environment of the womb creates a state of induced sleep, like unconsciousness

I wish somebody had told my babies that when they were in my womb. Didn’t feel like they were unconscious to me!

If I thought you actually cared about the woman or the fate of the unborn I might take your concern seriously. But it turns out you regard this as nothing but another a partisan issue.

(“In 2008 the Conservative MP tried to reduce the legal limit “)

Is there nothing you can view without red tinted spectacles?

It always amazes me that the fate of a foetus/unborn baby has become unable to be seen outside the prism of left vs right politics by many.

There is no new evidence to show foetuses feel pain in the womb before 24 weeks, and so no reason to challenge the abortion limit, doctors say.

Did they really? That’s odd, ‘cos that would be an ethical position, not a scientific one.

I still maintain this is irrelevant – if a foetus is a seperate life (which seems to be the point of arguing they feel pain) it is parasitic, and therefore if the host does not want it, it should be removed.

Blunt, probably politically acceptable, but it avoids fighting false battles using popularised science and the Bible, and gives women the right to their own body.

Of course, if you believe that foeti are not seperate lives (as I do) then the entire debate is silly anyway…

Sunny’s absolutely right on this. Science should inform legislation on this issue.
It ain’t about red tinted glasses. I’m no particular fan of the Labour party, but the facts simply are that much of the emotive stirring on this topic has been done by Conservative politicians like Nadine Dorries. Cameron also indicated before the election that he would consider lowering the time limit on abortion from 24 weeks (Clegg was for the status quo – let’s hope he doesn’t swap that view for a fiver, like so much else).

It is entirely reasonable to point out that the science doesn’t support the anti-abortion lobby’s notion that fetusus die in agony at that age. The anti abortion lobby’s time limit argument is based entirely around two thesis – viability, and consciousness at 24 weeks. If neither argument is credible (and the last parliament’s science and technology proved conclusively that the viability argument was not credible, while these latest findings pour cold water on the consciousness theory), they should be dismissed.

BenSix – according to the BBC that is indeed what doctors said.

The BBC also report:

In addition, the report says anaesthetics, which can be risky, would not be required if a foetus requires surgery.

Kate Belgrave.

Up to a point. However science is absolutely not the determining factor in this debate. It is ultimately an ethical chioce made by society.

Otherwise we would bring back hanging on the sole grounds that the science says there is no pain felt.

Some decisions come down to morality and ethics. Ben Six is quite right to point out the difference.

It is quite possible to be right wing and for abortion, left wing and agin abortion. Yet you insist on framing the debate as a conflict with what right wing anti abortionists say. Thats what i object to. I am quite sure this article would never have appeared on this site if it were otherwise.

Feel free to debate the issues on what should be a very fundamental debate on the nature of life, humanity and society, and the choices society must make.

But you demean the debate and your case when you make points just becuase someone whose political stripe you dont approve of disagrees with you.

Don’t mind me – I think you’re at the wrong place. This is a political blog, not a health blog.

Up to a point. However science is absolutely not the determining factor in this debate. It is ultimately an ethical chioce made by society.

I agree. Abortion should be completely legalised as it is in the US. It’s absurd that society dictates what women can do with their bodies, as if they’re too irresponsible to make the right choices.

Dontmindme – It seems to me that it is actually you who is using tribal political colours to score a point. Why don’t you take your own advice in your penultimate paragraph in your comment at 7?

Watchman

if you believe that foeti….

The Latin word fetus is a fourth declension noun and its plural would be fetus not feti or foeti.

In English, the plural is foetuses or fetuses.

Ethics can be informed by science but ethical questions are not, in themselves, scientific: you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’, or an ‘ought not’ for that matter.

Sunny,

I think I am in the right place to question your use of science especially, as you rightly point out that this is a political blog, not a science one.

That’s a legitimate p.o.v. You could also be much more radical and go a step further and say why should it be the womans choice up to a particular date – why not allow post birth terminations at the womans discretion? Or you could argue for no abortion at all. Every shade in between is a legitimate point of view. Science has nothing to do with it ultimately.

earwicga

And therein lies my point. Sunnys position is one that should be and indeed can only be argued for on ethical grounds alone. So why is it necessary to trumpet this particular bit of science, other than to continue to force the debate onto partisan grounds?

Actually, a question that occurs to me might be worth pointing out here. Why does it matter if a foetus can feel pain – so can a plant, and there is nothing to stop me poisioning or ripping up dandelions as I see fit. I can’t help but think that what we are doing here, by playing along with the game of when pain is felt, is simply falling into the illiberal anti-arbortionist idiots trap of letting them define the rules of the game.

If you believe in a right to abortion, why should you have to answer unanswerable scientific questions composed about what is actually an ethical issue. Yes, abortion is killing a foetus; so what? If you say this, the anti-abortionists have to explain why killing a foetus (not a human) is wrong, and if they resort to the silly pain argument, they would have to be a vegan at the very least to have moral consistency.

Personally I think in most cases anti-abortionists belive foetuses (thanks magister – I had fetus in the first (or is it second – my Latin is rusty) declension for some reason) have souls. And that is the distinction that drives their views, but they can’t argue that scientifically, so have to find poor proxies for souls, such as pain or movement.

this is disgustin! so if its ok to abort (murder) a fetus because it canot feel pain does that mean its ok to kill someone if its not painful!?! i think not! a fetus has a heartbeat from 5weeks therefore its alive and should have as much rights to live as any of us do!!! this is sick and disgustn!!!!!!

Aha, the first person equating a biological sign with human status on the thread. I presume since heartbeats are sacrosanct, the poster is a vegitarian? Eating something that had a heartbeat would clearly be eating something that was murdered…

[8] “It’s absurd that society dictates what women can do with their bodies”.

I’m sorry, but that’s far too simplistic – first of all abortion requires societal complicity, such as drug design, safe surgical procedures, medical/nursing staff, not to mention financial contributions (benefits, etc) when there is no other means to pay for it.
In this respect there are parallels with patients who ask doctors to kill them (applying the ‘it’s my body’ line of argument).

Then there are moral, and certainly religious imperatives, which will never sit easily with abortion – another societal factor which cannot easily be ignored since it affects the general fabric of everyday life.

It also worth reminding ourselves about the distinction between what a foetus does, or does not feel, as opposed to the quality of scientific evidence supporting such claims – I doubt if anybody could make this claim with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?
Anyway, millions of abortions have been performed since 1967, and it seems the existence or otherwise of pain has had very little bearing on the number of terminations which have actually been performed.

@Dontmindme:

Think you’ve got it wrong in yr attempt to bash lefties.

First thing – this blog has covered abortion in great detail over the past years, and those who’ve followed the discussion and contributed to it will know that politicians of a variety of stripes have been commended for their pro choice stances. Evan Harris, John Bercow are two who come to mind.

I personally remain a supporter of Bercow on his pro abortion stance, even though other aspects of his politics and political history are unpalatable to me. A lot of us on the left are quite able to see past party colours to political positions, which is important to do on a topic like abortion, which is usually a conscience vote.

This blog has also criticised Labour politicians for their actions. There was a lot of mud thrown at Gordon Brown for dealing with the DUP on 42 days, for example. A lot of us felt that abortion rights in NI were likely compromised as a result of that deal, and that the movement there was set back years, as crime and justice were subsequently transferred to Stormont to a (then) considerably more conservative environment. It’s not just us lefties sitting here in London on our couches that thought that, either – here’s a group of Northern Ireland women I talked to on the subject http://www.hangbitch.com/photobitch/v/photoessays/Northern+Ireland+and+the+demand+for+abortion+rights/ who were desperate for support from Westminster. Plenty of others spoke to local women and wrote on the issue as well.

The fact simply is that the biggest stirrer – and the one who has proven most likely to manipulate the truth in the interest of headlines and self-promotion – has been Nadine Dorries. The leader of her party has made very recent comments in support of her, so raising concerns about the coalition government’s take on abortion rights is perfectly justifiable.

Labour MPs are not totally exonerated, and have not be totally exonerated here. Frank Field’s got plenty to answer for – he’s bent the science on the realities of fetal consciousness and viability for comparatively early abortions at 17 weeks. It’s not about hooking into one party in particular and if you’d followed the debate here since this blog began you’d understand that. Various political performances have been scrutinised very closely and criticised. It’s about criticising politicians who ignored expert findings in favour of emotive headlines and self promotion.

Watchman @ 15

I presume since heartbeats are sacrosanct, the poster is a vegetarian?

It’s a perfectly reasonable position to regard human life as sacred but not animal life. Most societies (including our own) have laws forbidding murder but allowing the killing of various animals.

Do you not agree that, setting aside the “souls question”, a society could be acting perfectly rationally in according a special or privileged legal status to our own species?

Unless we do that we have no basis for Human Rights legislation.

The abortion issue necessarily calls for us to decide when human life begins. For the antiabortionists, that’s simple: at conception. Others though contest that an embryo constitutes a human life.

By 24 weeks, however, a fetus does display most of the characteristics of being a human. We can’t really say much about whether a fetus is ‘conscious’ in the fuller sense but we can observe that one does react to various stimuli: heat, noise, spicy food eaten by the mother etc.

And as earwigca points out: they DO kick!

Since some children delivered at this age survive, then it’s a fair question whether a 24 week fetus is ‘human’ in the sense of being accorded special legal protection.

‘I agree. Abortion should be completely legalised as it is in the US. It’s absurd that society dictates what women can do with their bodies, as if they’re too irresponsible to make the right choices.’

It isn’t ‘completely legalised’ in the USA (whatever that means): laws vary between states, it’s illegal in the third trimester and minors often require parental consent.

More importantly you have an increasingly powerful religious lobby which has already made inroads into science teaching and which makes the future of legal abortion a more precarious prospect than in Europe.

@Jay – a woman’s life is a life too, Jay. The problem with your observation is that is doesn’t acknowledge that. Women are alive and conscious. If women are forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies, then they become animals in a sense. It is unforgivable of the anti abortion lobby to manipulate the truth and sentence women to an existence where they have little choice. Nobody has any right to impose that on another person.
Women must be able to control this most important aspect of their lives – the fetus comes second to that. Education, employment, the ability to provide for ourselves economically and the right to control our fertility are all vital conditions of true female independence. If we’re are refused access to even one of those conditions, we are refused full access to the human experience. We are placed at the whim of others. With unwanted pregnancies and societal priorities in favour of the fetus, we are marginalised as incubators. True freedom doesn’t lie that way.

Dontmindme: I think I am in the right place to question your use of science especially, as you rightly point out that this is a political blog, not a science one.

You don’t actually have a point other than to say you’re annoyed because I mentioned the name of an anti-science anti-choice Tory MP who now looks idiotic because the science contradicted her.

The politics of the science and the ethics are equally important.

Science has nothing to do with it ultimately.

Yes it does, because if anti-choice people are going to argue that a baby should not be aborted because it feels pain, then that’s clearly bollocks. Before 24 weeks it is essentially a vegetable.

Also, I meant Canada, not the US – apologies to all. Canada has completely legalised it.

Kate

Fair enough! You have picked on both left and right!

KateBelgrave, a tip of the hat to you on this one; every comment I’ve wanted to reply to, you’ve got there first and very eloquently too. Also, well done to Watchman for also making this about what it should be about; the omwn who have to carry these foetuses.

The ‘heartbeat’ argument can be rebutted with reference to people in persistent vegetative states, or whose quality of life has deteriorated to the extent that judges, doctors and relatives agree that their suffering is too great to continue. NO, I am not saying foetuses have (or will have) no quality of life, merely that a heartbeat alone cannot be the only determiner.

But in the end, Watchman is correct; the foetus is, or should be, of secondary importance because its existence is dependent on the woman carrying it. That woman is not just alive, she is sentient, she has consciousness and connections with the world and everything else an actual human life entails. Her bodily autonomy should be absolute. And it IS usually, albeit not always, right-wingers whose ‘conservative, family’ values deliberately minimise female rights in order to promote their version of what society should be like.

Jay @18,

It’s a perfectly reasonable position to regard human life as sacred but not animal life. Most societies (including our own) have laws forbidding murder but allowing the killing of various animals.

I do regard human life as sacred. The problem here is that you have now designated a foetus as human life, without giving any reason to do so. I don’t buy this – although I don’t think it is deliberate, I think you’ve tried to set the terms of the debate already, and I do not accept these terms. You have to show a foetus is human life (I will accept nascent human life, but that implies only the potential for life, not life itself).

Do you not agree that, setting aside the “souls question”, a society could be acting perfectly rationally in according a special or privileged legal status to our own species?

Unless we do that we have no basis for Human Rights legislation.

Actually, unless we do that we will get outvoted by birds. Of course we have a privileged status, but that’s us as human beings. There is no a priori reason to accord the same status to foetuses. You still need to prove that they have a ‘soul’ or whatever definition you want to use for human life, and you also need to get your opponent to agree to the definition of life you want to use.

The abortion issue necessarily calls for us to decide when human life begins. For the antiabortionists, that’s simple: at conception. Others though contest that an embryo constitutes a human life.

By 24 weeks, however, a fetus does display most of the characteristics of being a human. We can’t really say much about whether a fetus is ‘conscious’ in the fuller sense but we can observe that one does react to various stimuli: heat, noise, spicy food eaten by the mother etc.

And as earwigca points out: they DO kick!

Since some children delivered at this age survive, then it’s a fair question whether a 24 week fetus is ‘human’ in the sense of being accorded special legal protection.

I have a simple point in return. Can the foetus function as a living human being at 24 weeks – if so, fine – rather than abortion, allow for adoption at that age. But there is no obligation on the mother to support a human being from her own body should she not wish to do so (note this is not financial or maternal support, but by your definition another human being literally living off the mothers energy and nutrients). You cannot ascribe foetuses the status of humans and then expect the mother to support them; it is logically inconsistent. To require the mother to carry a foetus, it cannot be a seperate legal entity, otherwise she can legitimately seek to have it removed (abortion as trespass anybody?). So your argument is logically inconsistent.

I also wonder what strange morality means many people feel they can lecture women about what they do with their bodies? I am hardly a signed-up feminist, but I cannot see how I have the right to force anyone else to undergo months of carrying an unwanted parasite just because of my beliefs. In the interests of protecting your hypothetical human being, you would abuse the rights of a real human being. That, to me, is the real evil, the real betrayal of souls.

@Jay

We can’t really say much about whether a fetus is ‘conscious’ in the fuller sense but we can observe that one does react to various stimuli: heat, noise, spicy food eaten by the mother etc.

And as earwigca points out: they DO kick!

And what makes any of those traits specifically human? More importantly – and here comes the word you’re unconsciously groping for – what about these traits is proof of sentience.

All animals react to heat, as do most plants.
All mammals react to noise, as do many reptiles and amphibians.
My cat reacts very strongly to spicy food.
Mules, giraffes, llamas and camels all kick.

None of these are human. Your case for proof of sentience is ludicrous. But then it is an argument against a woman’s right to choose abortion. Ludicrous, unscientific nonsense is mandatory, as is a simplistic semi-understood view of humanity and nature.

Cheers all.

Finisterre,

Thanks for your kind comments. One thing I must point out though. You say:

“And it IS usually, albeit not always, right-wingers whose ‘conservative, family’ values deliberately minimise female rights in order to promote their version of what society should be like.”

My view is based on particularly right-wing liberal/libertarian thinking about personal liberty, deliberately carried to its logical extreme. I think you may be confusing right-wingers, generally quite radical, with (small-c) conservatives, who occur across the spectrum (and may, to be fair, congregate in the Conservative party). Where I grew up (on the edge of an ex-mining area in the north) it would generally be right-wingers (and the odd feminist or green) who argued for abortion rights and Labour-supporting traditionalists who were generally against. In the home counties I guess the picture is more normally reversed. But it does not help to class people by wings here – it is the alliance of positive movements for individual rights across the political spectrum that needs to kick in to deal with reactionaries, religious bigots and the like.

Sunny,

I dont remember saying I was annoyed. Actually this is fun

“Before 24 weeks it is essentially a vegetable.”

Ummm: I dont know if you know what a vegatable is, but if you swap a 23 week foetus with an onion placed in the womb, the outcome will not be the same.

It is a human that is not fully formed. After all, evolution has determined that the optimal construction time is roughly 39 weeeks. That much must be obvious to all. But a new born baby is not a fully formed human. It’s brain wont be fully formed until after puberty, let alone birth. The degree of development from embryo to birth is I submit irrelevant. Its genetics are the one unchanging constant throughout, and it its that feature that differentiates it as a human, and not an onion.

Notice I dont need to be a catholic to reach that point of view (I am not btw). Basic science is all that I have said thus far.

Science really is however irrelevant here. Whether it is ok to terminate, is not a question of science. It is purely the judgement of society as to what it values. You value a womans right to choose. Others see it differently. There is no scientifically determinable ‘correct’ answer.

It is a meaningful to ask what science says as to whether cheese is tasty or not. I say it revolting but most seem disgree. A scientist telling me it contains chemicals that can be shown to activate cells that are assciated with tastiness will not change my mind. I would not thus be anti science. Just aware of its limits to determining certain value judgement questions.

Nadine as I undertand it objects to abortion on principle. As such she uses what arguments she can to push back the boundaries of abortion. That seems fair enough to me. That certianly does not make her an idiot.

[21] “Before 24 weeks it is essentially a vegetable” – funnily enough when a woman miscarries at 16 weeks it doesn’t seem to help telling her it’s no worse than accidentally trampling on a carrot in the garden.

Some vegetables, sorry babies, actually defeat the odds;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/21/health.lifeandhealth

Obviously there are very different points of view over abortion but ‘vegetable’ references are extremely ill considered in my opinion.

To me, the issue of women’s rights in abortion is a complete red herring and has side tracked from the real argument. The real issue is when the foetus becomes sufficiently aware/conscious that it becomes entitled to similar rights as the woman carrying it.

Because the fetus is dependent upon the carrier in order to live, that alone does not make sense to say its rights become “secondary” to that of the carrier from which it depends on for warmth and nutrients. A newborn baby or child is very much dependent upon it’s primary carer(s) in a different way from the fetus, but not much less dependent still. I honestly don’t think anyone here is going as far as to say that young children ought to be killed because it’s no longer economically viable for the parent to raise the (essentially) economic parasites.

As for the relation of science and ethics, it is for scientists to determine what levels of consciousness the life of the foetus exhibit throughout it’s development and it is for ethicists to determine at which stage of development can it be considered a “human life”.

As for the issue of “pain”, that is is also a red herring. A grown up adult who has somehow become so resistant to feeling sensations that they cannot experience pain is no less deserved of human rights as the rest of us are.

Obviously there are very different points of view over abortion but ‘vegetable’ references are extremely ill considered in my opinion.

Ill considered is putting it mildly.

KingDedede

“To me, the issue of women’s rights in abortion is a complete red herring”

Thank maude you’re in a tiny, vile minority then.

A&E charge nurse

“funnily enough when a woman miscarries at 16 weeks it doesn’t seem to help telling her it’s no worse than accidentally trampling on a carrot in the garden.”

A useful pointer as to the real significance of the foetus. If one feels that abortion is killing a human, presumably miscarriage is the death of a human and therefore one should feel as sad about the millions of such deaths worldwide as one is outraged about the millions of abortions.

But no. Most people feel sorry for the woman when a wanted foetus miscarries, but who the hell sympathises with the foetus? Absolutely no-one, for the very good reason that it is a *potential* human, not a real one.

Both sides in this debate get sidetracked by semantics, but there are many such gaping holes in the anti-abortion argument.

Personally I like Times columnist Caitin Moran’s take on this “Abortion – Why it’s the ultimate motherly act”.

@ Finisterre

Please explain why then is my opinion so “vile” or are you just going to leave it there? The ethical issue of abortion has all to do with when a human life begins, everything else is beside the point. I suspect I’m only “vile” because I simply disagree with you.

As for the rest of your post, the fact we do not feel so strongly about something does not make it any less right.

And no, I’m not “anti-abortion”, I’m in favour of choice and support abortion on demand. I’m against bad and useless arguments.

@ my last post,

I meant to say: “As for the rest of your post, the fact we do not feel so strongly about something does not make it any less WRONG.”

Whether we feel strongly on something has little bearing on whether it is a right or wrong. The foetus was likely never a conscious being, so it makes no sense to say we feel sorry for (on the other-hand, we can’t say the same of someone who died in a vegetative state), but the point I believe the other poster (A&E charge nurse) was making was that the comparison between a foetus and a vegetable is nonsensical one.

[32] “but who the hell sympathises with the foetus” – how about the grieving mother/parents?

This item begins – “Miscarriage and the grief which follows it have been widely ignored in the past. This may have been due to the western societal taboo on discussing loss, or due to it being regarded as a “woman’s problem” or the frequency with which miscarriage happens”.
http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol10No4/miscarriage.htm

And,
“The woman may be helped by writing a letter to the baby who was lost, or by composing a poem or a piece of music. As well as helping the woman to recognise the reality of her loss and, thus, to facilitate the beginning of her grieving, these compositions may serve other purposes. Letters, poems and music would provide the woman with an opportunity to contemplate the meaning of her pregnancy and, hence, the meaning of her loss”.

“Anyway, millions of abortions have been performed since 1967”

And before then, of course.

I presume since heartbeats are sacrosanct, the poster is a vegetarian?

Why, yes I am. Thanks for asking.

Nadine as I undertand it objects to abortion on principle. As such she uses what arguments she can to push back the boundaries of abortion. That seems fair enough to me. That certianly does not make her an idiot.

No, she tries to distort the science and pretend she knows what she’s on about. That is dishonest.

The science contradicts her. End of story.

Sunny

Someone who equates 23 week foetuses with vegetables is on soft ground when critising others for their understanding of science

King_DeDeDe
For somebody who is ‘against bad and useless arguments’ – what does this shit mean?

A newborn baby or child is very much dependent upon it’s primary carer(s) in a different way from the fetus, but not much less dependent still.

Eh? Only in the absolute absence of any food supply other than breast milk is a baby actually dependant on another person’s actual body. Pregnancy and child birth are very different things to breast feeding and a whole lot less lethal.

Please stop treating people who have views on the nature of unborn babies as though they lack compassion. Its very often quite the opposite. This is an emotional issue, but acting as though your own views are de facto truth is not productive.

From what I heard of the doctors report, they didn’t actually say either way on the abortion issue. They just said claiming abortion is wrong because a pre-24 week foetus feels pain is not on current evidence correct. They clearly said that doesn’t impact on many of the other arguments for/against.

I really struggle with abortion. But I struggle more with the impacts of banning it, or of pushing parents (both sexes I’m afraid) to have one. So long we as a society can start to help parents make fully informed choices and provide adequate care, compassion with support. I have a friend who did have an abortion and now regrets it and it haunts her. That does not make it wrong. It means the care and support for her at that time was very lacking – with better care she made have made different choices. For other people it may go the other way.

But for some of the people on here to use quite sickening arguments to back up their own narrow perspectives is just wrong – again, that works both ways.

@29 the a&e charge nurse: Defeating the odds.

My mum had her tubes cut and tied three years before I was born. Her GP only acknowledged that I existed a few weeks before I was due to turn up. As today at work, I was somewhat delayed.

My point is that nature/humanity works in very strange ways.

If a study is performed on a small samples of foetuses, evidence that they feel no pain before 24 weeks is inconclusive. Perhaps if the study was 100,000 foetuses, they might identify a few outliers who feel pain at 23 weeks.

Does this advancement in knowledge change how we should debate abortion? Not really, because it does not change the ethics.

“It always amazes me that the fate of a foetus/unborn baby has become unable to be seen outside the prism of left vs right politics by many.”

Too bloody true. It also annoys me when people assume that pro-lifers are religious. I was vehemently pro-life for a while (I should fess up and say that my POV changed when a friend of mine thought she was pregnant with a baby she didn’t want), and that was also the time of my life that I was most aggressively atheistic.

Political alignment and religious beliefs correlate with views on abortion, but that doesn’t make them the same thing.

Kate Belgrave @ 20

If women are forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies, then they become animals in a sense. It is unforgivable of the anti abortion lobby to manipulate the truth and sentence women to an existence where they have little choice. Nobody has any right to impose that on another person.

But the right of a woman to control her own pregnancy is no more absolute than other rights – which are invariably qualified.

A man forfeits his right to complete autonomy over his wallet the moment he has sex in circumstances open to conception. Whether he wants a child or not, whether he’s prefer his partner to have an abortion etc…. fact is, if a child results then he is financially responsible.

I think there is a good argument that a woman loses some autonomy over her body in the same circumstances. Although sex may be a private act, its consequences become public or ‘social’ if a pregnancy results.

There are more ‘stakeholders’ to a pregnancy than just the woman. The partner is a stakeholder and so is society.

There is also an inconsistency in the way it is assumed that a pregnant woman is able to make rational and dispassionate choices. I’m not trying to dismiss all pregnant women as pregheads…. but surely you can see that there is a double standard operating when a woman kills a newly born child? Instead of being charged with murder and given a life sentence, she is charged with Infanticide and given counselling. The reason is because the law recognizes the hormonal and other stresses associated with pregnancy can be so severe as to impair her judgment. Why then is it held that she is able to make sober, rational decisions to terminate a pregnancy?

@Gould

Infanticide isn’t a charge, it’s a defence. If you’re going to smokescreen the issue by inferring that society somehow has a stake in a free woman’s body from the point of conception, then at least do your research.

@Dontmindme

You’re no better. The womb is not a part of the foetus. If anything, the onion has a much better chance as it can begin to grow without external help.

Gwyn @ 45

Infanticide isn’t a charge, it’s a defence.

Rubbish. In the United Kingdom, the Infanticide Act defines “infanticide” as a specific crime equivalent to manslaughter that can only be committed by the mother intentionally killing her own baby during the first twelve months of its life;

Section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 provides:

1. Where a woman by any wilful act or omission causes the death of her child being a child under the age of twelve months, but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child, then, if the circumstances were such that but for this Act the offence would have amounted to murder or manslaughter, she shall be guilty of felony, to wit of infanticide, and may for such offence be dealt with and punished …………etc.

then at least do your research.

Pot, kettle, black.

@44 Gould

Interesting argument – that by consenting to sex (I assume therefore there is no limit on abortions arising from non-consensual sex) a woman gives up the rights to her own body, seemingly by analogy with a man consenting to sex having to support the child resulting.

One minor problem – the woman also has to support the child resulting (and in fact, should be and probably is equally liable to pay child support if the child is with the father). So the woman has the same liabilities as the man anyway, regardless of pregnancy. Oh, and remember a woman does not have to acknowledge a father – so men have no rights in a child without the woman’s consent (fairly enough, considering the man’s part need be no more than a gift of semen).

As to the argument society is a stakeholder, does society demand that abortions don’t happen then? More to the point, why does society have the right to dictate what you or I (both of whom I presume, at least in your case (I’m sure in my case…), are male) do with our bodies? Would you accept compulsorary liposuction or appendectomies (sic?)? This argument is opening the door to compulsorary sterilisation or other totalitarian excesses, simply on the view of the needs of society. When someone cites society as a reason to impose their views on others, I tend to see it as an attempt to oppress and dominate the wills of those the writer disagrees with. I do not see it as an argument, as it refuses to respect the rights of the individual, which is the key issue here.

[47] “More to the point, why does society have the right to dictate what you or I (both of whom I presume, at least in your case (I’m sure in my case…), are male) do with our bodies?” – because behaviour has ALWAYS been constrained by societal mores.

For example, should there be any constraints to a middle aged man having sex with a 12 year old, say – would the “it’s my body” line hold in these circumstances?

With regard to abortion – costs are met through taxation (in the main) while the deed itself requires complicity with a sizable health infra-structure. Surely these factors need to be weighted when it comes to the way in which abortion is provided – for example, is it morally OK to abort at 39 weeks?

@48

False logic in your examples here.

The middle-aged man is interfering with a child, that is a human being who is judged unable to make a decision as to whether engaging in sexual activity is correct or not. This is a crime, because it involves taking advantage of a minor and interfering with their body. It has no connection to abortion which only involves one seperate living human being and a foetus.

As to the argument about tax-funding of abortions – can we also argue that people should only take part in certain sports where they may get hurt, arbitarily chosen by you, because tax funds their treatment afterwards? Anyway, what has that go to do with legality or not – the issue of who pays for abortions is a seperate one, but has nothing to do with the issue of what is permissible or not.

Society does indeed impose mores. My concern in this case is that social mores are actually repressive towards women’s ability to have total control over their own body. Just because social mores exist does not make them good, correct or worth defending – I grew up with a common social more around me (at school and in the streets – I had a liberal family) that homosexuality was wrong, for example; would you defend those arguing that we should not allow a form of sexuality simply because it goes against social mores?

And as to your age-based arguments, as I allude to above, whilst a mother should be able to get rid of an unborn baby at any point, if the liklihood is the baby should survive, there may be an argument for delivering it rather than aborting it. I don’t know enough about the risks involved. But ultimately, if a woman no longer wants to carry a baby, why should she? It is only once it is born that she has responsibility for it as a seperate human being (along with the father, ideally). This is the point that I never seem to get an answer on (other than religion or ‘society’ based): how do you justify treating a woman’s body as communal property, and how do you differentiate this from state sanctioned-slavery?

Watchman @ 47

it refuses to respect the rights of the individual, which is the key issue here.

Those in the pro-life camp would agree that it is indeed the rights of the individual…… the unborn individual… which are key.

Judging from your previous contributions to this thread, I take it that you do not believe the 24 week old fetus should be considered as having any rights because according to some pseudo-scientific theory of your own, it is somehow not ‘alive’.

Tell me, when does this ‘not-alive’ status change into an ‘alive’ status? Is it when it is ‘born’. If so, does it matter whether it is born in the conventional way or untimely ripped in the course of an emergency Caesarian? Or does life/sentience/consciousness etc. come rushing in the second the umbilical cord is cut?

Is your argument chiefly a scientific or a philosophical one? Does the capacity for independent life enter into it? If so, does a premature baby dependent as much on an incubator in neo-natal intensive care as it was previously on its mother’s body qualify as being ‘alive’ despite its dependency?

[49] “False logic in your examples here” – but the law has ALREADY determined that minors can make independent decisions when it comes to medical treatment;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

So why would you not extend the “it’s my body” principle to ALL life style choices, including choice of sexual partner, providing the individual has capacity to make such a decision?

You poo poo the cost element – OK, this may not unduly worry those who have no strong feelings about abortion, but why should those who hold profound objections contribute financially to the very procedure that is so abhorrent to them, surely you can see that this a further externality that cannot be just ignored?

My own feelings are that reproductive freedom, including abortion is beneficial to our society but I worry that as the number of abortions teeters on the brink of 200,000 (each year) maybe it’s time to think again about our attitude towards termination since what was once framed as a humane procedure of last resort has more or less morphed into an expensive form of contraception?

@50

Gould,

I consider something alive with rights when it is born, yes. Before that point it is nascent, with the potential to be alive with rights, but dependent on the mother (or the father if a sea horse). And, in the case of humans, the mother is alive and has rights already, which you would see ignored for the sake of a nascent life (remember that not all foetuses survive to become children, regardless of abortion).

My argument is totally unconcerned with science, as you should have noticed. It is based on the primacy of a human’s right to control their own body, so once independent, even if unable to survive without medical care (hardly a situtation unique to babies) a baby is alive; until that point the foetus is parasitical (which is used in the scientific way, not the perogative) to the mother. It is a simple logical distinction, which does not depend on scientific pronouncement, religious claptrap or government legislation. The decision to abort or not rests with the mother. Feel free to try and persuade her with your arguments, as that is legitimate and correct; personally I would probably argue against someone having a late-term abortion, all things considered, but my personal feelings cannot be used to tell others what to do.

@51,

“False logic in your examples here” – but the law has ALREADY determined that minors can make independent decisions when it comes to medical treatment;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

So why would you not extend the “it’s my body” principle to ALL life style choices, including choice of sexual partner, providing the individual has capacity to make such a decision?

I do. But children, by definition pretty much, are considered unable to make appropriate decisions about sexual partners. I do not think Gillick Competence is relavent here, as children still make sexual decisions, and we have to deal with that. We simply do not think these are informed decisions as they are not adult, and there is a criminal offence for an adult to sleep with a child on this basis. I do believe that choice of sexual partner is up to you, but the other person obviously has to consent. Children (and animals) are unable to offer consent until they are adults, when the capacity to make that decision is miraculously acquired. There is still a clear difference between a child or an animal, a living creature which is independently alive, and the nascent life of a foetus, which is only possibly alive.

Oh, and I believe abortion is one of the medical treatments children can access? Good, I think not carrying a baby is a decision a girl should be able to make for herself.

You poo poo the cost element – OK, this may not unduly worry those who have no strong feelings about abortion, but why should those who hold profound objections contribute financially to the very procedure that is so abhorrent to them, surely you can see that this a further externality that cannot be just ignored?

I wouldn’t go there. After all, if I am a pacifist, why should I pay for an army? If I am a reactionary git, why should I pay for scroungers on the dole? If I am a libertarian, why should I pay for a hell of a lot of things goverment does? If government funds abortion, personal views don’t matter. I see no problem in arguing government should not fund abortion (I would oppose such an argument, but it is about government spending and resources, not the right to have abortions), but this is an electoral issue, not one to do with the legality or otherwise of an abortion. If people don’t like funding abortions, why don’t they go and campaign against it? That might work better, in the current climate, than just opposing abortions full stop.

My own feelings are that reproductive freedom, including abortion is beneficial to our society but I worry that as the number of abortions teeters on the brink of 200,000 (each year) maybe it’s time to think again about our attitude towards termination since what was once framed as a humane procedure of last resort has more or less morphed into an expensive form of contraception?

At the risk of sounding like Mr Blair, education is needed here. If you are worried about the number of abortions, reducing access is not the answer (you are effectively restricting rights of individuals in order to meet a target, which even most modern socialists consider wrong). As has been shown on this site some time back, abortions are lowest in well-off, well-educated areas. Perhaps this should tell us something – abortions are not the problem, but merely a symptom.

abortions are lowest in well-off, well-educated areas.

Or, perhaps, among higher IQ groups.