UK Abortion Law
Discussion
Banning/limiting it doesn't stop it.
I was a trainee for a gynaecologist who practised before the '67 Act. Quite a conservative chap in many ways but he'd seen enough young women suffer and die of haemorrhage and septicaemia after illegal abortions to make him 'pro life' and pro choice.
Problem with bringing the opportunity down to 20 weeks is that late terminations are usually for dreadful foetal abnormalities and for the kind of women who present late due to fear, denial low IQ and other vulnerabilities
Plenty above making good points about screening. Lots of parents have blood tests and trot along to scans 'to make sure the baby is all right' and to get pretty pictures. Little do they realise that the only 'treatment' on offer for some abnormalities is termination.
Generally societies which are fairest (ie smallest interquartile range in income distribution) have the lowest rate of unwanted pregnancies (suicide addcition obesity etc) - The placard wavers on the religious right don't seem interested in addressing this.
I was a trainee for a gynaecologist who practised before the '67 Act. Quite a conservative chap in many ways but he'd seen enough young women suffer and die of haemorrhage and septicaemia after illegal abortions to make him 'pro life' and pro choice.
Problem with bringing the opportunity down to 20 weeks is that late terminations are usually for dreadful foetal abnormalities and for the kind of women who present late due to fear, denial low IQ and other vulnerabilities
Plenty above making good points about screening. Lots of parents have blood tests and trot along to scans 'to make sure the baby is all right' and to get pretty pictures. Little do they realise that the only 'treatment' on offer for some abnormalities is termination.
Generally societies which are fairest (ie smallest interquartile range in income distribution) have the lowest rate of unwanted pregnancies (suicide addcition obesity etc) - The placard wavers on the religious right don't seem interested in addressing this.
We had to approve the termination of a foetus with severe chromosomal flaws, that had she lived could heve been expected to live a year or two, painfully.
Didn't bat an eyelid about the decision, but hated it. We had been trying for a child for a long time.
That said, some of the points being made on here are well made.
Interesting to me is that in the main debate between two opposing sides above, the offensive, non-logical and personal attack-ish approach is being taken by the pro-abortion poster. That's not the stereotype, but them we are looking at a small sample. Another pro life poster above likens abortion to murder, which is more like the emotive language I have got used to seeing.
One thing I will remember: as my wife and I were leaving the clinic, devastated, a protester came up to me and stared abusing me and Lady Flashman.
I have never come as close to performing an act of serious violence on someone as I came in that moment. My wife saved him, and my career/life that day when she de-escalated the situation. I just lost control and saw red, bloody rage, to my eternal shame.
Sensitivity to all is required here. This is complex, yet to those with beliefs (note they are often couched in that term "belief", not "view"), they cannot be wrong.
Didn't bat an eyelid about the decision, but hated it. We had been trying for a child for a long time.
That said, some of the points being made on here are well made.
Interesting to me is that in the main debate between two opposing sides above, the offensive, non-logical and personal attack-ish approach is being taken by the pro-abortion poster. That's not the stereotype, but them we are looking at a small sample. Another pro life poster above likens abortion to murder, which is more like the emotive language I have got used to seeing.
One thing I will remember: as my wife and I were leaving the clinic, devastated, a protester came up to me and stared abusing me and Lady Flashman.
I have never come as close to performing an act of serious violence on someone as I came in that moment. My wife saved him, and my career/life that day when she de-escalated the situation. I just lost control and saw red, bloody rage, to my eternal shame.
Sensitivity to all is required here. This is complex, yet to those with beliefs (note they are often couched in that term "belief", not "view"), they cannot be wrong.
It’s a tricky subject, and one where I think the UK laws are about right. Ultimately, this is about the woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, and something I read a while ago put it into good perspective for me. I can’t find it, so I’ll try and recreate the line of reasoning. Hopefully I don’t mess it up. 
Before a certain point, a foetus requires the mothers “help” to survive. You can argue when that point is, but that’s not relevant to the reasoning I read.
So, let’s take a different, but analogous, situation. Someone needs something, or they’re going to die. Let’s say it’s bone marrow. A match is found. Would you compel the person who is a match to make a donation in order to save the life?
Current laws would prohibit it - giving may well be the morally correct thing to do, but it’s not mandatory as you’re in control of your body and what happens to it. So much so, in fact, that you get a say even after death.
Given the above, my take on it is that the right to choose whether to carry a child to term is with the mother, and should remain there.
There will be some who say the analogy is flawed, and it is - by nature, no analogy is perfect. But it is good enough to cover the principle, and logically the moment you start to argue that a second “person’s” right to life should trump someone else’s right to decide what to do with their body, you’re also on a path to arguing for forced donations of blood, etc. as these too can save a life.
Before a certain point, a foetus requires the mothers “help” to survive. You can argue when that point is, but that’s not relevant to the reasoning I read.
So, let’s take a different, but analogous, situation. Someone needs something, or they’re going to die. Let’s say it’s bone marrow. A match is found. Would you compel the person who is a match to make a donation in order to save the life?
Current laws would prohibit it - giving may well be the morally correct thing to do, but it’s not mandatory as you’re in control of your body and what happens to it. So much so, in fact, that you get a say even after death.
Given the above, my take on it is that the right to choose whether to carry a child to term is with the mother, and should remain there.
There will be some who say the analogy is flawed, and it is - by nature, no analogy is perfect. But it is good enough to cover the principle, and logically the moment you start to argue that a second “person’s” right to life should trump someone else’s right to decide what to do with their body, you’re also on a path to arguing for forced donations of blood, etc. as these too can save a life.
That's the trouble with all logic paths - they lead to ultimate outcomes that can be even more problematic.
The opposite logic path to yours in this case, that which says if you can kill a foetus, you can ultimately justify killing any innocent, is a similar sort of argument. Logically valid, but ultimately unhelpful (said with respect, by the way).
Hence the value judgements made in between, that no-one can agree on.
The opposite logic path to yours in this case, that which says if you can kill a foetus, you can ultimately justify killing any innocent, is a similar sort of argument. Logically valid, but ultimately unhelpful (said with respect, by the way).
Hence the value judgements made in between, that no-one can agree on.
DanL said:
It’s a tricky subject, and one where I think the UK laws are about right. Ultimately, this is about the woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, and something I read a while ago put it into good perspective for me. I can’t find it, so I’ll try and recreate the line of reasoning. Hopefully I don’t mess it up.
Before a certain point, a foetus requires the mothers “help” to survive. You can argue when that point is, but that’s not relevant to the reasoning I read.
So, let’s take a different, but analogous, situation. Someone needs something, or they’re going to die. Let’s say it’s bone marrow. A match is found. Would you compel the person who is a match to make a donation in order to save the life?
Current laws would prohibit it - giving may well be the morally correct thing to do, but it’s not mandatory as you’re in control of your body and what happens to it. So much so, in fact, that you get a say even after death.
Given the above, my take on it is that the right to choose whether to carry a child to term is with the mother, and should remain there.
There will be some who say the analogy is flawed, and it is - by nature, no analogy is perfect. But it is good enough to cover the principle, and logically the moment you start to argue that a second “person’s” right to life should trump someone else’s right to decide what to do with their body, you’re also on a path to arguing for forced donations of blood, etc. as these too can save a life.
That analogy was dreamed up by a pro abortion person. Before a certain point, a foetus requires the mothers “help” to survive. You can argue when that point is, but that’s not relevant to the reasoning I read.
So, let’s take a different, but analogous, situation. Someone needs something, or they’re going to die. Let’s say it’s bone marrow. A match is found. Would you compel the person who is a match to make a donation in order to save the life?
Current laws would prohibit it - giving may well be the morally correct thing to do, but it’s not mandatory as you’re in control of your body and what happens to it. So much so, in fact, that you get a say even after death.
Given the above, my take on it is that the right to choose whether to carry a child to term is with the mother, and should remain there.
There will be some who say the analogy is flawed, and it is - by nature, no analogy is perfect. But it is good enough to cover the principle, and logically the moment you start to argue that a second “person’s” right to life should trump someone else’s right to decide what to do with their body, you’re also on a path to arguing for forced donations of blood, etc. as these too can save a life.
Most aborted foetuses are due to consensual sex. The mother and father are responsible for the creation of the foetus and the situation where the existence of the foetus is dependent upon the mother. The foetus didn’t ask to be created or be dependent.
An anti abortion analogy would be to have your son or daughter grab hold of a rope, then push them off a building whilst you hold the other end of the rope. Their life nows lies (literally) in your hands. Would you say it is okay to let go of the rope because you don’t want to hold it any more? I mean it is your body and can do what you want with it.
Harry Flashman said:
That's the trouble with all logic paths - they lead to ultimate outcomes that can be even more problematic.
The opposite logic path to yours in this case, that which says if you can kill a foetus, you can ultimately justify killing any innocent, is a similar sort of argument. Logically valid, but ultimately unhelpful (said with respect, by the way).
Hence the value judgements made in between, that no-one can agree on.
This is a heavily loaded subject and as “victim” of a stout catholic education my personal views are very tainted by that upbringing and rejecting it.The opposite logic path to yours in this case, that which says if you can kill a foetus, you can ultimately justify killing any innocent, is a similar sort of argument. Logically valid, but ultimately unhelpful (said with respect, by the way).
Hence the value judgements made in between, that no-one can agree on.
Logic can’t solve this problem as it’s largely down to personal morals. But there you hit the problem of who’s morals should trump another’s. I’m no moral philosopher. But it’s a no brainier to offer consultancy and if necessary abortion services to women.
To make this political. Politics should be above religion and doctors and nurses should be absolved from anything other than providing appropriate medical care. The arguments over the rights of a foetus don’t belong on the ward.
b0rk said:
The US is IMHO becoming increasingly polarised into religious fundamentalism and secular groups. The pro and anti abortion movement that has grown to prominence over the last few years over there reflects the shrinking moderate middle ground. I can’t see this occurring in the UK as religion just isn’t as tied up with politics.
However on a more general level the hollowing out of the middle is a problem increasingly faced by all western democracies. This is for the future going to lead to a less stable world as the shift between different factions of power becomes evermore extreme.
What a phrase to use in this thread! However on a more general level the hollowing out of the middle is a problem increasingly faced by all western democracies. This is for the future going to lead to a less stable world as the shift between different factions of power becomes evermore extreme.
roger.mellie said:
I’m perfectly able to engage. Just not on your terms amigo.
You are arguing for your moral position. I’m not sure if you’re ignorant of that point or being deliberately obtuse.
No one is arguing that killing innocent people is wrong. You’re trying to twist that into arguing that aborting a pregnancy is equivalent to murder. I’ll be polite and say that I disagree strongly.
Your definition of a foetus as a person is a moral judgment, not one backed by any medical facts. Your moral hypocrisy in thinking that it’s just about unwanted children reveals more than you think.
Any discussion about abortion will throw up oft repeated fallacies. You are arguing for your moral position. I’m not sure if you’re ignorant of that point or being deliberately obtuse.
No one is arguing that killing innocent people is wrong. You’re trying to twist that into arguing that aborting a pregnancy is equivalent to murder. I’ll be polite and say that I disagree strongly.
Your definition of a foetus as a person is a moral judgment, not one backed by any medical facts. Your moral hypocrisy in thinking that it’s just about unwanted children reveals more than you think.
Medical practitioners cannot tell you what a “person” is. The definition of “person” is done by society. In the past non white, Jews and gypsies (amongst others) have not been treated as persons. Medical “evidence” was used to support such treatment.
A new life comes into existence at conception. The unique genetic information that will largely determine how that new life grows is set at that time (and certainly by the time the pregnancy is detectable). That new life will continue until death, whether that is in the womb or a hundred years after birth.
The most obvious and natural time to treat a person as coming into being is conception.
When I look at my dog I don’t wonder when he became a dog. It seems clear to me he became a dog at conception and he is still one now.
If you are stating that humans are special so that we have to a special distinction between people and non people you need to provide the argument and evidence for it.
Harry Flashman said:
That's the trouble with all logic paths - they lead to ultimate outcomes that can be even more problematic.
The opposite logic path to yours in this case, that which says if you can kill a foetus, you can ultimately justify killing any innocent, is a similar sort of argument. Logically valid, but ultimately unhelpful (said with respect, by the way).
Hence the value judgements made in between, that no-one can agree on.
I’d quite like you to try and make that argument, because I’m not sure that is the logical conclusion of the reasoning I set out above. It might be, but I don’t see it…The opposite logic path to yours in this case, that which says if you can kill a foetus, you can ultimately justify killing any innocent, is a similar sort of argument. Logically valid, but ultimately unhelpful (said with respect, by the way).
Hence the value judgements made in between, that no-one can agree on.
A life isn’t viable without some sort of support - should the person able to provide that support be compelled (in law, not morally) to provide it? That’s not quite the same as “killing someone is fine”. You could extend the line of thinking to life support systems in hospitals - when can / should they be turned off?
Morally everyone will have a different position, and this subject is clearly an extremely emotive one. I’m in the fortunate position to never have had to make these choices, so there’s a fair argument that without first hand experience my views aren’t backed by personal knowledge, and I wouldn’t disagree.
I’d argue that my position isn’t coming from an emotional standpoint as a result though, although equally that doesn’t mean I’m right!
Thanks for the opinions everyone, that's the sort of range I was expecting, the majority seem to support the status quo which is probably in tune with the nation as a whole.
The intractability of religion from the debate is disappointing, religion played a blinding hand when involving itself with moral issues and judgments, its a shame, morality should be open for discussion without any reference to religion but I suppose there's is something innately human about looking for answers without rather within.
My personal opinion is that the UK law could be revisited with the addition of purely choice abortions added (I. E no need to give health reasons) as I suspect the reasons are almost always a matter of formality but I also think, rare as they are, late term abortions are problamatic both morally and practically for everyone involved including the women and I think the law should probably reflect that with some sort of higher barrier and more support to be met over 18 to 20 weeks.
The intractability of religion from the debate is disappointing, religion played a blinding hand when involving itself with moral issues and judgments, its a shame, morality should be open for discussion without any reference to religion but I suppose there's is something innately human about looking for answers without rather within.
My personal opinion is that the UK law could be revisited with the addition of purely choice abortions added (I. E no need to give health reasons) as I suspect the reasons are almost always a matter of formality but I also think, rare as they are, late term abortions are problamatic both morally and practically for everyone involved including the women and I think the law should probably reflect that with some sort of higher barrier and more support to be met over 18 to 20 weeks.
Esceptico said:
Any discussion about abortion will throw up oft repeated fallacies.
Medical practitioners cannot tell you what a “person” is. The definition of “person” is done by society. In the past non white, Jews and gypsies (amongst others) have not been treated as persons. Medical “evidence” was used to support such treatment.
A new life comes into existence at conception. The unique genetic information that will largely determine how that new life grows is set at that time (and certainly by the time the pregnancy is detectable). That new life will continue until death, whether that is in the womb or a hundred years after birth.
The most obvious and natural time to treat a person as coming into being is conception.
When I look at my dog I don’t wonder when he became a dog. It seems clear to me he became a dog at conception and he is still one now.
If you are stating that humans are special so that we have to a special distinction between people and non people you need to provide the argument and evidence for it.
Forgive me Father because I have sinned, I’ll spend my Sunday morning (at least until the wife gets up) arguing with those that proclaim not to follow your faith but very obviously do.Medical practitioners cannot tell you what a “person” is. The definition of “person” is done by society. In the past non white, Jews and gypsies (amongst others) have not been treated as persons. Medical “evidence” was used to support such treatment.
A new life comes into existence at conception. The unique genetic information that will largely determine how that new life grows is set at that time (and certainly by the time the pregnancy is detectable). That new life will continue until death, whether that is in the womb or a hundred years after birth.
The most obvious and natural time to treat a person as coming into being is conception.
When I look at my dog I don’t wonder when he became a dog. It seems clear to me he became a dog at conception and he is still one now.
If you are stating that humans are special so that we have to a special distinction between people and non people you need to provide the argument and evidence for it.
Obvious to you, not to medical science. Please avoid the straw man argument of what people believed in the past, as you won’t like what they did to abort pregnancies.
You’ve expounded a load of beliefs there. None have evidence to back them up. I’m positive you know that.
Nice straw man on me expounding that humans are special. I’m assuming you’re vegan and ballsed that up?
Esceptico said:
That analogy was dreamed up by a pro abortion person.
…
An anti abortion analogy would be to have your son or daughter grab hold of a rope, then push them off a building whilst you hold the other end of the rope. Their life nows lies (literally) in your hands. Would you say it is okay to let go of the rope because you don’t want to hold it any more? I mean it is your body and can do what you want with it.
I see what you’re saying, but it’s not the same. In your rope analogy, the child is already alive outside of the mother, already has independent life that would continue without assistance if they hadn’t been placed in jeopardy.…
An anti abortion analogy would be to have your son or daughter grab hold of a rope, then push them off a building whilst you hold the other end of the rope. Their life nows lies (literally) in your hands. Would you say it is okay to let go of the rope because you don’t want to hold it any more? I mean it is your body and can do what you want with it.
I’m aware I’m now criticising the analogy, which isn’t a great argument as it leads to comparing more and more extreme straw men.
What I take from your analogy is that your stance is life begins at conception, and should be allowed to continue from that point. It’s a fair, moral, position that I wouldn’t want to disagree with - your morals are very much your own (as is your body!
).However, should you have the right to impose your moral outlook on others? You are free to disagree and disapprove of others choices, but not (I contend) to take those choices away from them.
Now, you’re also not saying you want to take those choices away, but we’re kind of debating the end point of a discussion around abortion laws…
Edited by DanL on Sunday 20th June 09:39
Harry Flashman said:
One thing I will remember: as my wife and I were leaving the clinic, devastated, a protester came up to me and stared abusing me and Lady Flashman.
I have never come as close to performing an act of serious violence on someone as I came in that moment. My wife saved him, and my career/life that day when she de-escalated the situation. I just lost control and saw red, bloody rage, to my eternal shame.
I don't regard that as anything to feel shame about, it only saddens me you had to end up in that situation.I have never come as close to performing an act of serious violence on someone as I came in that moment. My wife saved him, and my career/life that day when she de-escalated the situation. I just lost control and saw red, bloody rage, to my eternal shame.
Your reaction is completely understandable an not in any way morally questionable, even if you were to act on it.
Esceptico said:
Any discussion about abortion will throw up oft repeated fallacies.
Medical practitioners cannot tell you what a “person” is. The definition of “person” is done by society. In the past non white, Jews and gypsies (amongst others) have not been treated as persons. Medical “evidence” was used to support such treatment.
A new life comes into existence at conception. The unique genetic information that will largely determine how that new life grows is set at that time (and certainly by the time the pregnancy is detectable). That new life will continue until death, whether that is in the womb or a hundred years after birth.
The most obvious and natural time to treat a person as coming into being is conception.
When I look at my dog I don’t wonder when he became a dog. It seems clear to me he became a dog at conception and he is still one now.
If you are stating that humans are special so that we have to a special distinction between people and non people you need to provide the argument and evidence for it.
In your opinion. Others differ - e.g. the Balinese view that a baby is not a person until the 40th day after birth. Islam states that life begins about 40 days after conception. The Greek philosophers differed - some said conception, some 40-90 days after, some the first breath after birth.Medical practitioners cannot tell you what a “person” is. The definition of “person” is done by society. In the past non white, Jews and gypsies (amongst others) have not been treated as persons. Medical “evidence” was used to support such treatment.
A new life comes into existence at conception. The unique genetic information that will largely determine how that new life grows is set at that time (and certainly by the time the pregnancy is detectable). That new life will continue until death, whether that is in the womb or a hundred years after birth.
The most obvious and natural time to treat a person as coming into being is conception.
When I look at my dog I don’t wonder when he became a dog. It seems clear to me he became a dog at conception and he is still one now.
If you are stating that humans are special so that we have to a special distinction between people and non people you need to provide the argument and evidence for it.
As I said - there isn't even an agreed definition of death (heart vs brain) so it isn't surprising that there isn't an agreed definition of life starting. If you argue that we are persons before our heart and brain start functioning, because of the potential of the embryo, then we are also not dead once they stop. The unique genetic structure is still there, and has the potential to be cloned. Argument to absurdity - cell cultures of all humans at death should be kept and then cloned.
However it is disguised, ‘My lifestyle is more important than the life of this unborn child’ is the reason for all abortions. Every pro-choice argument serves to excuse, mitigate or justify that basic fact. I pro-life conceptually but pro-choice pragmatically. I think that might make me a hypocrite but I can live with that.
Ayahuasca said:
However it is disguised, ‘My lifestyle is more important than the life of this unborn child’ is the reason for all abortions. Every pro-choice argument serves to excuse, mitigate or justify that basic fact. I pro-life conceptually but pro-choice pragmatically. I think that might make me a hypocrite but I can live with that.
No - the vast majority of abortions are not elective. 10-20% (depending on age of mother) of known pregnancies abort - we call them miscarriages - and it is thought in total 30-40% of conceptions abort - many fail to implant in the womb lining in the first place. wisbech said:
In your opinion. Others differ - e.g. the Balinese view that a baby is not a person until the 40th day after birth. Islam states that life begins about 40 days after conception. The Greek philosophers differed - some said conception, some 40-90 days after, some the first breath after birth.
As I said - there isn't even an agreed definition of death (heart vs brain) so it isn't surprising that there isn't an agreed definition of life starting. If you argue that we are persons before our heart and brain start functioning, because of the potential of the embryo, then we are also not dead once they stop. The unique genetic structure is still there, and has the potential to be cloned. Argument to absurdity - cell cultures of all humans at death should be kept and then cloned.
I think you are confusing things.As I said - there isn't even an agreed definition of death (heart vs brain) so it isn't surprising that there isn't an agreed definition of life starting. If you argue that we are persons before our heart and brain start functioning, because of the potential of the embryo, then we are also not dead once they stop. The unique genetic structure is still there, and has the potential to be cloned. Argument to absurdity - cell cultures of all humans at death should be kept and then cloned.
What the ancient Greeks thought or other pre scientific societies about when life started is hardly a fair comparison.
We create life outside the body in IVF. It isn’t magic. It has been studied and filmed. You take eggs and sperm and out them together and (hopefully) you get a fertilised egg that starts to divide. It’s alive. It isn’t controversial. And it will continue to grow, divide and replace cells until the organism dies.
I am alive and writing this. At some point I will be dead (a lump of lifeless meat ready for the furnace). I doubt anyone on here would be unable to distinguish between the two. There might be some difficulty in establishing the exact moment of transition between the two - although obviously the key moment is when there is an irreversible change from one to the other. The fact that you might not have perfect information so can’t determine that point doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Esceptico said:
I used to be very pro-choice when I was younger.
When my wife and I were trying for a baby we suffered a number of miscarriages. When we finally succeeded and watched our daughter’s progress via scans it was clear that our daughter was already alive, just not born yet. I realised that my previous position wasn’t consistent with what I saw and felt.
The experience made me reevaluate my views on abortion. Clearly a foetus is alive and abortion involves killing a living being. Morally there doesn’t seem any real difference between infanticide and abortion (I know that in India babies - particularly baby girls - are abandoned at birth and left to die).
A new life starts at conception. The mother and foetus are not the same.
I am not convinced by the “it’s my body” argument. The foetus is not part of the woman’s body. The vast majority of aborted foetuses were conceived through consensual sex. Pregnancy is always a risk with sex - hardly surprising as it is the reason we have sex. Morally it doesn’t seem right that the foetus has to pay with its life for a lack of or failure of contraception.
All the arguments I’ve heard for abortion are self serving and seem to be derived to support a position already decided. As an example people rightly note that many foetuses die naturally in the womb (many before the woman knows she is pregnant). Yet that hardly supports abortion. Everyone is going to die at some point so using a similar argument would suggest murder is not a crime.
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
Well said. I think an awful lot of the "pro"abortion arguments that get expressed are deeply unconvincing once poked. Truth is no one is actually "pro" abortion. It's just seen by many as the least bad option in certain circumstances. But to avoid the uncomfortable truth that it is still "a bad thing", some will overstate their case and try to pretend that there is no moral ambiguity.When my wife and I were trying for a baby we suffered a number of miscarriages. When we finally succeeded and watched our daughter’s progress via scans it was clear that our daughter was already alive, just not born yet. I realised that my previous position wasn’t consistent with what I saw and felt.
The experience made me reevaluate my views on abortion. Clearly a foetus is alive and abortion involves killing a living being. Morally there doesn’t seem any real difference between infanticide and abortion (I know that in India babies - particularly baby girls - are abandoned at birth and left to die).
A new life starts at conception. The mother and foetus are not the same.
I am not convinced by the “it’s my body” argument. The foetus is not part of the woman’s body. The vast majority of aborted foetuses were conceived through consensual sex. Pregnancy is always a risk with sex - hardly surprising as it is the reason we have sex. Morally it doesn’t seem right that the foetus has to pay with its life for a lack of or failure of contraception.
All the arguments I’ve heard for abortion are self serving and seem to be derived to support a position already decided. As an example people rightly note that many foetuses die naturally in the womb (many before the woman knows she is pregnant). Yet that hardly supports abortion. Everyone is going to die at some point so using a similar argument would suggest murder is not a crime.
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
FWIW, I think there is a perfectly good argument that is built up from seeing life as not having intrinsic value but only having extrinsic value. I.e. my life has no value to me, because if you kill me I'm not in a position to appreciate that I've lost anything. I don't suffer a loss. My relatives, friend etc do. The value of my life is external to me. It's something that exists in other people's heads. The moral case for not killing me (cleanly and painlessly) is based on not causing other people to suffer my loss. This sounds like a dangerous idea, because it sounds like it gives you free range to kill loads of people, but it doesn't. We're so interconnected and crappy behaviour is sufficiently corrosive that the difference between saying life is inherently precious and saying it's only precious indirectly amounts to the same thing in almost all circumstances. But abortion of a foetus is one of the exceptional cases.
wisbech said:
Ayahuasca said:
However it is disguised, ‘My lifestyle is more important than the life of this unborn child’ is the reason for all abortions. Every pro-choice argument serves to excuse, mitigate or justify that basic fact. I pro-life conceptually but pro-choice pragmatically. I think that might make me a hypocrite but I can live with that.
No - the vast majority of abortions are not elective. 10-20% (depending on age of mother) of known pregnancies abort - we call them miscarriages - and it is thought in total 30-40% of conceptions abort - many fail to implant in the womb lining in the first place. wisbech said:
No - the vast majority of abortions are not elective. 10-20% (depending on age of mother) of known pregnancies abort - we call them miscarriages - and it is thought in total 30-40% of conceptions abort - many fail to implant in the womb lining in the first place.
Why are you conflating abortion with miscarriages or failure to implant? They are nothing like each other. A miscarriage or failure to implant is a failed pregnancy. An abortion is a deliberate, conscious ending of a pregnancy. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff