*…“Dobbs, in short, may prove on the international stage to be more damp squib than firecracker.”…*

As it should be.

It’s entirely up to the US to re-elect Donald Trump and the Republicans. That may be next!

Dan

Well Binoy, I hope you have thanked your mother that she didn't abort you.

If she had then you would not be able to say now how important it is that a mother should have the "right" to kill her own defenseless child in her womb.

The "right to choose" - what a vacuous phrase that is. You and other pro-abortionists don't really believe in a "right to choose". If someone made a "choice" to try and kill you now, you would not respect their "right" to do so. No, you would fight with all your strength to resist them.

No, the right you want to defend is the right to kill a defenseless child. But for yourself, your right to life now must be respected and defended.

What gross, cowardly hypocrisy.

Foeticide or feticide, depending on your preferred spelling, is a much better word than 'abortion'. It avoids the argument about when the victim becomes an actual baby or human being.

Dear JP,

What rot.

Let me correct what you have put.

“If she had then you would not be able to say now how important it is that a mother should have the "right" to abort a foetus in her womb.

...

“No, the right you want to defend is the right to abort a foetus.”

If you are going to use the word defenceless child then defenceless teenager or adult or grandparent would do just as well.

If your argument requires you to go employ such embellishments then it really is worthless.

The whole thing has been done to death, particularly in Australia, where Dobbs has absolutely no effect on our laws.

The extreme Left in this country is just us using foreign matters to maintain a constant state of hysteria.

Steele Redux – please note the definition of “fetus” according to the Oxford Dictionary:
fetus (human)
- an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fetus

The use of the Latin word “fetus” doesn’t change the nature of what the entity carried by the mother is – it is the offspring of human parents, a young human being, a baby/child. And babies certainly are defenceless.

Please note also that in Queensland the Criminal Code refers to the entity carried by a pregnant woman as a “child” and if you destroy the life of such a child, without the mother’s permission, you can get life in prison.

Queensland Criminal Code
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.

If the mother gives permission for the child to be killed, well, then killing the child is okay.

Complete hypocricy.

When the state steps in and makes abortion illegal the rate hardly changes, just the number of illegal backyard butcher jobs many result in the death of the mother, due to unrestrained bleeds. Bleeds that in a proper medical setting are controlled.

For laws to work they need to be enforceable!

As I see courts (appointed/unelected officials) are there to enforce law. Not to overturn constitutional amendments or create new laws? What's next on the hit list, the fifth amendment? Thank god we live in Australia where this control freak insanity is still to raise its ugly head!
Alan B.

Killing a human life includes the stilling of a heartbeat! No heartbeat no human life! Euthanasia, on the other hand, requires just that!

A wart or a cancer tumour are cells that also rapidly divide, but like the fetus have no heartbeat! So no human life is extinguished by an early term abortion any more than the surgical removal of a cancer.

Moreover, when an unwanted child comes into this world where a single parent is forced in depressed economic circumstances to raise that child, that child's life may be hell on earth of deprivation, neglect and abuse! And often forces the cancelation for life of a budding worthwhile and prosperous career for the mother? As studies or training is put on permanent hold! And a lose, lose all round!

And where this is the case in far too many cases, an early term abortion would be far kinder, more humane for both the mother, her career prospects and the unwanted and abused child!

If the Fathers/sperm donors could be forced to carry that child for nine months internally, and medically possible, then be saddled with the care, control and responsibility for that child right through to adulthood!? And give up forever on a potential prosperous career as the first result!? We wouldn't be having this conversation!
Alan B.

Dream on, Dan!
Alan B.

"If you are going to use the word defenceless child then defenceless teenager or adult or grandparent would do just as well."

I'm pretty sure it's also illegal to kill a defenceless teenage or adult or grandparent.

Proceed accordingly.

Binoy

Roe v Wade is just a cluster of words, and you are just a cluster of cells.

You're lucky people aren't tearing you apart limb from limb and calling it a "right".

You are dependent on others, you inconvenience other, you are "pro-choice" - and claim that they have a right to deny your humanity and kill you, right?

Not even the feminists believe their own constant double-talk.

Dear JP

Do you consider abortion acceptable at an earlier stage of development than a fetus - as a fertilised egg, blastocyst or embryo? Or do you share the Roman Catholic view that contraception is immoral, because it prevents the creation of a human life?

In my experience, most people who support women’s right to abortion do not think it’s ok to kill a child (there may be a few exceptions such as utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer), but they do not accept that a fertilised egg, blastocyst, embryo or early stage fetus is a human person with all the rights that entails. Dictionaries are not much help in this discussion because they can describe the stages of physical development but not the journey to personhood.

Rhian – for what it is worth, here is the Oxford dictionary definition of embryo:
embryo (human)
- an unborn human, especially in the first eight weeks from conception, after implantation but before all the organs are developed
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/embryo

No, I don’t think abortion is acceptable at earlier stages of pregnancy. (I am not Roman Catholic and for this discussion I won’t get into contraception.) A new human life begins at conception. (I would recommend you read this thorough article by the Chairman of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission: www.all.org/learn/stem-cells/embryology/when-does-human-life-begin-the-final-answer/ )

I don’t believe we should deliberately end the lives of fellow human beings, no matter how small or undeveloped they may be. Each one of us went through those stages as a normal and necessary part of our development.

You want to make a distinction between a human being and a person. I don’t think that can be done: where you have a human being you have a person, the two terms are interchangeable. After all, we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not Person Rights.

What in your view distinguishes a person from a human being?

Lastly, my point in my previous post about the Queensland Criminal Code referring to the entity carried by a pregnant woman as being a child, that applies right throughout pregnancy.

Dear JP

Thanks for your response.

I don’t think the terms “human” and “person” are interchangeable. “Human” is a biological description, “person” is a moral category. Someone who is brain dead but whose body is kept functioning through life support is a living human, but we consider it acceptable to turn off their life support because they are no longer a person. Likewise, doctors will try to ensure anencephalic babies have peaceful deaths but seldom strive to keep them alive.

I don’t believe that a cluster of cells with no brain or central nervous system, no capacity to think or feel, and no self-awareness, is a person. I’ll admit this makes personhood a grey area, but that seems to be reflected in how abortion laws operate in practice in countries that allow abortion. Access to early interventions such as the morning-after pill is usually easy and straightforward, and abortions in the first few weeks are typically fairly easy to access. But as pregnancies progress it is harder and more complex to access abortion, and late-term abortions are usually permitted only if the health of the mother is at serious risk if the pregnancy is not terminated. I think this reflects a perception that the moral status of the fetus changes during the pregnancy.

The fact that Queensland law describes a fetus as a child doesn’t really resolve the moral question of whether it is a person, and I think the apparent inconsistency between a mother’s right to terminate a fetus and a third-party’s right to do the same think can be explained and justified.

Thanks Rhian. I understand the distinction that is drawn as you present it but I think that it is not justifiable and ultimately is dangerous.

Whereas the definition of a human baby is relatively straightforward and objective – the offspring of human parents, the definition of a person is completely subjective and therefore open to abuse. We have seen that abuse occur historically with Jews and black Africans being effectively deemed non-persons by the Nazis and slavers, respectively. I would say the same abuse is being carried out against preborn humans today.

Yes, there are some marginal (and often highly contested) cases such as you cite, but as the saying goes, hard cases make bad law.

I don’t know where you live, but in Queensland, Australia, where I live (and pretty much in all the rest of the country), the situation with abortion and the law is not like you describe it. In Queensland the law allows abortion on demand, that is, abortion for any reason – indeed no reason needs to be given - up until 22 weeks, and then up to birth if two doctors are agreeable to carry it out. The fetus/child has no moral/legal standing right up until the baby is fully delivered.

You say that “a mother’s right to terminate a fetus and a third-party’s right to do the same think can be explained and justified” but you do not provide the explanation or justification.

Consider this scenario: a pregnant woman is walking down the street when she is violently assaulted. Her baby dies and the assailant is charged under s 313 (2) which I cited in my last post. The assailant is convicted and given life in prison.

It is only then revealed that the woman had been on her way to an abortion clinic on the day of the assault. So, there would have been the exact same outcome in both situations – the child would have been killed, but in one situation the person who killed the child goes to jail and in the other they get well-paid. A complete double standard.

There is a famous story in the Mahabharata about Ganga who married King Shantanu, then drowned their first 7 new-born babies and nearly drowned the 8th too.

The story is long - you can read an abridged version here: http://detechter.com/the-story-of-the-river-goddess-who-drowned-her-own-children or watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClRyHq2309c&t=386s

In brief, Ganga's babies who formerly were celestial beings, were punished and cursed to be born on this earth as humans. In compassion, Ganga promised them to be their mother and release them from this curse ASAP.

The problem with killing others is selfishness - otherwise, when no selfish motive is involved, there is nothing wrong about parents compassionately killing their children, already born or otherwise.

While human life is valuable, mainstream Christian culture exaggerates the value of biological human life due to the false and irrational doctrine or Biblical interpretation, as if we live only once. Further, by diverting judgement to civil authorities, this culture demonstrates its lack of true faith, for if indeed the mother has done wrong, then surely that could not escape God's eyes!

Had I been born into inauspicious circumstances (an American perhaps?...) and my parents decided to relieve me of this kind of life, then I couldn't be more thankful to them!

My God Yuyutsu you are radical.

What I find interesting is here on these pages, proposing to eliminate the good citizens of this country of their oppressive politicians by suggesting a bullet for them is unacceptable and cowardly, but your proposal of killing infants and the pre-born is acceptable.

We’ll see how long before sombody objects to your ideas here, and your post is deleted!

Dan

Dear Dan,

Not to worry, I estimate about 90% of abortions today to be of selfish motive - but that was not the case with Ganga.

The line is fine between thinking, for example, "If I have to pay for maintaining this child then I will not have enough money left to enjoy my life" and "This child would suffer poverty and their brain would not develop to its full potential due to malnutrition".

Or how about, "When my girl was conceived, I had no idea that my country would be run over by the Taliban, that she would suffer such terrible oppression and slavery if she lives".

How about, "My child would be born into a hellish digital jungle, where constant electronic stimulation, including digital devices inserted into their body and brain itself, would never give them relief to even think about God"?

The problem is that mainstream Christianity believes that one gets only one chance at life, thus even the worst and most degrading kind of life is worthwhile living. It doesn't find it palatable that for a particular lifetime one only needed to experience babyhood, where nothing beyond that was necessary for the fulfillment of this lifetime of theirs.

God sees to the heart and cannot be deceived or cheated to misjudge, thus man need not be concerned at all.

Dear Yuyutsu.

That is all a terrible view of life. You seem to have suffered at some point in your life to give you such negative views of it’s usefulness.

One could extend your argument to the current times in Lebanon, where over 90% of its inhabitants live precariously under the poverty line; where begging in the street for food is now common, and the Lebanese are resorting to desolate means for food such as rummaging in rubbish tips.
In fact at one stage garbage was dozed straight into the Mediterranean ocean as a cost saving measure for local Government.

Should we abort all Lebanese from here on.

Well no. They fight on, recruiting Hezbollah to harass the Israelis drilling inside Lebanese legal waters to thieve their gas.

And should all Germans have been aborted in the mid nineteen twenties, when starvation was the norm, and German children were often found dead clutching pieces of bread they had learned to save for later?

It’s a nonsensical argument to use such negatives for an argument for abortion me thinks.

Dan

Dear Dan,

«Should we abort all Lebanese from here on.»

What a leap of thought... like whom do you think "we" are?

Until a child grows up sufficiently to be able to speak for themselves and tell us what they want, they place their trust in their loving parents to best represent their wishes. They chose to be born to them, not to me or to you or to some "we", so such decisions ought to be left with the parents, primarily the mother.

«It’s a nonsensical argument to use such negatives for an argument for abortion me thinks.»

Indeed. That was your argument, not mine.

What matters is the mother's honest best unselfish intentions for her beloved baby. I already mentioned my estimate that 90% of present abortions are not of this kind.

Dear Yuyutsu

*…whom do you think "we" are…*

Well, I use we as a representative of us. And us in this debate is all who contribute. One could say society in general, women in particular is maybe more appropriate on the subject of abortion, but we’re all in it for a win aren’t we? We.

I definitely made criticism of your view in particular, of the abysmal picture you paint of life on earth as a human, and I’m astounded to read of your conclusion that children without a future should be aborted.

Are you “God” to make such predictions on behalf of another living creature?
Because to my mind, deciding on abortion of another life which has no input into its destiny is just that, playing “God”. An astounding arrogance.
I had you pegged for someone better than that, a deeper thinker; I hope you can convince me I’m mistaken.

My examples of Germany and Lebanon were intended to represent examples opposed in outcomes which point out the unpredictable nature of life and its future.
Germany went on from the period mentioned to become a wealthy advanced nation well capable of feeding itself and offering a future worth living for today. But we’ll known are it’s turmoils along the way.

Lebanon was once a jewel of the ME. How are “we” who make decisions for others based on nothing more than an immediate view of life in its current state, to accurately predict a future for the unborn?

Dan

Dear JP

Yes, the view that certain groups are non-persons has led to terrible abuses. That doesn’t make it wrong to consider that an embryo is not a person, though.

I live in WA where abortion is regulated under criminal law and it requires the assent of a panel of six doctors to obtain a termination after 20 weeks. Paradoxically, the US Supreme Court decision has led to calls for the WA law to be relaxed.

Looking at the law you cite in Queensland, it does not actually say that assaulting a pregnant woman leading to the death of her fetus is murder; only that it is a serious crime. I would agree, but don’t think it is equivalent to a woman terminating her own pregnancy, for the following reasons.

First, while a fetus might not have a right to life based on its own personhood, in most pregnancies the life of the fetus and the person they expect it to become matter enormously to its parents. Natural miscarriages can be utterly devastating for prospective parents; for a pregnancy to end because of an act of violence must be even more so.

Second, and related, it is an egregious act of violence against a woman with serious and lasting consequences. Fortunately it is a very rare crime, and as I understand it most commonly occurs on cases of partner violence.

Third, as I have admitted, I think the point at which a fetus becomes entitled to the rights of a person is a grey area, but causing the death of a viable fetus could legitimately be considered equivalent to infanticide.

Fourth, unwanted pregnancies can have terrible consequences for the health and life of the mother, and women have the right (within limits) to decide what happens in their own bodies.

So in your example, it would still be a crime to assault the woman even if she planned an abortion, just as the shooter who killed seven people in Chicago committed seven murders even if one of his victims was planning to commit suicide

Dear Dan,

«I’m astounded to read of your conclusion that children without a future should be aborted.»

That was not my conclusion!

I am not into predicting the future or similar occult practices, nor advocating for abortions (or baby-killing in general).

Talking about future, BTW, it is one's spiritual future that matters rather than their material future. A person could have a long, prosperous and successful life ahead, but if they are destined to live in bad company then it is better for them not to live at all any longer.

There are two questions at hand:
1) is killing one's baby always a sin; and
2) when one does kill their baby (or commits any sin in general), who is responsible to set them straight.

My view is that all this is strictly a private matter between three parties (four in the case of already-born babies): The mother, The baby and God (the 4th is the baby's father). Society at large is not entitled to be involved. Should a sin be committed, God is sufficiently "well positioned" to handle the consequences and set the guilty party straight.

It is my view that when the mother believes in her heart of hearts without a shade of selfishness that killing her baby should benefit the baby, then killing that baby at that time is not sinful as the mother cannot be expected to do anything more than her best at the time.

Even further, should a mother know in her heart of hearts that killing her baby would be best for them, but fails to kill her baby for selfish reasons, then that would be sinful.

Let the man who has never sinned throw the first stone...

Yuyutsu

We’ll continue another time.

I’ve reread your posts looking for something concrete to your argument, but I can only find contradiction and ambiguity.

However, mixing the physical into the metaphysical can produce such misunderstandings.
And with you, it’s what makes your position interesting, although difficult: Something like identifying the colour of the Pacific Ocean. In fact it is many colours.

Dan

Rhian – I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Firstly, to your last paragraph. Certainly I think it should be a crime if someone assaults a pregnant woman and kills her baby.

You say that s 313 (2) of the criminal code only makes it a serious offence and not murder. I would point out that the section has been included in “Chapter 28 Homicide – suicide – concealment of birth” of the Code, and not in “Chapter 26 Assaults and violence to the person generally”. Significantly, the penalty for s 313 (2) is life imprisonment, the same as for murder and the most severe punishment that can be given. You are right that the word murder is not used but to all intents and purposes the offence is treated the same as murder.

I said that the example I gave illustrated a double standard. I ran out of words to be able expand on that, so will do so now. My primary point was that the value of the life of the child in the womb, and what is done to them, can be regarded in completely opposite ways, solely depending on the feelings of the mother. The section of the Code I keep citing places great value on the child in the womb’s life – effectively giving the child in the womb exactly the same value as any born person.

So if a pregnant woman is assaulted and her baby dies that woman can take the assailant to court and if convicted the assailant gets life in prison. But that same woman, if she decides for any reason she does not want that baby, she can take the baby to an abortion clinic and have the child deliberately killed by an abortionist.

Do we ever accept any other situation where someone’s life or death can be determined simply on the basis that someone else does not want them to live? That is what I mean by a double standard.

Regarding your third point, you say “causing the death of a viable fetus could legitimately be considered equivalent to infanticide”. (continued)

(continued) You say “viable fetus” and I think that phrase is wrongly used. Please read the following dialogue which I think illustrates my point. (It will go over a couple of posts.)

What’s viability got to do with it?

Scene: Late at night a man and a woman are standing at the rail of a cruise ship looking down at the dark water rushing by below.

She: I went to the onboard pharmacy today and got a test kit . . . I’m pregnant.

He: Oh . . . Are you quite sure?

She: Yes, I even did the test twice and both times it came up positive.

He: So, what happens now?

She: As soon as we get ashore I’ll organise to get an abortion. I think I’m only about ten weeks into the pregnancy so this child is not viable yet. It’s no big deal really.

At that, without a word, he quickly scooped her up into his arms, lifted her over the rail and held her out over the water. She screamed loudly and grabbed him round the neck.

She: What are you doing! If you drop me I’ll drown – put me down on the deck at once!

He stood her back on her trembling legs.

She: Are you completely stupid? What was that all about? You could have killed me!

He: But if I had dropped you and you drowned it would have been no big deal really.

She: No big deal? You are crazy – it would have been murder!

He: No, it would not have been murder because you are not viable.

She: What nonsense, of course I am viable.

He: Not according to your own logic you are not.

She: What are you talking about?

He: A moment ago you just said that it would be no big deal to have an abortion at ten weeks of pregnancy because the baby is not ‘viable’ at that age, right?

She: Yes that’s right; a baby must be about 23 weeks or more before they have a chance of surviving outside the womb.

He: You just said that if a baby is taken from the womb before 23 weeks gestation it will not be able to survive – it is not ‘viable’ according to your thinking, right? And because it would not be ‘viable’ under those circumstances you believe it would therefore be no big deal to intentionally end its life by abortion. Right?

She: Yes . . . But what has that got to do with you threatening to drop me into the ocean?

He: Don’t you see? Standing here on the deck you are alive and well. But if you had been dropped into the ocean just now you would have soon drowned. So long as you are in an environment suitable for life you are fine. But if you should be put in the middle of the ocean without a boat or in outer space without a space-suit, you would die. That is correct, isn’t it?

She: Yes, but . . .

He: Now, a healthy 10 week-old child in the womb is alive and well in that environment. Take them out of that environment though and they, like you in the ocean, will quickly succumb.

So if it is no big deal to kill an unborn child by abortion simply because that child is not ‘viable’ outside its natural environment, then logically it would have to be no big deal to kill you either because outside your natural environment you are equally as non-viable.

Your position opens the door to allowing the killing of any human being because effectively none of us, on your terms, are ‘viable’!

She: Hmm . . . So are you saying that the word ‘viable’ is a meaningless word?

He: No, the term ‘viable’ does remain meaningful in relation to situations where a miscarriage occurs naturally or following an accident. When nothing has been done to try and deliberately expel the baby from the womb we can rightly say that the child is in either a viable or non-viable state.(continued)

(continued) But there is all the difference in the world between a baby being either deliberately or accidentally expelled from the womb, just like there is all the difference in the world between you being either deliberately dropped overboard or accidentally falling into the ocean.

In the end, if you want to claim that you are ‘viable’, which of course you are, then your 10 week-old child in the womb must be regarded as being ‘viable’ also.

Equally, if you want to argue that your baby is not viable now, then neither are you. If your baby can be rightfully killed now, then so can you.

Take your pick. (end)

So the point of that dialogue is that logically the baby is viable at all stages, so long as we leave them alone. Thus, using your words, abortion would always seem to be infanticide.

In your fourth point you say, “women have the right (within limits) to decide what happens in their own bodies”. That is the issue – what are those limits? Does a woman have the right to kill another human being just because she is carrying that other human being? If you say yes, how do you justify that alleged right? Is there any other instance where one human being can morally rightly kill another just because that second person is completely dependent on the first

Dear JP
Thank you for your detailed response. “Viable” is the term used to describe a fetus that has a reasonable chance of surviving outside its mother’s womb. I used it simply to illustrate the point that, in the case of an assault on a pregnant woman leading to the death of her fetus, the crime becomes more analagous to infanticide when the pregnancy is more progressed. Presumably you would argue the opposite – that an assault causing the death of a zygote is no less of a crime that abortion of a fetus at 8 months or the murder of an adult human.

The point about competing rights also ultimately comes back to the issue of at what point a fetus becomes a person with the legal and moral rights that status entails. If, as you say, that status is fully acquired at conception then it is arguable that at no point in the pregnancy does the woman’s right to bodily autonomy trump the fetus’s right to life. But if, as I maintain, a clump of cells with no brain or nervous system and no mind or self-awareness is not a person then it has no rights, and women are certainly entitled to make decisions on whether or not to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm not sure there is any biological, philosophical or other basis to demonstrate that either of these positions is correct.

Rhian – I think you missed the point of my dialogue about viability.

Yes, I do believe that a unique new human life comes into being at conception and that no one has the right to deliberately bring that life to an end. I fail to see how motherhood also confers the right to be an executioner.

We all go through the stage in our lives of having no nervous system or brain but that is just part of normal human development and I see no reason why our lives should be disposable at that point. Any rules for when “personhood” seemingly magically appears, are quite arbitrary. Some might say at implantation, others, when there is a heartbeat, others, when there is brain activity, others, at birth. And then there are people like “ethicist” Peter Singer who essentially says personhood should not be conferred until the child is self-aware – how many months after birth does that occur? Why should one of these points trump the others?

Reading between the lines in your comments it seems that there may be a time during pregnancy when you think that abortion would be wrong? Am I misreading you? If you do think so, when would that be? Or do you think abortions should be permitted up to birth? If you do set a cut-off point, is the baby really so different the day before that point and the day before that?

You use the word “crime” in relation to abortion. I am not so much wanting to criminalise abortion as make people think about what we are doing to our own offspring and to voluntarily cease killing them.

At the very least we should use the precautionary principle – if there is any doubt about whether we are killing a being as morally valuable as born people, we should desist. If a hunter shoots another hunter, we do not accept the excuse of, oh I thought it may have been a deer. No, they are not to shoot until they know what they are shooting. The same should apply to abortion.

Hi JP
Yes, I do think there is a stage in a pregnancy at which abortion is wrong except in rare cases, and as I admitted before I don’t think there is a hard-and-fast rule about what that point should be. A viable fetus should not be terminated unless continuing the pregnancy risks serious harm to the mother, or there is evidence that the fetus itself is damaged to the point of facing a brief and miserable existence.

Would you apply the precautionary principle to the two examples I gave earlier – the brain-dead person on life support or the baby born with no brain?

JP,

There are serious problems with the moment of conception position. It is hard to see zygotes as uniquely valuable. Reproduction is a very error prone process, and the vast majority of zygotes never end up as a live baby. Most zygotes and embryos are lost before the woman is even aware of them.

"Most of us have 46 chromosomes. Most of our embryos do not. Embryos end up with an abnormal number of chromosomes because the egg has abnormal chromosomes, or the sperm has abnormal chromosomes or during the first cell division after fertilization, the chromosomes are inappropriately separated."

https://www.coastalfertilityspecialists.com/resources/blog/why-do-chromosomally-normal-embryos-not-implant-in/

Even after pregnancy is confirmed, 10-15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Nor is there a one-to-one correspondence between surviving zygotes and babies. Embryos can split to form identical twins or triplets. Two separate embryos derived from different egg and sperm cells can come into contact in the womb and cooperate to form a single individual instead of fraternal twins. Different cell lines are descended from the different embryos. Search "human chimera".

I agree with Rhian on this, as would most people. You have to distinguish a human person, who has sentience and a self like us, from human tissue. That is there is little outrage about contraceptives like IUDs that prevent implantation or first trimester abortions, but third trimester abortions are uncontroversially illegal, except in the most extreme circumstances.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

You also need to consider how keeping abortion illegal works in practice, as in various Latin American countries. What actually happens is that your friendly neighbourhood drug dealer develops a sideline in abortion pills, and the police are just as effective at stopping this as you might suspect. In a small minority of cases, you can get the same complications as with a natural miscarriage, and there is no way for the police to tell the difference. Women have been jailed for years, their families broken up and any existing children deprived of a mother, all because they had a miscarriage.

Women in early pregnancy are denied treatment for cancer, sometimes condemning them to death, because the radiation or chemotherapy will kill the embryo or fetus.

Even if there is an exception for the life of the mother, doctors and nurses are reluctant to help if there are serious complications of pregnancy. They don't want to be second-guessed (and maybe sent to prison themselves) by some religious zealot in the government.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pregnant-el-salvador-woman-denied-life-saving-abortion/

A similar case in Ireland:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/woman-died-ireland-abortion-ban-warning-americans-roe-v-wade-rcna35431

You failed to take contraceptives or require the use of a condom.
- That's Strike 1, but you might be forgiven for that as unexpected circumstances sometimes occur.

You failed to take a 'morning after pill' which are readily available after your unprotected sex, that's Strike 2.
- Either you want to have a baby with the person you just slept with of your don't. Make a decision.

Women get their periods every month.
So if they don't get their period within the month there's good reason to suspect they might be pregnant.
You missed your period and you know you missed it. Strike 3.

At this point, you've had plenty of opportunity already to decide 'Your body, Your choice'.

You had the opportunity to take contraceptives, ensure the bloke you rooted wore a condom, take a morning after pill after the night in question and then missed your period.
- It's not like contraceptives, condoms, pregnancy tests and 'morning after pills' aren't available to anyone who needs them,
- They are.

If you were half-assed about taking contraceptives, lazy or chucking them down the sink to entrap your man then that's no-one else's fault except your own.

I say you get 3 months to book in a termination, then it's GAME OVER.
No termination after 3 months, serious penalties if you try to get one, as well as serious penalties and fines for the abortion provider.

Also a bloke shouldn't be expected to support you until 3mths have passed and you're officially committed.
And a bloke should be entitled to a declaration that the child is his before he invests himself in taking care of you.
If they support you during a pregnancy and then after birth find out the child's not theirs, the mother can be sued for misleading him.

One problem I see is that kids under 21 whose parents earn to much aren't entitled to income support.
That needs to change to ensure younger people can get what they need and take responsibility for themselves.

Rhian – you are unwilling to name a stage of pregnancy when you regard abortion as being wrong. That is not very helpful because at some point decisions have to be made. If abortion after a certain date is wrong, because it is the killing of a person (your terminology), then surely it is important for you to be more specific, otherwise you seem to be saying that it is okay for persons to be killed.

Just to briefly restate my point about abortion and viability: babies in the womb - their natural environment – are generally viable, just like we, in our natural environment, are generally viable. In all instances where there is a medical issue, we should endeavour to save both the mother and the child. If in doing so the child’s life is lost, then that is not an abortion in the moral sense as there was no intent to end the child’s life.

If the child in the womb has a terminal condition there is no advantage gained by deliberately ending their life prematurely. Even if the child lives only minutes or hours after birth, or is even still born, the parents can still spend some precious time with their child free from any ill-feelings from having acted to bring about a premature end to their life. There are also numbers of cases where there was a misdiagnosis and the child’s condition has not been anywhere near as bad as thought. Some parents only find this out after they have ended the child’s life.

Yes, I think the precautionary principle should apply in virtually all instances. Specifically though, in the instance you cite of a “brain-dead person on life support”: if a person is completely non-responsive for some time and their heart and breathing are only being maintained mechanically, then no, there is no need to continue the life support. Regarding baby’s with anencephaly, I would repeat my comments of the previous paragraph.

I’m not saying this is easy but it must also be recognised that abortion can be devastating for women.

Divergence – yes, I understand that, for various reasons, many new human lives that are conceived do not continue to birth. But there is a lapse in moral logic to go from noting the fact that a certain number of lives are naturally lost during pregnancy to saying that therefore we can deliberately intervene to end as many other such young lives as we like.

It is also a fact that many born human beings die from cancer, heart attacks, malaria, tuberculosis, etc (in fact 100% of born human beings die – eventually) but that reality is no justification for saying that we therefore can kill them if we want to.

Yes, it is true some new lives develop as a result of unusual or abnormal processes, but why does that mean that it is thereby okay to kill babies in the womb? It does not logically follow.
Yes, not many people object to IUDs due to the fact that they can cause early abortions, but , (1), probably many people don’t realise that that is so, and, (2), even if they do realise that and are still happy to use them, are you saying that we should make moral judgements based on majority opinion?

You say that “third trimester abortions are uncontroversially illegal, except in the most extreme circumstances”. It is certainly not the case that third trimester abortions are illegal in Queensland where I live and I think that is so in most other States in Australia. In Queensland it only requires two doctors to agree, for any reason, for an abortion to be provided up to birth.

Lastly, presumably you missed this sentence in one of my earlier posts: “I am not so much wanting to criminalise abortion as make people think about what we are doing to our own offspring and to voluntarily cease killing them”.

Regarding abortion up till birth, when is birth complete, is it when the body is free of the birth canal or when the umbilical cord is clamped/cut.

It is apparently legal to pierce the head when it is in sight but still within the mother but what about a breech birth, is it legal to stab the body whilst the head is still inside?

Is Mise – Queensland abortionist, David Grundmann, promoted the use of “partial birth abortion”, which is the name of the technique you are referring to, for late term abortions, as far back as the 1990s. With that technique the abortionist has to turn the baby in the womb so they come out feet first rather than head first. When the baby is fully delivered except for the head, scissors are used to create a hole at the base of the skull and then the brains are vacuumed out. (If you have the stomach see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7UfA6TR9cg)

If the baby was fully delivered from the mother when this was done it would be murder, but because part of the baby is still within the uterus it is called abortion and is legal.(This technique was made illegal in the USA in 2003 but is still legal in Australia.) This grotesque method was introduced to avoid what is called “the dreaded complication”, ie, a baby born alive that sometimes happens when other techniques are used. (If the baby survives, what is to be done with the baby? They were meant to be dead - so they are just left to die (which is illegal).) Certainly no baby survives partial birth abortion.

When late abortions are done in hospitals, as opposed to private abortion clinics such as where Grundmann worked, I understand they don’t do partial birth abortions but rather they just bring on a premature delivery and hope the baby dies as a consequence. However they then have to deal with the dreaded complication from time to time when a baby does survive.

If Rhian and Divergence read this, I wonder if they think this is okay?

JP,
Thanks for that; and people sometimes wonder how Dr. Mengele was able to sleep at night.

The Angles of Death are still among us.

JP,

My own opinion is like that of President Clinton: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It is possible to drastically reduce abortions. See the Colorado Family Planning Initiative.

http://cdphe.colorado.gov/fpp/about-us/colorados-success-long-acting-reversible-contraception-larc

Only around 1% of abortions take place after 21 weeks and the vast majority take place within the first trimester, where the embryo or fetus is in much the same position as a brain-dead patient when it comes to sentience. Moment of conception is a religious dogma that not all accept.

http://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/jewish-abortion-rights-advocates-use-religious-freedom-suit-access-rcna34178

Potential people are not actual people, so if it were up to me, I would leave it up to the woman at this stage.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/07/abortion-late-term-what-pregnancy-stage

After the first trimester, I would require two doctors to sign off on any abortion and be subject to medical ethics. As it is, a great proportion of late abortions take place because something has gone tragically wrong with a wanted pregnancy. In other cases, there have been financial or other barriers, and something should be done about them, but they don't justify a late abortion. I certainly don't condone your partial birth abortion.

Divergence – if there is nothing wrong with abortion why do you think it should be rare?

If, as you say, only 1% of abortions are done after 21 weeks, that still means about 1 000 such babies are barbarically killed each year in this country. Who cares about 1 000 babies?

Yes, babies in the first trimester probably are not sentient but why should that mean they should be able to be killed? New born babies can’t talk, so should they be able to be killed? Of course not. Newborns have the capacity for speech and one day that will be realised. Equally, the newly conceived human being has the capacity for sentience, for speech, for play, etc, and one day that will all be realised. Just because a human being cannot do something at a particular time is no grounds for saying they should be able to be killed. That is barbarity.

You say that holding that life begins at conception is a religious dogma: show me one religious argument that I have put forward in this discussion.

You say that potential people are not actual people. There is no such thing as a potential person. You either have a living human being/person or you don’t. Why should a woman, presumably in your mind, just because she carries the baby, thereby be allowed to have the baby killed? What about motherhood confers on her the right to be the executioner of her own child?

You say you don’t condone partial birth abortion. Is that because of the horrible way the child is killed? If so, then you should oppose all abortion because all the methods are awful.

You say that abortions should be subject to “medical ethics”. It is not very long ago that all doctors at graduation promised not to do abortions: “I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion” – now look where we are with abortions legal to birth and doctor’s and nurse’s conscientious objection to participating suppressed.

JP,

Abortion is an ugly business and best avoided if possible. I don't know why anyone would ever think it is a good thing. It is just that sometimes the alternative is worse.

So far as early abortion is concerned, a blueprint is not a building, and there is no reason why it needs to be translated into one. A zygote or embryo might carry the instructions for building a human person, but that doesn't mean that it is one yet, i.e., it is a potential person. We will just have to disagree on this. It is hard to deny that moment of conception is a religious dogma. See the second link in my previous post. There are circumstances where Jewish law *requires* an abortion.

You cannot be forced to donate a kidney or even a pint of blood, even to save someone's life, even if that someone is your own child. What gives you the right to commandeer a woman's body and expose her to pain and suffering, economic hardship, and very real risks to her health or possibly even her life, especially if the pregnancy is the result of forced sex or contraceptive failure? I am not condoning carelessness, but it shouldn't result in forced childbirth. When it comes to late abortions, however, you can argue that she has implicitly given consent by letting the pregnancy go on for so long and that now another human person really is involved.

You know who the left should blame for the overturning of Roe versus Wade?
Not the Supreme Court, not Christians, not Conservatives not Republicans, not Pro-Lifers

The only ones they should be blaming are themselves, it is 100 percent their fault

Roe got overturned, a lot of people - myself included at one point in time
- Could sympathize with the scared teenager, with the drug addict
- who had no business bringing a baby into this world
we could understand that, We didn't like it, we didn't agree with it - but we could at least understand it

We went from safe legal and rare to up to the moment of birth
We gave you an inch and you took a mile
We drew the line when you decided that you should be able to murder a fully formed infant up to the moment it exits your body
You have no one to blame but yourselves

http://youtu.be/X2S4wrx2LT0

Divergence – you say, “Abortion is an ugly business and best avoided if possible” but why should it be avoided? If it is not the destruction of a young human life, then so what? Having a tooth removed is not pretty but we do it without any moral qualms at all. We all innately know that abortion ends the life of a fellow human being and that is why the whole issue is so controversial.

Who is commandeering a woman’s body? Urging people to take responsibility for their own behaviour is not “commandeering a woman’s body”! The vast majority of abortions are done after a consensual act by a man and a woman. Everyone knows that you can get pregnant from having sex and that contraception can fail. A child’s life should not be forfeited if their parents have behaved irresponsibly. If you are not in a position to have a child then the responsible thing to do is to refrain from sex. But no, we would rather indulge ourselves and solve any “problems” that come along by killing the child. Barbarity.

JP,

We are in fundamental disagreement (in the case of abortion in early pregnancy) about whether a zygote, embryo, or early fetus really is a child or just the instructions for building a child. If there is brain death, then there must also be brain birth. Calling it a child at this early stage is begging the question. You calling a single-cell zygote a person doesn't make it one.

Using abortion for family planning is irresponsible (an ugly business) because it is a medical or surgical procedure with risks, albeit not as many as with pregnancy and childbirth. All the same, terrible things happen when countries try to make abortion illegal, as I showed in a previous post. Are you happy with the collateral damage?

Sex is not always consensual, and women can be put under various sorts of pressure that don't amount to out-and-out rape. In any case, expecting people to forgo sex for years on end and maybe for their whole lives is unrealistic, especially when the best contraceptives have a 0.1% failure rate.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm

Divergence – you are mistaken: the blue print for human life is not the young human being but rather the DNA that is in every cell, starting with first unique cell formed at conception, and which has the instructions for every step of our development.

Just as a building has foundations and those foundations are an essential part of the building, although hidden, the young human being in the womb, although hidden, is the essential foundation for the rest of human life. That stage of our lives is just as important and real as any other part of our life.

I would encourage you to read this article by C Ward Kischer, PhD, “When Does Human Life Begin? The Final Answer: A human embryologist speaks out about socio-legal issues involving the human embryo”. It is quite comprehensive in its coverage of the issue. I will be interested to hear what you think of what he says.

You say that I am begging the question by using the word “child” to refer to the new human life formed at conception. Your insistence on naming them a zygote or embryo – with the associated inference that that thereby makes them something less than fully human – is equally question-begging. If a person insists that a teenager must be called an adolescent, that does not mean that they are not also a teenager. The entity in the womb can, at all stages, reasonably be called a child while also technically being a zygote then an embryo.

You say that using abortion for family planning is irresponsible. Well that is the reason for the vast majority of abortions – the child is just not wanted. You say that abortion is not as risky as pregnancy and childbirth – which is absurd for those who believe as I do, that every abortion ends the life of a young human being.

According to the pro-abortion organisation Children By Choice, “Studies of Australian and New Zealand women seeking abortion have shown that over half of women presenting for abortion had been using contraception prior to becoming pregnant.”