mhaze, luckily, abortions of 24 week gestation pregnancies are very rare in this country.

Certainly I would bet there aren't any doctors in this country who would agree to terminating a pregnancy at that late stage simply because a woman didn't want to be a mother anymore, so you should be safe there.

However, if a doctor and a pregnant woman and her partner agree on the absolute necessity of having an induced labour at that stage of pregnancy, then it would have to be for a very good medical reason. And that should be no one else's very sad business but theirs.

By 24 weeks gestation it is safer for the mother to have an induced birth rather than an abortion anyway. If people like yourself are really that upset about women ending pregnancies of disabled babies at this stage, then perhaps you all can take on the care of these kids if ever it does become illegal to have abortions for any reason...

Seems like Babette Francis is up to her usual nonsense here. The whole Planned Parenthood saga in the US is being driven by the same Tea Party fundamentalism that is currently making the US a worse place to live, rather than better. It is not based on evidence, but on groups of people wanting to control the lives of others.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy should be between the mother, the father and health providers. The Babette Francis' of this world should just butt out.

Oh we have a new player.

So tell us Agronomist, at what point do you think the embryo achieves personhood and becomes due all its rights as a human?.... including the right to live.

"So tell us Agronomist, at what point do you think the embryo achieves personhood and becomes due all its rights as a human?.... including the right to live."

There is little point in me making such a declaration. It will not influence your thinking one bit.

This demand of yours is just you trying to control the narrative.

Suse,

Well said, and I mean that.

Well clearly Agronomist prefers the ad hom to actually addressing any substantive issues, so (s)he has nothing of value to say. So back to

Suseonline,

What concerns me here Suse, and I'm not just picking on you since I see this whenever the issue is raised, is that you feel, if not comfortable, then at least accepting of the notion that a post-24 week life in vitro which you've already agreed is human with all the rights that attach to that, can be ended by the decisions of others because it is less than perfect - possibly very much less than perfect.

Yet, I suspect (and hope), you'd be less than supportive of the idea that a less than perfect life what was 24 weeks out of the womb could be ended by decisions taken by family and their doctors. I'd hope that you'd agree that such a decision requires society's imperateur

So what is the difference between a 24 week old embryo and a 24 week old baby?

To make my position clear. Firstly, push-comes-to-shove, I'd put the date at 20 weeks. More to the point, whatever the date, once the embryo has attained personhood then the women, her family and her medical support loose all rights to make decisions about whether the new life should live or die. Any such decision becomes a societal question and can only be decided at the societal level. Society has a duty to protect all of its members and that includes the unborn ones, irrespective of their health and prospects.

Yes I know its unfair to force the women to carry a child she no longer wants. But greater principals are at stake than the temporary loss by the women over her womb. Its unfair that she's now in this position but that is as nought to the unfairness of killing the life within her.