Abortion Limit in the UK up to Six Months?

[JuniperWoolf]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7409696.stm

I'm really trying to figure out what I feel about this. By six months, the foetus isn't just a little conglomeration of cells like it is at less than three (the law in Canada). It's shaped like a baby with little fingers, it's almost fully developed. It even has dreams when it sleeps. It's one thing to abort a six month old foetus if there are life-threatening complications to the mother, but this law includes all women (although, most of them do get abortions within the first three months). Some women just don't know that they're pregnant, and if that's the situation, they're legally allowed to abort the foetus at up to the very end of their second term. Babies can survive if they're born that early, very often with the aid of an incubator. If you're a doctor and you abort a six month old foetus, you're not supposed to put it in an incubator because it's not "technically" a baby.

What do you guys think?

[The Atheist]

I'm really trying to figure out what I feel about this. By six months, the foetus isn't just a little conglomeration of cells like it is at less than three (the law in Canada). It's shaped like a baby with little fingers, it's almost fully developed. It even has dreams when it sleeps. It's one thing to abort a six month old foetus if there are life-threatening complications to the mother, but this law includes all women (although, most of them do get abortions within the first three months). Some women just don't know that they're pregnant, and if that's the situation, they're legally allowed to abort the foetus at up to the very end of their second term. Babies can survive if they're born that early, very often with the aid of an incubator. If you're a doctor and you abort a six month old foetus, you're not supposed to put it in an incubator because it's not "technically" a baby.

What do you guys think?

Is abortion at 26 weeks reasonable? My only answer to that can be that as 26 weeks is a perfectly viable baby and therefore no, it is not reasonable. The business of "the mother didn't know" should not be a valid defence. Ignorance is no defence in law, so why should stupid women get a free pass?

I don't how much authority this place has (http://www.marchofdimes.com/baby/premature_indepth.html), but they seem to quote actual statistics in saying that 80% of 26-week babies survive. That sounds about right.

Given the very high percentage of birth defects in that group, the survival rate is astonishing and there is no doubt that a competent hospital will save almost all 26-week babies if they were born by inducing rather than self-abortion, which is what a 26-week prem baby really is.

The option should clearly be that if a woman is too stupid to get checked for pregnancy until 26 weeks, then she will have the pregnancy terminated by caesarian birth and ultimate placement of the baby for adoption.

The mire around abortion isn't straightforward in any way, but allowing women to abort viable babies on a whim must not be allowed.

[Delta40]

The option should clearly be that if a woman is too stupid to get checked for pregnancy until 26 weeks, then she will have the pregnancy terminated by caesarian birth and ultimate placement of the baby for adoption.

The mire around abortion isn't straightforward in any way, but allowing women to abort viable babies on a whim must not be allowed.


Please provide us with the statistics on stupid women will you? What constitutes stupidity and at what point should men step in and make decisions over her reproductive rights?

Daddies, grandaddies, uncles, brothers are renowned throughout history for screwing anything that moves - including family members, animals and inanimate objects all for the thrill of an orgasm. They rape, beat and murder women and little girls. Please provide us with the statistics on stupid men will you?

Should such men who commit these acts be allowed to legislate laws? History tells us over and over - yes.

Abortion offends you. So what? Abortion also happens to be the end result of any amount of depraved acts comitted against women, by men, who succumbed to their own lust (which I have been told is natural).

Diminishing and generalising the position of women who seek abortion (most do it on a whim!) is a mere ploy to boost one's moral outrage. Nothing more

[OrphanPip]

Late term abortions are legal in the USA, and I imagine the UK would end up with the same problem people seeking late term abortions in the USA would have: it's next to impossible to find a doctor willing to perform one.

Ethically the problem for me isn't whether the woman should have the right to remove the baby at 26 weeks, it seems odd that she would have a right to withhold medical treatment from the baby once it is removed from her. If the baby is viable I think her right to terminate its life is forfeit.

[The Atheist]

Please provide us with the statistics on stupid women will you? What constitutes stupidity and at what point should men step in and make decisions over her reproductive rights?

I haven't asked that men make the decision, so don't go making stuff up, please. To me, a woman who is six months pregnant and doesn't know it is suffering from terminal stupidity. There are rare medical reasons why it may not be apparent, but the overwhelming majority of women who don't realise they're pregnant until late in the second trimester are just ignorant to the point of deserving no support for their plight whatsoever.

Don't want the kid? As I said, that's fine, but since it makes no difference to the woman, she can have it induced and adopted. End of problem all round.

You seem to have read things into my post that aren't there, so most of the rest of your post is irrelevant to what I did say.



Diminishing and generalising the position of women who seek abortion (most do it on a whim!) is a mere ploy to boost one's moral outrage. Nothing more

If a woman has let six months of pregnancy pass unnoticed, I see it very much as "on a whim" if she decides to terminate at that time.

Note that my comments apply solely to women seeking late term abortions through ignorance. That is actually clear from my post which mentions "26-week pregnancy/foetus" five times.

[JuniperWoolf]

I would just like to add for the sake of the discussion that there are many cases in which a woman can be pregnant and not know it that aren't able to be attributed to stupidity. There are birth control products which prevent women from menstruating altogether (eg. "the shot"), and yet the defence against pregnancy during the initial stages of contraception is not 100%. In many cases, women become pregnant just as they begin the contraception methods which are supposed to stop them from having a period, so when they miss their next flow cycle they attribute it to the shot. They're pregnant and believe that getting pregnant is impossible for them, so they don't bother getting a pregnancy test if they gain a little weight or start throwing up in the morning. This happens quite often. A chance occurrence, not stupidity.

There's also a psychosis which happens sometimes when a woman is so desperate not to get pregnant that her brain will perform some mental gymnastics and convince her that she's not, even if the signs are there. It's rare, but not too uncommon (I've seen it in my hometown). Mental illness, not stupidity.

Maybe they think that they're a virgin, but they were raped in their sleep - the idea of pregnancy wouldn't even occur to them, they'd just think that they were gaining a bit of weight and having a weird period (which happens very often, especially during the first couple of years of puberty when your body is still getting used to the process - you have a period, then you could go months before you see your next one).

There are more explanations. If you think about it, it's easy to see how a person can get to the sixth month of pregnancy without knowing that they're pregnant, but that isn't the issue: the question is, is it worse to force a woman to keep the baby inside her until it's done growing and then have her go through labour or is it worse to prematurely remove the baby and potentially kill it or, if it survives, to cause it to be mentally or physically disabled due to lack of incubation time?

Calling the woman stupid is like indicating that she "deserves" to give birth to an unwanted baby, which is irrelevant. There are bigger issues here. Is it more beneficial to have an unwanted baby which the mother may want to abort because of evidence of abnormalities during examinations or to "terminate" the baby before it is born to a life of potential pain in the foster care system? What if it looks like the baby is so deformed that it will very likely not survive anyway? Does it still deserve at least a chance at life, even if it looks grim?

I was wondering about that myself, Pip. If you're a doctor, and you just "aborted" this five and a half month old "foetus" that's lying there wriggling around trying to breathe, what the hell are you supposed to do, just not treat it? The girls that I was talking to said that it "wasn't a baby, so they don't treat it like a baby," but I couldn't see anyone being able to do that.

[Delta40]

Stupidity, however framed is not a basis to remove a persons right of access to a medical procedure which is available to all. If it is accessible at 26 weeks, then it should be exlusive to people considered 'not stupid'.

[BienvenuJDC]

Daddies, grandaddies, uncles, brothers are renowned throughout history for screwing anything that moves - including family members, animals and inanimate objects all for the thrill of an orgasm. They rape, beat and murder women and little girls.

I think that this statement is an absurd generalization. The statement may even be classified as being stupid.

[Gladys]

I think that this statement is an absurd generalization.

Isn't Delta40's statement a corrective to the collective veneer that we are all pillars of society, a corrective Henrik Ibsen would appreciate?

[JuniperWoolf]

Stupidity, however framed is not a basis to remove a persons right of access to a medical procedure which is available to all. If it is accessible at 26 weeks, then it should be exlusive to people considered 'not stupid'.

But the question is, should abortion be accessible at 26 weeks or should the legal limit be reduced to 12 (for everyone, life-or-death situations excluded)?

[The Atheist]

Stupidity, however framed is not a basis to remove a persons right of access to a medical procedure which is available to all.

That it's available to all is a national disgrace.


If it is accessible at 26 weeks, then it should be exlusive to people considered 'not stupid'.

I just can't agree. As I said before, there is no justification, except in medical emergencies, for babies to be aborted once they reach viable baby stage.

[sixsmith]

That it's available to all is a national disgrace.



I just can't agree. As I said before, there is no justification, except in medical emergencies, for babies to be aborted once they reach viable baby stage.

Yes, but apart from expressing your indignation, you've offered no reason as to why abortion should not be allowed at 26 weeks. Your objection cannot be based solely on the fact that a foetus is at that stage 'viable' because that, without more, is mere question begging.

[Gladys]

You're objection cannot be based solely on the fact that a foetus is at that stage 'viable' because that, without more, is mere question begging.

Yes, why argue that viability rather than, say, self-awareness is the prime reason for refusing abortion?

[kiki1982]

Oo, I find that a little bit late yes... I am for the right to have an abortion, but at six months... That's a baby that is able to live but which is not attended to (though possibly with brain damage)... I wouldn't want to do that though. Thing is, how do you deal with people who are genuinely ignorant of the fact they are pregnant until quite late and who really do not want to be pregnant? I guess just support them, although that's not really ideal, is it?

@Atheist:

You are a man, right? Obviously you do not know about all the women who are pregnant and still have a kind of period? Yes, that happens more than you think. Thus, I can imagine that a woman like that doesn't know about her pregnancy for at least as long she becomes really big (and that can last longer than three months; my mother was only just showing at 8 months, she only stopped wearing her jeans (!) at seven months) or until she feels it move (which can also be a substancially long time if it is your first time and you do not know what it feels like).

And then there are still psychological factors of denial which will enable a woman to deny she is pregnant although she feels it move distinctively, or should feel it.

Please do not confuse that with stupidity.

[MarkBastable]

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with any medical procedure - of any kind - being offered or withheld on the basis of the assumed intelligence of the patient.

"Doctor, I'm having a heart attack."

"I'd love to help, but you seem a bit dim."

I think that ethical point needs to be worked out before the ethics surrounding any specific medical procedure.

[sixsmith]

Yes, why argue that viability rather than, say, self-awareness is the prime reason for refusing abortion?

The argument against abortion appears to unfold like this:

1. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being;
2. A baby is an innocent human being;
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Most of the abortion debate, and certainly the debate thus far in this thread, has focused on proposition 2: that is, when does human life begin? And, to that end Gladys, I think your question is essentially the one that needs answering. There's no use simply trotting out 'viability' as though that alone carries the day. As you allude to, 'viability' is simply one of several positions that have formed the very substance of this debate at least since Roe v Wade.

[OrphanPip]

The argument against abortion appears to unfold like this:

1. It is wrong to kill an innocent human being;
2. A baby is an innocent human being;
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Most of the abortion debate, and certainly the debate thus far in this thread, has focused on proposition 2: that is, when does human life begin? And, to that end Gladys, I think your question is essentially the one that needs answering. There's no use simply trotting 'viability' as though that alone carries the day. As you allude to, 'viability' is simply one of several positions that have formed the very substance of this debate at least since Roe v Wade.

Actually, what I thought was the issue was whether or not the mother has the right to refuse medical treatment of a viable aborted baby. I have a hard time distinguishing between a viable baby at 6 months and a viable baby at 9 months, what exactly is the significant difference that would, conceivably, make infanticide at one point wrong.

Is this really an abortion at this point, or is it an induced birth?

[TheFifthElement]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7409696.stm

I'm really trying to figure out what I feel about this. By six months, the foetus isn't just a little conglomeration of cells like it is at less than three (the law in Canada).

24 weeks isn't 6 months. It's more like 5 1/2. Some months have 5 weeks, some have 4. Taking a strict 4 week in a month calculation would mean that women would be pregnant for 10 months (40 weeks).

24 weeks is considered, medically, to be the 'point of viability' for the unborn child, meaning that this is the point at which the child has a chance of survival if born. The abortion law in UK permits optional abortion up to 24 weeks providing that the abortion is approved by 2 doctors and providing that the risk to a woman’s physical or mental health or the risk to her child(ren)’s physical or mental health will be greater if she continues with the pregnancy than if she ends it. It is up to doctors' discretion, though many doctors would argue that it is medically safer for a woman not to be pregnant, compared to the inherent risks to a woman's health involved in carrying a baby to full term.

There is no time limit on abortion where two doctors agree that a woman’s health or life is gravely threatened by continuing with the pregnancy or that the foetus is likely to be born with severe physical or mental abnormalities. However, abortions after 24 weeks can not be done electively at the mother's request.

The tipping point for abortion seems reasonable. I suspect it may be changed if medical technology improves to the point that a foetus has a meaningful chance of survival prior to 24 weeks, though that in itself does raise sticky ethical questions e.g. at what point do you not try to save the child, given the suffering the child will experience after birth (as a result of medical interventions and/or physical and/or mental disability), if it even survives at all. You can read a bit more about babies' chances of survival prior to 24 weeks here http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10577-when-premature-babies-should-be-allowed-to-die.html


Is abortion at 26 weeks reasonable? My only answer to that can be that as 26 weeks is a perfectly viable baby and therefore no, it is not reasonable. The business of "the mother didn't know" should not be a valid defence. Ignorance is no defence in law, so why should stupid women get a free pass?
2 things Athiest. For one, if you read both my post and follow the link on JuniperWoolf's original post the legal limit is 24 weeks. So discussing what might happen at 26 weeks is...stupid ;)

Secondly, unless you've experienced pregnancy you're really talking from a position of ignorance so it's hard to take any of your comments seriously. There are a multitude of reasons why a woman may not realise she's pregnant, pregnancy does not follow a neat, mechanical, universally experienced pattern. I've been pregnant twice, and both pregnancies were different. In both cases my early lethargy could be passed of as just tiredness, or a low grade virus. I didn't experience morning sickness. I did bleed during the first trimester, bleeding is not uncommon during pregnancy and that's assuming you have regular periods anyway which I reckon about 90% of women don't. When I was around 5ish months pregnant my Mum's friends visited from Australia and their only comment was on what a lovely 'hourglass figure' I had, they didn't realise I was pregnant. I had no bump. As to feeling the baby 'move', well until it's crammed in it doesn't feel anything like what you'd expect. It's kind of like having butterflies, or wind. Easily mistaken.

It was different for me because I was expecting it, watching for it. But I can well understand how a woman might mistake the signs and not realise until much later on. If they realise after the child has a meaningful chance of survival then they're stuck with it whether they want the child or not. If they realise at a point when the child has no significant chance of survival then it's their choice. I don't think that's unreasonable. Neither do I think it's a choice any woman makes easily.

I can accept that you may find the nuances of actual pregnancy difficult to comprehend, but as you say ignorance is no defence. Your condemnation here is both inappropriate and rude, not to mention ill-informed.

[OrphanPip]

I agree with you Fifth, the distinction does seem fairly reasonable. While I believe wholeheartedly in a woman's right to autonomy over her body. I question why a life needs to be stopped at a point where it can be removed from her body and still live a normal life. I feel differently for a pack of cells that is not in any substantial way human, but I think for most people the issue becomes more troubling as it progresses to something more closely resembling an infant.

[The Atheist]

Yes, but apart from expressing your indignation, you've offered no reason as to why abortion should not be allowed at 26 weeks.

Don't be silly, of course I've given reasons, two of them - the baby is viable and is extremely likely to live if it is born rather than killed, and it can be adopted out. That is an identical result for the mother as having an abortion - no responsibility, no kid, no nothing.



@Atheist:

You are a man, right? Obviously you do not know about all the women who are pregnant and still have a kind of period?

Yes, I am a man but I do know exactly what you're talking about.

Those would be the rare instances I mentioned, but having no period is not the only sign of pregnancy by that stage - there are some really obvious changes to a woman's body, as I'm sure you're aware.

From the numbers I can vouch for, I'm quite happy to stick with terminal stupidity for most of them. Fat too, usually, which is a kind of stupidity in itself.



2 things Athiest. For one, if you read both my post and follow the link on JuniperWoolf's original post the legal limit is 24 weeks. So discussing what might happen at 26 weeks is...stupid ;)

Mea maxima culpa - you're absolutely right!

I must have got the 26 weeks stuck from a link. 24 isn't the same at all.


Your condemnation here is both inappropriate and rude, not to mention ill-informed.

It was intended to be rude, but it certainly isn't ill-informed. I noted "rare medical instances".

It's probably helpful if I add in here that this is a subject I'm pretty well involved in, as one of our companies sells newborn products to intending parents and every customer is a pregnant woman, so these are people I deal with on a daily basis. Trust me, they're stupid.

Apart from anything else, the huge point you're missing is that these women are having unprotected sex.

That is usually the prime indicator for pregnancy and any female engaging in unportected sex and not watching for signs of pregnancy would be classed as terminally stupid on several fronts. You can test yourself for pregnancy with a pack from the supermarket for about ten bucks.

I'm still quite happy to stick with the terminology.

[Gladys]

Don't be silly, of course I've given reasons, two of them - the baby is viable and is extremely likely to live if it is born rather than killed, and it can be adopted out.

The baby is viable? Without medical science, in the distant past, a baby born at six months would be extremely unlikely to live, let alone thrive. As the medical science advances, an aborted foetus may be viable at three months or, eventually, 1 week.

On the basis of viability, are you proposing that, one day in the not too distant future, all elective abortion should be unacceptable?

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you find yourself unable to show the required sensitivity especially while discussing a topic as sensitive as abortion, please feel free to refrain from taking part.

~

[JuniperWoolf]

I question why a life needs to be stopped at a point where it can be removed from her body and still live a normal life.

Should the law allow labour to be induced on request because it's the woman's body and she has the right to decide what to do with it, or should she be legally forced to keep the baby inside of her until it reaches developmental maturity? Even though it's likely that medical technology would be able to keep the baby alive in an incubator, removing it from it's mother that early does put it at risk.

Also, the main argument in favour of abortion whether you believe that a foetus is a life or not is that if it were outlawed it's been proven time and again that women will find some way to do it anyway if they're desperate enough (and there are many, many situations which would drive women to such desperation). If a woman were to find out that she was pregnant in her late second trimester, and she were absolutely desperate not to have a baby, she'll hurt or kill herself in an effort to terminate the pregnancy (again, there are a lot of reasons why someone might be led to do this). I wonder if late second trimester abortions should be allowed in cases like this (I think this would fall under the terms of what Fifth said when she specified "psychological harm" to the mother), but on the other hand such a system would be very open to abuse. It'd be really easy to say "if you don't give me an abortion, I'll find some way to do it myself," even if you don't intend to. It'd be really difficult to regulate a system in which late second-term abortions are "sort of" legal, it's really either one way or the other: either they're legal, or they're not.


Fat too, usually, which is a kind of stupidity in itself.


It's probably helpful if I add in here that this is a subject I'm pretty well involved in, as one of our companies sells newborn products to intending parents and every customer is a pregnant woman, so these are people I deal with on a daily basis. Trust me, they're stupid.

Oh boy... even I find that offensive.

[The Atheist]

The baby is viable? Without medical science, in the distant past, a baby born at six months would be extremely unlikely to live, let alone thrive. As the medical science advances, an aborted foetus may be viable at three months or, eventually, 1 week.

On the basis of viability, are you proposing that, one day in the not too distant future, all elective abortion should be unacceptable?

No, I'm pretty happy to use that 24-26 week time span as when a baby becomes viable. Sure, we might one day be able to breed them from test tubes a la Brave New World, but I don't think that matters. At 26 weeks, the intervention is only minor in the scheme of medical science.


Should the law allow labour to be induced on request because it's the woman's body and she has the right to decide what to do with it, or should she be legally forced to keep the baby inside of her until it reaches developmental maturity? Even though it's likely that medical technology would be able to keep the baby alive in an incubator, removing it from it's mother that early does put it at risk.

Sure it does, but we are looking at risk vs certain death.

Just curious, at 24 weeks, do the doctors kill the baby first, or just suck it out as they do at 18 weeks?


...but on the other hand such a system would be very open to abuse. It'd be really easy to say "if you don't give me an abortion, I'll find some way to do it myself," even if you don't intend to.

Bingo!



Oh boy... even I find that offensive.

:smilielol5:

I'm not known for being polite, either in person or in writing.

Seriously, though, being obese is bloody stupid. It opens up a huge range of medical problems that are usually paid for by taxes on people who aren't obscenely obese, because most obscenely obese people cannot work.

I will note that I have a family member who is "critically obese", unable to leave the house - I doubt she'd get through the door anyway - suffers from type 2 diabetes and is going blind. All because she's been unable to stop eating! No medical issues exist other than uncontrolled eating which has led to enormousness.

That's pretty stupid.

[Cunninglinguist]

I think abortions ought to be accessible for up to 2 years.

..oh, wait, serious discussion...3 years then.

[qimissung]

Apart from anything else, the huge point you're missing is that these women are having unprotected sex.

That is usually the prime indicator for pregnancy and any female engaging in unportected sex and not watching for signs of pregnancy would be classed as terminally stupid on several fronts. You can test yourself for pregnancy with a pack from the supermarket for about ten bucks.

I'm still quite happy to stick with the terminology.

Perhaps they are, Atheist, and I can't really speak to the issue at hand, but I work in a high school, and we have quite a large number of young mothers. You'd think they'd have an idea, but they don't seem too. I spoke to a student of mine and I asked her why, and she-a tiny little thing, maybe 5 feet tall, but a senior-said, "I didn't know..."

Somehow merely calling them stupid doesn't seem to be much of a problem solver.

[OrphanPip]

Perhaps they are, Atheist, and I can't really speak to the issue at hand, but I work in a high school, and we have quite a large number of young mothers. You'd think they'd have an idea, but they don't seem too. I spoke to a student of mine and I asked her why, and she-a tiny little thing, maybe 5 feet tall, but a senior-said, "I didn't know..."

Somehow merely calling them stupid doesn't seem to be much of a problem solver.

It's a good point qimi. We like to think that every teenage girl is going to learn properly by word of mouth, or that their parents will actually bother to teach them, and the school system itself doesn't really push the issue too much.

Denial is a powerful point as well, if the girls don't really have an outlet to go to the discuss concerns of pregnancy they are likely to put off dealing with it. A teenage girl is in a different position from an adult.

[1n50mn14]

part from anything else, the huge point you're missing is that these women are having unprotected sex.


That's a pretty broad assumption, too. Women can get pregnant even when measures are taken- my old boss was on birth control and conceived THREE children while on it- and using it properly! It just wasn't effective for her. Who knows why?

I can't use birth control due to a blood clotting disorder. Condoms can break, slip off, etc.

Rapists aren't really well known for carrying around condoms before raping somebody, either, so there's that argument.

(This has nothing to do with the 24 weeks argument, but just the fact that not all women who need abortions are having unprotected sex.)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, you're boss was on birth control, and when it didn't work for the first time she continued using it. Then, she had another kid while on it and still decided to continue using it... and then had another kid?

I think there's something to Atheist's "stupidity" argument.

[Delta40]

Everyone needs to be responsible for their own sexual health. Girls and boys. Schools do not have a nationally or internationally agreed upon curriculum when it comes to sex education and neither, I suspect, do parents. Who is responsible for this? Individuals? Society?

I agree with Qim that to call people stupid does nothing to remedy the situation. As medical technology advances, the moral dilemma of aborting late in the pregnancy increases but it is available to the public nonetheless. The person who judges can have the satisfaction of ruling right or wrong according to their own sense of disgust with the human population (often, themselves excluded) while other people make their own decisions to employ medical technologies available to them in tune with their circumstance. Frankly, I see less of a problem with aborting this far into a pregnancy than I do with the total lack of education and responsibility society has failed to foster and instil in the next generation (judges included!)

[qimissung]

Not to mention society's lack of interest when the child is born. This was quoted in The Dallas Morning News this week: "We seem to worship what we cannot see, but as soon as that baby's born, it's 'Oh no, government doesn't want to be intrusive.'" (State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-Antonia, contrasting the level of attention paid to fetuses with the level of care the government provides once they're born) I refer mainly to child abuse. In Dallas, Texas there were 15,000 cases of reported child abuse or neglect in 2003 alone.

I found this on NPR: "Partial Birth Abortions: Separating Fact from Spin."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163

My main concern is this:

"In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development."

I do feel that this procedure should be limited to women who have been raped or whose life and health is at risk if they carry the baby to term.

The point of all of this is to care for life, potential or actual, as best we can and to do the right thing, as best we can in each individual situation.

[Dodo25]

It depends whether the 'abortion' causes pain to the baby. If it's done without pain, there are no direct ethical reasons for it being wrong (babies don't see themselves as beings existing in time, they don't have conscious future interests or plans). There are however some indirect consequences, one might argue that human life is 'cheapened' if the parents arbitrarily get to decide that they don't want the baby anymore. It could lead to parents becoming careless.

If there's pain involved, then clearly the matter changes. In that case, only a threat of equal importance to the well-being of the mother would justify it. But then again, by the same reasoning factory farming should be illegal. So much for double standards..

[Delta40]

It depends whether the 'abortion' causes pain to the baby. If it's done without pain, there are no direct ethical reasons for it being wrong
If there's pain involved, then clearly the matter changes. . So much for double standards..

This standard does not apply to lab animals and I don't see how it matters. The baby has no say in its own existence so why entertain what it might feel?

[OrphanPip]

It depends whether the 'abortion' causes pain to the baby. If it's done without pain, there are no direct ethical reasons for it being wrong (babies don't see themselves as beings existing in time, they don't have conscious future interests or plans). There are however some indirect consequences, one might argue that human life is 'cheapened' if the parents arbitrarily get to decide that they don't want the baby anymore. It could lead to parents becoming careless.

If there's pain involved, then clearly the matter changes. In that case, only a threat of equal importance to the well-being of the mother would justify it. But then again, by the same reasoning factory farming should be illegal. So much for double standards..

There's only no direct ethical reason if you take Jeremy Singer to be the grand arbiter of human morality.

Although, you're already aware that I'm a firm supporter of deontological moral systems, in particularly rights based legalism, that have more clearly defined ethical borders. A human being existing independent of another human being seems legal bounds enough to consider them a morally relevant person. Playing the subjective weighing game of which human beings are morally relevant, conscious, or whatever other subjective values Singer deems important for determining moral value, is more subject to abuse and causing harm. To make an utilitarian argument for this, if we expand rights to the most vulnerable amongst us, we can then be sure to limit any unintended harm.

Edit: Note that I am making a distinction here between pre-independent cellular being. Since then we have issues of rights of the mother at odds with rights of the fetus, and in that case the rights of the mother win out. I think the rights of the mother do not extend to an infant that can exist in an incubator.

[Dodo25]

There's only no direct ethical reason if you take Jeremy Singer to be the grand arbiter of human morality.

Right, it's the view of utilitarianists like Peter Singer (or Jeremy Bentham); other moral philosophers disagree, but I think they're being inconsistent.



Although, you're already aware that I'm a firm supporter of deontological moral systems, in particularly rights based legalism, that have more clearly defined ethical borders. A human being existing independent of another human being seems legal bounds enough to consider them a morally relevant person. Playing the subjective weighing game of which human beings are morally relevant, conscious, or whatever other subjective values Singer deems important for determining moral value, is more subject to abuse and causing harm. To make an utilitarian argument for this, if we expand rights to the most vulnerable amongst us, we can then be sure to limit any unintended harm.
[my emphasis]

I kind of agree with your last sentence here. Utilitarianism has two levels, one is the very abstract 'ivory tower' level, and the other is about general policies based on utilitarian reasoning. That's why most utilitarianists aren't directly oppesed to the principle of 'human rights', though they surely would contest certain applications of it when it clearly clashes with utilitarian reasoning.

Now, you use the term 'person' to suggest moral relevance, but obviously you're not using it in Kant's sense (who sees rationality as the defining criterium), since babies aren't rational. In what sense ARE you using it, then? What exactly is it that determines moral value? After all, we do need SOME relevant criteria for justification, or else any policy is arbitrary.

You're justification of 'basic human rights' is very abstract, and clearly speciesist. It leads to inconsistencies regarding our treatment of animals. It is the very equivalent of sexism or racism applied to species. You're asserting some transcendental property to all members of a group, regardless of specific circumstances. In any other domain, such reasoning is bigoted.

I think I've used the example before: An architecture bureau needs a new architect. The boss of the bureau gets two application dossiers, one from a woman and one from a man. If he tosses the woman's dossier away, justifying it by 'on average, women are worse at 3-D imagination, therefore I choose the male', he clearly is guilty of sexism. (The thing about spatial vision is true actually.) The very same bias occurs when humans grant 'rights' to clearly non self-aware infants while denying any 'rights' to adult, healthy chimpanzees (healthy at least before they're subjected to cruel testings for cosmetics or new drugs). The boss of the architecture bureau should look at the relevant criteria in the dossiers, and just like that, the same reasoning should apply in ethical reasoning.

I'm clearly off topic by now, sorry for the long post. I wanted to elaborate my reasoning now in detail since I won't have internet next week. I do see your point regarding 'preventing unintended harm', and I alluded to it briefly (as the 'indirect consequences'). I just think you need to go one level deeper than mere 'human beings -> persons -> absolute rights', or else you'll undoubtedly run into contradictions, some of them merely trivial, others having serious consequences for the well-being of non-human animals.

[OfHighInterest]

Abortions and contraception could be related as similar by the view that it disrupts the natural swing of things. Every view will have their own little twists. It's like some reformed religions allow abortions while others don't. Depending on the timing of the abortion depends on whether it is a ball of cells or living. I find some leave it last minute for multiple reasons:
1. Denial - Refusing to believe that it could happen to you.
2. Age - If you are younger you may want to either do it sooner to prevent a parent from finding out or keeping it longer from conflicting messages.
3. Options - Abortion, Adoption, Keeping, Giving it to the father. With all these possibilities especially if you are uncertain as to whether which is right or parents saying one thing, you thinking another and the father of the child another.
4. Timing - If it comes at the wrong time of your life then you need time to think whether complications are worth it if the person is older or how well the child is raised if they are younger.

I agree with abortion whether to be able to abort at 6 months I hold no judgement having never been in a situation with such an occurrence.

[1n50mn14]

you're boss

[[Edited to remove a personal remark. But there is some irony that this was in a comment with regards to intelligence.]]