Now should abortion be this illegal.

[ENG601PM 10]

Medical advances are likely to keep improving the chances of survival, one day a gestation will be possible entirely ex-utero.

 

Hence my poser. This discussion will only become more difficult as viability moves lower and lower. I'm most definately pro choice but the more I think about it the more uncomfortable I become and I can see me changing my mind at this rate.

 

At some point the right of the child to life must win the argument over the rights of women to end its life for reasons of lifestyle convenience.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Hence my poser. This discussion will only become more difficult as viability moves lower and lower. I'm most definately pro choice but the more I think about it the more uncomfortable I become and I can see me changing my mind at this rate.

 

At some point the right of the child to life must win the argument over the rights of women to end its life for reasons of lifestyle convenience.

 

I agree it is a problem, and will only get worse.

 

Ethical discussions are regularly stretched by medical advances, and always seem to lag behind. All we (as a society) can do is muddle through as best we can, managing the compromises and try and guess the future.

[Olive 10]

I think that in a discussion about the legalisation of abortion, saying that people should use birth control as an argument for not allowing legal abortion is facetious, disingenuous and offensive.

 

Especially since some of the time the baby is very much wanted. This argument can't be used for the situation when a planned pregnancy turns out to be unviable.

 

On the radio yesterday a lady from Northern Ireland was speaking about her experience. The foetus she was carrying was diagnosed with a condition which meant its brain had not developed. There was no hope at all of the baby living. The medics wanted to be able to help her out, but were legally unable to deliver what in England would be an essential medical procedure.

 

Her choice was: a) travel to England to receive medical treatment or b) be forced to go through a pregnancy (potentially dangerous) and deliver a child which would die immediately.

 

Some choice at a time when presumably she was already going through unimaginable trauma.

 

Contraception failure is not the only reason for terminating pregnancy.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Olive

[Guest makapaka]

I think that in a discussion about the legalisation of abortion, saying that people should use birth control as an argument for not allowing legal abortion is facetious, disingenuous and offensive.

 

Well it’s none of those things and what’s more - I haven’t seen anyone including myself running that argument.

 

The point I was making is that all this “bodily autonomy” people talking about has been there for some time - unless you give up that autonomy through choice or error.

 

Now if that happens you can get an abortion - fine - hardly time for bunting though.

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2018 at 11:57 ----------

 

Especially since some of the time the baby is very much wanted. This argument can't be used for the situation when a planned pregnancy turns out to be unviable.

 

On the radio yesterday a lady from Northern Ireland was speaking about her experience. The foetus she was carrying was diagnosed with a condition which meant its brain had not developed. There was no hope at all of the baby living. The medics wanted to be able to help her out, but were legally unable to deliver what in England would be an essential medical procedure.

 

Her choice was: a) travel to England to receive medical treatment or b) be forced to go through a pregnancy (potentially dangerous) and deliver a child which would die immediately.

 

Some choice at a time when presumably she was already going through unimaginable trauma.

 

Contraception failure is not the only reason for terminating pregnancy.

 

Of course it’s not. That’s a sad story.

[Olive 10]

Of course it’s not. That’s a sad story.

 

An not an unusual one. It's a lot more common than people realise.

 

The point is that when people talk about terminations, I think they automatically assume it's related to people being irresponsible, or contraception not working, when there's a lot more to it.

 

A friend of mine recently had her 12 week scan, and a heart abnormality showed up. It looked to be very serious, and for a few dreadful days they knew that there was a chance they would not make it to full term. Thankfully after further scans the prognosis is much better, but for a while there, they could have been in the same position. Thankfully they'd have had an option not to continue with the pregnancy since they live in England. But even here, you still get nitwits protesting etc.

[Cyclone 10]

Well it’s none of those things and what’s more - I haven’t seen anyone including myself running that argument.

 

The point I was making is that all this “bodily autonomy” people talking about has been there for some time - unless you give up that autonomy through choice or error.

 

In the case where abortion isn't available it ISN'T there is it. The argument you're making is wrong. If the state takes away your bodily autonomy because of some previous behaviour, choice or error as you put it, then you DON'T HAVE bodily autonomy do you. Forcing women to continue with a pregnancy that they don't want risks severe mental and physical trauma, up to and including death. It's a public health mistake and immoral. Telling someone who is being denied an abortion that they should have used contraception is deeply unhelpful.

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2018 at 13:36 ----------

 

Hence my poser. This discussion will only become more difficult as viability moves lower and lower. I'm most definately pro choice but the more I think about it the more uncomfortable I become and I can see me changing my mind at this rate.

 

At some point the right of the child to life must win the argument over the rights of women to end its life for reasons of lifestyle convenience.

 

It's not a child though is it. That's where the slippery slope starts. Classify something that can't live without it's mother's body or extreme medical intervention as a person and where do you stop.

I wouldn't want to put forward an argument for changing the cut-off point for abortion, nor would I want to argue against the BMC or NICE if they recommended changing it. I'm happy to leave that to the medical experts.

[ENG601PM 10]

It's not a child though is it. That's where the slippery slope starts. Classify something that can't live without it's mother's body or extreme medical intervention as a person and where do you stop.

I wouldn't want to put forward an argument for changing the cut-off point for abortion, nor would I want to argue against the BMC or NICE if they recommended changing it. I'm happy to leave that to the medical experts.

 

As per Easter Sundae's post earlier I would most definitely argue against the BMC and NICE cut off point. The current situation just falls into where the rules happen to be at the moment. It's nominal until it changes but that doesn't affect the life in the womb. Termination still results in the death of the child.

 

I gave you a link to just one story where the "not a child" was born at 22 weeks. It could have been legally terminated at 24 weeks. You don't an intellectual, scientific, or philosophical argument that stands up to a moment's scrutiny that doesn't involve killing a viable child.

 

It's a very difficult discussion and I don't see any clear answer.

[Cyclone 10]

It's not a child, that's a deliberately emotive choice of words.

I didn't try to present an argument, I already said that I wouldn't argue for the current limit, nor against any change. It's always going to be arbitrary, that's just the way it is.

Re: viable at 22 weeks though, you should check the statistics of how many early births at that age actually DO survive, even with the strongest medical efforts made, it's very rare.

[ENG601PM 10]

It's not a child, that's a deliberately emotive choice of words.

I didn't try to present an argument, I already said that I wouldn't argue for the current limit, nor against any change. It's always going to be arbitrary, that's just the way it is.

Re: viable at 22 weeks though, you should check the statistics of how many early births at that age actually DO survive, even with the strongest medical efforts made, it's very rare.

 

Yes it is emotive, because it's correct. It is a child.

 

Help us out here Cyclone, please put a number on how many viable children you think can be terminated before you'd get emotional. A rough percentage will do. All? Half? None?

[Cyclone 10]

child

tʃʌɪld/Submit

noun

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

"she'd been playing tennis since she was a child"

synonyms: youngster, young one, little one, boy, girl; More

a son or daughter of any age.

"when children leave home, parents can feel somewhat redundant"

an immature or irresponsible person.

"she's such a child!"

Nope, it's simply not a child.

 

This is what you're looking for

fetus

ˈfiːtəs/Submit

noun

an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

synonyms: embryo, fertilized egg, unborn baby, unborn child

"antibodies are passed via the placenta to the fetus"

Words matter. Use the correct one if you want to present a reasonable argument.

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2018 at 15:52 ----------

 

Before 8 weeks, embryo.

 

Child is incorrect, you persist in using it knowing it's incorrect only for emotive reasons.

[Olive 10]

Yes it is emotive, because it's correct. It is a child.

 

Help us out here Cyclone, please put a number on how many viable children you think can be terminated before you'd get emotional. A rough percentage will do. All? Half? None?

 

I can't help but think that other people's emotions are deeply unhelpful if it's you in the situation of potentially needing to terminate a pregnancy.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Nope, it's simply not a child.

 

This is what you're looking for

 

Words matter. Use the correct one if you want to present a reasonable argument.

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2018 at 15:52 ----------

 

Before 8 weeks, embryo.

 

Child is incorrect, you persist in using it knowing it's incorrect only for emotive reasons.

 

So if a feutus is born at 22 weeks and survives it's still a feutus?