Foxy is clearly correct..."the status of
the fetus is inherently ambiguous; it is neither self
evidently a human being nor self-evidently just tissue"

If you think its merely a group of cells that may one day be human then abortion would seem ok. If you think its a human life at conception then any abortion is murder.

But its also true that the nature of zygote, embryo etc alters. A mere grouping of cells at 5 weeks becomes clearly identifiably human-like at 20 or so weeks. So each person has to decide when the zygote becomes human and therefore when abortion becomes murder. For some its at conception,or when a heart-beat is found, others at 20 weeks, or when the head crowns.

Each person makes that decision and then a societal consensus is formed. Personally, I've got no problems with the Queensland decision to go with 22 weeks,although I'd prefer 18 weeks.

Where I do see problems is the decision to allow abortion beyond that time if two doctors agree. Finding two such doctors would not be a problem (how many Gosnells are in our midst ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell). So effectively abortion beyond 22 weeks will become easily obtained.

what this article shows is that women, particularly young women, are uninformed about the consequences of the act. I don't see why those who advocate for easy abortion oppose making it possible or even mandatory that they be better informed. I've seen proposals that women be shown pictures of the life their about to end so they are better informed. Or that they are allowed to hear the heart-beat of the being growing in them before stopping the heart. Do women who abort at 22 weeks know that it involves dismemberment after the brain is sucked out? Do women who go down this path know that some of them will suffer as this author has?

I see no attempts in the QLD legislation to improve the level of knowledge and understanding of the women involved. I see clear attempts to sanitise an inherently unsavoury problem eg by creating exclusion zones around clinics.

.

Dear Madeleine,

.

You wrote :

« Choosing abortion is the greatest regret of my life … I decided abortion was my only option … »

That’s strange. You could not possibly have ignored that you also had the option of having the baby. What made you think that an abortion was your “only option” ? Unless you were raped, you should normally have had four options :

1. Abstinence
2. Prevention
3. Have the baby
4. Abortion

It seems that it was only after you discovered you were pregnant that you realised :

« … it was then that I needed a system to protect me from my lack of maturity, wisdom and misinformation »

Presuming you were not raped, I can’t help thinking you “needed a system to protect [yourself] from [your] lack of maturity, wisdom and misinformation” before you even had sex. It may have prevented you from becoming pregnant in the first place.

Unfortunately, you did not abstain. You had sex and either there was no prevention or it did not work. But, apparently, you had no regrets about that. You were then left with the choice of either having the baby or an abortion.

One can only conclude that, for some reason, you did not want the baby. And it was only sometime after the abortion that you regretted it.

Does that mean that you now think it would have been better to give birth to an unwanted and undesired baby ? Would you have been a good mother for that unwanted, undesired baby ? What effect would it have had on your life and on the lives of everybody concerned (the baby, the father, both your families, etc.) ?

.

Dear Mr Big,

.

You indicate that “… the scientific fact is that human life begins at fertilisation …”.

Human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago marking the beginning of human life.

Successive fertilisation is simply its continuance.

There is no consensus among scientists, philosophers, ethicists, sociologists and theologizes on when a new individual emerges :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/

.

'Human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago marking the beginning of human life.'

drrr! Banjo and you are an American Cherokee. Why do regressives repeatedly make up fairytales.

Ben Carson sums it up nicely

'We have distorted things to a point where people believe that anyone who opposes mother's killing their own babies is waging a war on women. How can we be so foolish to believe such a thing? One must be able to recognise the depravity to which we have sunken as a society when valuing a baby's life is frowned upon.'

.

Dear Runner,

.

Commenting on my statement : “Human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago marking the beginning of human life”, you wrote :

« Why do regressives repeatedly make up fairytales »

I really don’t know, Runner. My guess is that it’s because they like fairy-tales. I used to too when I was a kid, but then I grew up. I still have fond memories of some and think they’re quite charming.

That said, while some of them impressed me, I can’t say I ever believed in them.

If you’re interested, here is the source of my information on the beginning of human life :

http://www.livescience.com/46300-chimpanzee-evolution-dna-mutations.html
.

Thanks for that quote from Ben Carson. Naturally, he’s right, but I’m afraid that’s only part of the story. It’s much more complex than that :

« In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.7 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 13 times safer for women than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).

While maternal mortality seldom results from safe abortions, unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities worldwide, each year. Complications of unsafe abortion account for approximately an eighth of maternal mortalities worldwide. Secondary infertility caused by an unsafe abortion affects an estimated 24 million women. The rate of unsafe [illegal] abortions has increased from 44% to 49% between 1995 and 2008.

Countries with restrictive abortion laws have higher rates of unsafe [illegal] abortion and similar overall abortion rates compared to those where abortion is legal and available. For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications, with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%. Similar reductions in maternal mortality have been observed after other countries have liberalized their abortion laws, such as Romania and Nepal » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
.

This is not just philosophy or morality. It is fact and weighs heavily in the balance. It should also be taken into account when considering the pros and cons of legalised abortion.

.

The conflicting value judgements about abortion are
compounded by the right of a woman to control her
own body. Many women feel that a decision about abortion
should be a strictly personal one, and they deeply resent
other people insisting that they should bear a child that
they do not want to have.

But here, too, there are ambiguities. Half the genes in the
fetus were contributed by the father, and although the
woman must bear the child, society may make the father
responsible for the child's support for nearly two decades
thereafter. If the father waves his responsibilities - for
example, by deserting the mother - then of course he has no
further rights in the matter. But if he accepts his
responsibilities and wants the child born, what are his
rights in relation to the mother's right to control her
body?

And for those who believe that the fetus is human, there is
a third party present: the mother is controlling not only
her own body, but somebody else's potential body and life.

Other abortion related issues go beyond the immediate
concerns of the parents. Some see abortion as the thin end
of a wedge leading to euthanasia, or the "mercy killing" of
defective newborns and infirm old people. Some point out that
the global population is soaring uncontrollably at a time
when we cannot adequately feed hundreds of millions of
people already alive. Some argue that because abortion will
occur whether it is legal or not, it is better that it take
place legally and under proper medical supervision.

Others claim that the welfare expenditures and other costs of
raising millions of unwanted and often illegitimate children
must be taken into account in any decisions about abortion.

Some have firm personal opinions about abortion, but are
unwilling to impose their views on others who may have
different views. And as time goes on, the legal, ethical,
and medical complexities have not abated.

Not surprisingly, opinion polls show public confusion on the
issue of abortion.