Foxy - It is interesting that many people who want to allow for abortions to be done choose to use the word “fetus” to describe the entity carried by the pregnant woman. But as the Oxford dictionary defines the word, “fetus (human) - an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fetus , it is just a Latin word to describe a young fellow human being.

You suggest that the fetus may not really be human because it is generally not viable. In response, firstly, viability has nothing to do with establishing what the intrinsic nature of a being is.

Secondly, if the fetus is left alone in its natural environment in the womb it is normally perfectly viable. Of course, if you take them from that environment they will be “unviable” and die – but that is equally true of you and me. If we are dropped into the ocean without a boat, we will quickly drown, but that doesn’t mean we are “unviable” in our normal environment.

You talk about a “potential body and life” – of course there is an actual body there! And of course they are actually alive – dead things don’t grow, change and mature as does the baby in the womb.

Yes there is disagreement about the moral status of the child in the womb but that fact does not mean that we can then adopt a position of anything goes. Some people have argued that dark-skinned people or Jews are sub-human but just because these people’s humanity was disputed doesn’t mean they could be abandoned to be killed.

No, those who believe that abortion should be allowed have the responsibility to establish that we are indisputably not killing fellow human beings. Just like the hunter can’t get away with saying that he “thought” that the other hunt he shot was a deer, he must be certain of what he is about to shoot before pulling the trigger.

Normal prudence demands that the entity in the womb be given the same regard.

Foxy & JP,

Does it help to differentiate between a foetus and an embryo ? Almost by definition, an embryo is not a viable human being, i.e. up to around the twelfth week of a pregnancy, but a foetus older than that may be, and more viable the longer the pregnancy has continued.

My very faulty understanding is that, until about the middle of the second trimester a foetus is not currently viable, according to medical limitations.

So this would give a woman around nineteen or twenty weeks to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, while the foetus (as it would be by then) is still not viable.

Could that be a starting point for discussion ?

Joe

Joe – I have to assume that you didn’t see my latest post at 11.32am before you posted your last one, because I have already addressed most of what you raise.

A couple of points though – officially a human embryo refers to the first 8 weeks of life and fetus is the term used from there to birth. Unborn baby or child are just as valid terms to use as fetus.

Indeed the Queensland Criminal Code uses the word “child” to refer to the entity carried by a pregnant woman.

Section 313 Killing unborn child
(2) Any person who unlawfully assaults a female pregnant with a
child and destroys the life of, or does grievous bodily harm to,
or transmits a serious disease to, the child before its birth,
commits a crime.
Maximum penalty—imprisonment for life.

Please note that the penalty for killing the child in the womb without the mother’s permission is up to life in prison – the same penalty for killing a born human being. But if the mother asks for that same child to be killed right up until birth - then that is perfectly okay and no penalties apply.

Talk about double standards.

Please see my previous post where I address the issue of viability.

Dear JP and Joe,

When we take up an issue that is at the centre of
a public debate we tend to frame it as a matter
of individual ethics. For example - is it morally
permissable to offer money for sex, eat meat, have
an abortion? The questions often fail to focus on the
issues and can derail productive public debate.

Emotions run high. The problem is that questions like
these tend to over simplify the issues, Abortion is a
term for a number of difference medical procedures appropriate
for different stages of pregnancy, each with significantly
different health risks.

Having said that - I personally would never support an
abortion in the later stages of someone's pregnancy. And
an abortion is not something that I could ever imagine doing.
But that's just me. I can see though that fewer issues in
recent years have so divided people as has the morality
of abortion. Unless perhaps euthanasia. But that's a
different issue.

Foxy you say: "an abortion is not something that I could ever imagine doing.But that's just me".

How is that any better than someone who says: "Owning slaves is not something that I could ever imagine doing. But that's just me."?

Dear JP,

«How is that any better than someone who says: "Owning slaves is not something that I could ever imagine doing. But that's just me."?»

Both positions are good and proper.

You may want to free slaves (so would I if I could), but please make sure that your motive is to help these slaves, to reduce their suffering, rather than to condemn or "teach" the slave-owner.

Foxy is simply acknowledging that God granted us free choice.

Foxy also provided the example of eating meat:
According to my religious faith, eating meat is a bad thing, a sin which harms the animal and produces ill effects on the eater. Nevertheless, it is none of my business to instruct you to stop this bad habit as I respect your choice in this matter.

Of course, our actions produce consequences, some of which can be quite unpleasant, but God allowed us this choice nevertheless: why He did so may well be a mystery to us, but would you consider yourself wiser than God in this matter?