I wasn't comparing them at all. I was just stating a fact without even offering an opinion about the medically terminated pregnancy question. I don't wish to offer an opinion.

David

At some point between conception and birth the life growing inside the womb becomes human. Prior to that point the killing of that life, while regrettable, cannot be illegal. After that point, killing a human life is murder.

The challenge for society is to decide and 'agree' upon what that point is. Some will say its at the point of conception. Some will say its much later.

Personally I'd set the point at 20 weeks. Any such demarcation is clearly subjective and and to some degree arbitrary. But legally a demarcation point must be set. Comparing great things to small, its clearly arbitrary to say driving at 60 kph is fine but 61 not. But a line has to be drawn.

Once its determined that the life is human,that its in a womb is immaterial.

So my response is that abortion to 20 weeks ought to be easily available, but after that time, utterly illegal.

Pick another cut-off point if you like but the principle remains the same.

Dear Mhaze,

«Pick another cut-off point if you like but the principle remains the same.»

In that case, I would pick the cut-off point at around 1 or 2 years after birth, because before that, the baby tends to be less developed (physically, emotionally, mentally) than adult animals. So long as it is legal to euthanase animals or to kill them for meat, it should just the same be legal (though not moral) to euthanase babies which are less-developed.

mhaze,

The unborn child is human from the point of conception. Its DNA is proof of that. That’s not the issue. The most fundamental issue is one of bodily autonomy.

No one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival without that person’s consent. This is a right that we afford dead people, yet anti-abortionists seem to think that a pregnant woman is not entitled to it; just as they believe that an unborn human child, so meek and mild, is entitled to more rights than a child who has been born. For a child who has been born is not even entitled to use someone else’s body (including their own mother’s) without their consent.

That being said, a better way to determine the cutoff point would be to set it at around 20 weeks (which is the current cutoff point, funnily enough) because the unborn human child, filled with so much potential, is viable outside the womb at that age.

Bringing a child into the world is often a great joy, however, it is also a huge life long responsibility, but for some an unplanned pregnancy is a life destroying disaster that will bring mostly misery. While some claim that a woman can give up her child, this is a dishonest argument, as women are hard coded to bond to their offspring.

The argument falls to the right of a woman over her body. The rights of an unborn child cannot override these, no more than the rights of a husband can override the rights of his wife.

As for the angst it causes women, that is vastly over exaggerated. I personally know 2 women that have had careers and families that would not have been possible had they been forced as teenagers to become mothers. As to their state of mind, they give it no more thought.

Gosh, what a topsy-turvy world we'd live in if we trusted doctors to have their patients best interests at heart and only be concerned with providing the best medical care possible. But obviously they're all greedy psychopaths in blood-spattered aprons, only interested in squeezing money from their victims and Medicare by butchering as many babies as they possibly can.

//A medical abortion is the destruction of a normal, healthy foetus, one that would grow into a normal, healthy child.//

Sometimes. But not all foeti with abnormalities spontaneously abort. Sometimes abortions are used to prevent the birth of children so severely disabled that they would have a short life with zero quality and a lot of suffering. Surely it's a good thing to prevent that kind of unnecessary suffering, for both the unfortunate child and the mother who will have to watch her offspring suffer?

//So my response is that abortion to 20 weeks ought to be easily available, but after that time, utterly illegal.//

Utterly illegal? Even if it's necessary to save the life of the mother? If the best and safest treatment is an abortion, should it really be 'utterly illegal' if it's past the 20 week mark? Or might we make exceptions in cases of medical necessity?