Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

[avenueone]

There is a story on the front page of the Telegraph tomorrow (paper review) saying that in brief due to babies? being able to survive from a younger age it should be reduced.
I personally don't think this is an argument as I doubt they could survive without medical intervention. I feel it is just another attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose what we do with out bodies. Sorry no link but there should be one around tomorrow and I will try and post it.

baddancingdad

The relevant question, for me, concerning abortion is the point at which someone acquires human rights - in this case the right to life.

Not really. You can accept that a foetus has a right to life from conception if you wish, provided it does not have a right to use another person' body that makes absolutely no difference.

Everyone on the kidney transplant waiting list has a right to life, however they do not have a right to one of my kidneys if I choose not to donate it, even though I can carry on living just fine with one kidney (in fact losing one kidney could have less impact on my health than carrying to term and delivering a baby) and they may well die without it.

As to the fathers, I think they should have a say in terms of what treatment is offered if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy of a viable baby before term.

Otherwise, they can have a say the day they become able to have the foetus implanted into their bodies and carry it to viability.

I don't think your kidney analogy is helpful to the case although I do see where you're trying to go with it.

I think that you are saying that a woman has absolute control over her body even when there is another person growing within that body. This is a pov, but this is an ethical question for me and therefore open to debate. I'm absolutely pro-choice btw, but I do think that this is a case of two people's rights: mother AND child.

I'm unsure how you ratify a belief that the father has no responsibility for a child before it's born, but joint responsibility thereafter (I'm making an assumption here - namely that you would object to the assigned gender role of mothers as being primarily responsible for child care...)

baddancing - you aren't talking about responsibility there, you're talking about control.

It isn't that the father has no responsibility for the foetus (although legally nothing is required of him), it's that he has no right to say what happens to the mother. For instance, with IVF the father has as much say as the mother about embryos that haven't been implanted, but once it's inside the mother she is the conduit - he can provide support but has no control, because he has no authority over the mother'sr body.

I absolutely agree that no one has authority over anyone's body other than the person whose body it is.

As I said, however, this is a question of two bodies: the mothers AND the baby's. In the case of the latter, the body clearly has relevance to the father; he could be said to have an interest in it. Abortions affect all parties (not in equal measure, obviously); does that mean the father has associated rights? I don't know. I can see what many people think here, but I don't know.

What sort of rights could a father have for a foetus that didn't involve subjugating the mother?

Thanks EG I was just thinking how to phrase that...

Should women have the right to abort a child at any point in the pregnancy then? Beyond 24 weeks?

How is that relevent to whether a father has a rights over the mother's body?

Or are you suggesting that if the father dies while the mother is pregnant, then the mother should be able to abort (post 24 weeks), but if the father is still alive then the mother shouldn't?

Because isn't a limit of 24 weeks subjugating of the mother? Authority exists over her choice from that point...

Something I note about this site is the way many people like to dissect the question rather than attempt to answer it. Is this because there are a lot of academics here?

My view point on it is, that an abortion should take place well before 20 weeks. For eitherway it is a life albeit an extremely young one. Then again there are bound to be grey areas where a scan is done at a later stage and there is to be found something seriously wrong with the baby/or something is seriously wrong with the mother's health etcetera., To let a baby grow for 24 weeks and then the woman only then decides that she wants rid and there is nothing wrong with her or the baby then that is sick! The baby at 24 weeks is well formed and kicking, to me, at that stage, you really are murdering a child. Yeh yeh I'm sure some people wont like what I wrote in the end part but it is just my own personal view on the matter, which will make no difference to the law or what actually continues to carry on within this very sensitive issue of Abortion Rights.

Yes, subjugation by the State. Are you saying because the State subjugates women, individual men should be able to as well? Or am I not following your line of thought?

I wasn't stating anything; I was asking what you thought and following a line of my own thought. Essentially, though, yes, that's roughly where I'm going. The state subjugation enforced by a 24 week limit; is that something you agree with or would you extend beyond 24 weeks?

4Sure, but surely by that argument, you're arguing that fetuses with something "seriously wrong with them" don't deserve the same right to life that a healthy fetus does?

I still stand by the belief that every child should be a wanted child. Should a woman wish to end a pregnancy, that remains her prerogative, regardless of the stage of the pregnancy.

'Should women have the right to abort a child at any point in the pregnancy then? Beyond 24 weeks?'

Yes. I believe so and so do many others. Hasn't this already been covered in this thread?

Badancing - you were suggesting that fathers might have some rights around a foetus a woman is carrying. I understand the idea of the foetus having a right to life, I understand the idea of a woman having rights over her body. What I am curious about is what sort of rights you think a father could have?

I absolutely do not believe that women should have the right to abort at any point. I think it's a terrifying and horrible idea.

Where does "every child should be a wanted child" end, really? My friend who is a social worker sees many unwanted children every day...they are 5, 6, 8 years old. Should they receive an injection to stop their hearts?

CheerfulYank, of course us feminists completely advocate killing children.

Completely. FFS.

Actually, terminating a pregnancy doesn't, necessarily, mean killing the fetus. If the fetus would be viable, there is the possibility of a pregnancy being terminated, the fetus being delivered live, and raised under state care until it can be adopted.

I do wonder if the number of children in care would fall with abortions becoming more accessible; How many children that were wanted every step of the pregnancy end up in care?

I don't know. Many of the children I know in care were born to mothers who have had abortions, so I assume they do have access to them.

I do not think that feminists completely advocate killing children. And actually though I've been told I'm not "allowed" to be a feminist if I oppose abortion up til birth, I do consider myself one.

I meant only that there is, to me, very little difference between an 8 month old fetus and, say, my five year old. And definitely very little difference between my DS and an already born baby, which some posters on this thread have advocated the termination of "in some cases."

I am aware that an abortion of a late-term fetus does not necessarily have to mean its death, but as far as I am aware this is always the case. Maybe I'm just ignorant of it, but I haven't heard of any cases of the fetus being "delivered live, and raised under state care until it can be adopted"...at least, not on purpose.

Cheerful could you point me to the post where someone advocated killing an already born baby in some cases?

BDD can we separate out the two issues?

At what gestation are you suggesting that the father gains some rights over the foetus?

(by the way, born babies don't usually smile until 3-4 weeks old)

''Only two per cent of all abortions happen after 20 weeks.

Those having later abortions are often young, and vulnerable, disabled. They may have been in denial, their circumstances may have changed, they may have just gathered the strength to leave a violent partner, they may not have known they were pregnant or their may have been medical reasons for delaying or the waiting list may have been too long.

A massive 87 per cent are carried out under 13 weeks.

Why on earth would you want to make things more difficult for women who are already in a horrible situation?

What we should actually be doing is making it easier for women to have early abortions. At the moment, women who want to abortion pill get one and then have to go buy for another. Not everyone has a clinic around the corner. It seems ridiculous that a woman can't take both with her.''

Quoting Newnames.

why do we want to make things more difficult for people who are already in a horrible situation?