but there is a high enough risk of it IMO to make it worth thinking about.

So this then raises further questions of what a 'good' reason for abortion is and if there are good reasons and bad reasons? Is medical issues or early pregnancy or health or mental health issues of woman a good reason? Is simply not wanting to carry a baby to the end of pregnancy and go through birth an equal reason or can one not say? Is there ever a point when the foetus gains rights to life because the mother loses the right to choice, perhaps due to the stage of pregnancy?

This is my point, put in much better terms by Chocolate

I didn't mean to be rude littlecaf but the idea that one does that is just nonsense.

I wouldn't be alive if abortion was legal when i was conceived. I still support women's rights to not have a baby if they don't want one.

However I also think this is my opinion and if someone else disagrees then that is their decision to make

I find this a bizarre position for someone who states they are pro-life. If you're pro-life it's presumably because you believe the foetus has some right to life. If that's the case then it's not simply a matter of personal choice.

For instance, I disagree with racism, but I don't believe it's absolutely fine to be racist if that's your choice to be so. If I did you'd think I was mad! Why, because racism harms other humans with rights and dignity. If you're pro-life, you presumably believe the foetus should be afforded rights and dignity.

BertrandRussell

Yes! I am! Read my post up thread, my best friend did exactly that! No mental health problems, no family/financial issues/she & partner didn't use contraception, she just ignored the symptoms and hoped it went away!

Of course she's in the minor minor minor minority, but she still did it! She just stuck her head in the sand! I still stand by her though, she made the right choice for her.

My opinion is this. A human is considered to have died when they are "brain dead", even if they're still attached to life support. I think it probably works the other way too, so a foetus isn't yet the same as a baby, when they don't yet have a brain, or any awareness, nervous system etc, even though the pregnant woman is providing nutrition, oxygen etc.

But is it right to decide if abortion is right or not in an individual case because of the circumstances a child will be born into? Surely that cannot be right and people shouldn't be making that judgement.

Isn't is akin to saying who is allowed to get pregnant and who isn't in the first place, who 'deserves' to have a child and who doesn't? Isn't it then saying that a foetus' right to life is determined by the circumstances it would be born into.

I accept that unwanted pregnancies can result in babies being a situations where weak parenting occurs or even worse. However, does that mean those babies should never be born? Some people seem to use this kind of argument to support choice. It just doesn't seem very logical to me, especially when people are saying it is the Woman's choice that matters - for them, the woman always trumps the foetus, so I think referring to the life the child would live becomes a bit of a red herring.