On that day, second reading in the victorian parliament, every peoples-representative knew what was at stake...under 24weeks the_unborn_child life to continue or not placed in the hands of mums...combine that with staggering annual abortion rate...and you have the indecent given state power to act indecently without consequence/secrecyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indecent...

35to47 for bill...now read the transcripts of day...every representative 'for' spoke with 'unbalanced self interest' for mumss...only mums interest mattered, unborn_child+father+community not mentioned or improperly devalued...and considering these representives were elected by ordinary common people from victorian community is shocking in their deceit...for if they upfront declared their true state then no society of ordinary decent people would have entrusted their 'common_power' to them...so the 'deceitful' supporting 'indecent'...'Nationals frontbencher Jeanette Powell, who hails from the ultra-conservative seat of Shepparton, voted for the bill and gave one of the better received pro-choice speeches."A number of people have asked me, 'Who speaks for the baby?'," she told parliament. "The answer, I believe, is that the mother speaks for the baby, and we need to respect that right, whether we agree or disagree with the decision they make.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24327696-5006785,00.html

and 'bill proponent and Women's Affairs minister Maxine Morand said no woman wanted to be in the situation where she had an unplanned or difficult pregnancy."Many women desire a happy comfortable future with someone who loves them but unfortunately that's not the reality in every case," Ms Morand told parliament before the vote.http://news.theage.com.au/national/vic-abortion-bill-clears-first-hurdle-20080911-4dxy.html...do you see the contorted reasoning in this...'loving relationshi8p' combined with killing an unborn child who is full of unconditional love and attached to natural parents...use of emotive terms only when it self-benefits...

its a sad day for victoria...if we are a society of oridinary decent people then we should impeach every one of those representatives...then put in balanced_decent_people and re-debate this major issue to society...

Sam
Ps~noticed...He said there was "raft upon raft" of amendments for MPs to consider..."Give us time to consider, to understand, to consult with the community and experts on these amendments," he begged parliament...plea was rejected...seems bill already known to succeed on day even before debate by behind-door-dealings...

Sam said

<<Its a sad day for victoria...if we are a society of oridinary decent people then we should impeach every one of those representatives...then put in balanced_decent_people and re-debate this major issue to society...>>

A great three-point plan Sam,

1. Jail anyone who exercises their conscience in the WRONG way.
2. Then appoint replacements who will vote the RIGHT way.
3. Debate the issue again so as to get it RIGHT.

Perhaps we could add a fourth plank to your plan to make it more efficient.

4. Abolish Parliament altogether and run the State through a Theocractic Council of Fundamentalists WHO ALWAYS KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT.

Only one drawback I can think of Sam...help me out mate. We might blow the budget on all the extra police and para-militaries we could require to keep people at bay who want to exercise free choice and have got used to freely electing their representatives.

From the article “But the present political leaders in Victoria do not intend to preserve social peace. They intend to crash through our fragile truce and declare an escalation in the culture wars.”

This is of some interest to anyone who wants to debate the issue and to challenge the “social peace”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Poll-backs-abortion-laws/2005/02/15/1108230007300.html

ONLY “17 per cent believed it should be less accessible.”

Which suggests the demands of the anti-abortion brigade are disproportionally loud, relative to their overall popular representation and either public opinion has shifted radically or they are lying through their teeth in their claim:

http://www.righttolife.asn.au/media_releases/20060205.htm

(in their last media release) “new poll shows majority oppose 'social' abortion - 05 February 2006”

tell you what, you stop bombing pregnant women and then we can talk about providing education and health care for all children.

those same right-to-life republicans are the support of war on civilians in the middle east, ragheads apparently not having a right to life.

as for killing fetuses, i'm for it. so much more convenient than waiting for them to grow up enough to steal a car and crash it, killing half a dozen. plus they eat too much, and demand fancy shoes at frequent intervals.

humans have always killed some people, some groups. even buddhist societies stray from the path often enough. why get excited about reducing the birthrate close to the source, it's not like there is any shortage of people.

If anyone googles abortion laws in Australi, they will find it is a dogs breakfast. It all needs simplifing and uniformity.

I am not a pro lifer or religous but am having trouble coming to grips with this abortion on demand up to 24 weeks thing. If we can save a premature born baby at 24 weeks it just does not seem right to abort it at that stage.

We have many contraception methods available and the morning after pill. In addition, if there was a time of,say, 12 weeks for abortion on demand, with exceptions for serious mothers health, I would think that should be sufficient. I cannot think of reasons why a woman would need longer to determine whether she wants to have the child or not.

However, I don't think this debate is over by a long chalk.

This is Off topic but DEMOS Comment is Off-topic but truely contemptible and but need of response

DEMOS “those same right-to-life republicans are the support of war on civilians in the middle east, ragheads apparently not having a right to life.”

Ah yes, perfect timing, DEMOS, reminding us all of the evils of USA, the day after the anniversary of 11 September 2001.

Do you remember where you were when it happened?

I do

Somehow DEMOS statement loses its impact when you see film of people leaping several hundred feet, to their deaths trying to escape the flames caused when

“some middle east ragheads”

hijacked and flew American jets, carrying American passengers and American crew into an American building, in an American City.

Somehow, it highlights how heartless, cynical and tasteless a gratuitous, throwaway comment can be -

I guess, in DEMOS eyes, the people who died at the hands of those valiant terrorist "ragheads" are equally ‘throwaway’.

Col: <<Do you remember where you were when it happened?

I do

Somehow DEMOS statement loses its impact when you see film of people leaping several hundred feet, to their deaths trying to escape the flames caused when

“some middle east ragheads”

hijacked and flew American jets, carrying American passengers and American crew into an American building, in an American City.>>

You've got the wrong ragheads. I'm pretty sure DEMOS was referring to the war in Iraq. The murderers who hijacked and flew American jets into American buildings were not Iraqis, nor were they protected by Iraq, nor were they in any way connected to Iraq. It's disingenuous to connect the war in Iraq with the tragedy of September 11 — the US invaded Iraq because, inter alia, it believed it had weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think DEMOS is trying to draw attention to the hypocrisy some people demonstrate when they call abortion murder but sanction actual murder in war time. It's a valid argument. The allies have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. Some were fetuses.

As for the topic, it's so hard to talk about abortion. I am pro-choice and don't believe it is murder, but I sympathise with those who do. That is, I think they are wrong, but I understand their feelings are genuine and painful. And I actually think we should have an honest conversation about how doctors are able to save very premature babies these days. That does suggest that there's a case for restricting abortions to short term pregnancies.

If only we could hear that case freely, fearlessly and reasonably, rather than it become a shouting match, and a competition about who most deplores murder

DEMOS - I won't bother (and neither should anyone else) dignifying the drivel you posted with any sort of response, other than to suggest that if you actually believe what you wrote then you are a sociopath and need a fleet of psychiatrists.

Well said banjo - I am FAR from religious yet it is INSANE to be aborting fetuses (in the absence of threat to maternal survival/health) at 24 weeks when 24 weekers can do well ex-utero. They often don't of course, the latest research I have seen indicates about 50/50 survival at 24 weeks, for those that aren't stillborn. Nevertheless, as banjo rightly said, it shouldn't be happening - ever. If you want out, get out early. If you changed your mind, frankly, bad luck. At 24 weeks there are obviously competing interests to be considered.

Extraordinary isn't it?

You can be sent to prison for cropping a dog's tail.

You can be sent to prison for tossing a live lobster into boiling water.

Yet:

You can murder a viable 24 week baby - then go out and celebrate.

Yuri

The number of babies murdered in this country is a national disgrace. Politicians are more intent on following their dogmas than caring about the lives of thousands of kids. We have idiots screaming doom and gloom with fanciful weather predictions while many of the same sit by idly and hypothesise whether it is right to murder or not. Bit by bit the dishonest pro deather's with totally calloused hearts have brainwashed women into thinking this is a womans issue. Our nation will one day get what it deserves.

The legislation before Victorian Parliament is to bring the law into line with current abortion practice. This bill is necessary because 8 years ago a National Party member Julian McGauran stood up in Parliament and named a woman who had aborted a 32 week old feotus with dwarfism. He conducted a witch hunt against the hospital and the medical staff involved. After great expense and an anxious time the hospital and the medical staff were exonerated.

Julian McGauran was less than honest when he described the feotus as suffering from dwarfism, there are dwarfs and there are dwarfs and this was a very disabled foetus.

Julian McGauran is not married and lives in an apartment above the old St Kilda Rail terminus - which suggests to me a very "Oxford St" lifestyle. So a man who has never married, perhaps not a had a relationship with a woman is the champion of the "Right to Lifers".

If Australian women have ready access to contraception, RU486 and abortion then late term abortions will only happen when the foetus is deformed.

I have always been pro-choice and, short of undergoing an unlikely born-again fundamentalist Christian awakening, always will be.

However, 24 weeks is WAY too far advanced in pregnancy for an abortion. If a woman has not been able to decide on an abortion by 12 weeks, it's unlikely that she is in the right frame of mind to undergo either the procedure or its emotional aftermath.

I don't know why the 24-week time limit has been put forward - as at least 90% of abortions are conducted before 12 weeks. Also, for medical and legal reasons, many abortion doctors would refuse to perform an abortion after that point.

All I can think of is that the initiators of this Bill are asking for 24 weeks as a negotiating point in order to fall back to about 15 weeks. If so, the strategy is pretty stupid, as it only adds dubious credence to the 'fetal genocide' rhetoric of the anti-abortionist camp.

Abortion stats are hard to come by, but this document suggests about 70,000 abortions are performed per year, Australia-wide per annum. http://www.fpq.com.au/factsheets_brochures/student_info/Abortion_statistics.pdf

According to WA stats www.health.wa.gov.au/ICAM/publications/pubdocs/AbortionReport1999-2005FINAL(4).pdf "only 0.6% of abortions were carried out at 20 weeks or over". This accords with Victorian stats cited here http://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/607/31357 (apologies to those allergic to GreenLeft) that "99% of Victorian abortions were carried out before 13 weeks. Of the remaining 163 abortions, 103 were performed because of congenital abnormalities."

In other words, of the 70,000 abortions carried out per year, there are perhaps 1,000 carried out beyond the 1st trimester. Of these, perhaps perhaps 500 are because of foetal abnormalities. I'd be interested if anyone could come up with any statistical analysis of 2nd/3rd trimester abortions. Might make interesting reading. I suspect you'd find a lot of them were for IV drug users, women just out of gaol etc.

Over 80% of Australians believe "women should have the right to choose an abortion" http://www.arha.org.au/factsheets.html (link at bottom of page). David Van Gend concentrates on the horrors of late-term abortions because the pro-life lobby have lost the abortion debate. Interesting to note that David Van Gend believes that homosexuality can be cured http://www.marriage.org.au/re_entering_the_circle_of_life.htm . No doubt he believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden instead.

billie

I read your post after I posted mine. It partly clears up the question I raised. Thanks.

However, I still believe that, whatever the outcome of this Bill, abortion post-12 weeks should not be treated the same - either legally or medically - as abortions conducted before 12 weeks.

The post 24 week thing is troubling indeed. A close friend though, found that her much wanted baby was only going to survive a few hours after birth if born alive at all. This mite had simply not developed a workable brain. The family decided to terminate the pregnancy. The termination was treated as a still birth, the parents mourned and still mourn, almost two decades later, but fortunately, another healthy child arrived.

While would have been desirable to find out that the baby had problems earlier, it would have been insane to condemn this couple to continue on with a pregnancy with an inevitable sad outcome. It also might have reduced their chances of having a healthy child as their are time constraints on a woman's fertility.

No woman makes the decision to abort lightly and it needs to be left between a woman and her doctors to decide what is the best course of action.

Am i wrong to say this forum is dominated with religon.

This debate is more about the interest of one party versus the interest of another.

If we look at abortion like this, the major ethical issue is whether the interests of the parent(s) should prevail over that of the (unborn) child.

Clearly, pro-choice and pro-life advocates use different ethical systems to determine whose interests should prevail. What we should be looking at, then, is the reasoning behind these different views. If we do not consider why religious fundamentalism and pro life are complementary, we forgoe the opportunity to examine the ethics behind the pro life position.

Even children outside of the womb were considered "human waste" when it came to bombing Iraq with cluster bombs, depleted uranium and white phosphorous. The hypocrisy of the people who cheer led the war and their pious stand against abortion is plain for everyone to see.

The way i see it the pregnant person cannot have an abortion for a no good reason, and then it takes 2 doctors to agree. So if the fotus is going to be incapacitated at birth due to disease or drug use or wat ever else society gets into these days, it would be advisable to abort, and save the majority of straight people the burden of supporting a dimwit for years to come.

Yes 3000 citizens were murdered in the USA on one day by people whose brain was addled by religious indoctrination. But nearly ten times that number of children die each day from malnutritian and poor health care in underdeveloped countries. How much better would the world be if the money being wasted in Iraq had been spent on health care and education where it was most needed.
Every healthy woman in this country has up to about 350 chances in her lifetime to become pregnant yet the average use of that opportunity is about twice. Surely if a woman is satisfied that a later pregnancy is preferable to a present pregnancy it would seldom have any effect on the total number of her offspring.
I agree 24 weeks seems a long time to make up your mind but the figures seem to indicate late terminations are largely due to some determined deficiency in the foetus.
And, runner, this country already appears to be getting what you think it deserves. It is being held back by religious indoctrination of children and nonsense from fundamentalists.

Pro-lifers are the 21st century mind police who pray for unlimited authority to persecute those who wish to exercise their rights of women to determine what they should do to enhance the quality of the life of their families and determine their own freedoms.They seek to perpetuate poverty and suffering.They seek the denial of individuals reaching their fullpotential by condemning them to a life oif such penury that self-realisation is impossible.All that is certain is penury and begging and possibly a life of crime to get out of the trap they have fallen into. In return these poor devils are offered prayers to help them through their life of perpetual hardship and denial of fulfilment. If you want proof go and visit communities in South America and the Philippines for openers.

Sanctimonius frauds fattened on delusion wearing comic opera dresses and scattering whiffs of incense and wafer gods cater to the "spiritual" needs of those they have afflicted.

socratease

I tend to agree with Banjo and SJF and find discomfort in the idea of a 24 week abortion unless of course it is under exceptional circumstances such as in the case of JL Deland's friend.

With modern medicine many premature babies survive at this age and the foetus is more than a group of cells.

We can talk about Rights but we also have to ask at what point do we confer rights to an unborn child. Rights are man-made they are not a 'given' and as a society we need to determine and weigh up those rights for all parties based on some agreed criteria with obvious medical exceptions.

It won't ever be easy to satisfy all parties on the subject of abortion but a 24 week old foetus is a viable 'person' and I would hope that most abortions at this stage of development would be conducted reasons other than convenience.

Anyone else notice the gendered voting pattern in the conscience vote on abortion in Victorian parliament?

The overall vote was 47 in favour and 35 against. But the female MPs voted 19-6 while the fellers voted 28-29.

What interpretation would OLO readers put on this distinctive pattern?

Many millions have been deemed “not wanted” or “not suitable”, and have been aborted through mass extermination.

From Australian Aborigines to Cambodians to Chinese to Ugandans to Russian Muslims to Jews.

Another slippery slope has started.

Step 1/ Ignore wide scale abortion
Step 2/ Decriminalize abortion
Step 3/ Allow any type of abortion.
Step 4/ Encourage abortion.
Step 5/ Carry out abortion on people who have been born.

Veronica. I am not interested in your excuses of DEMOS.

That you choose to write in defense of the obscene and obnoxious, only diminishes the value of anything else you may choose to write in future.

Back to the article:

I find this debate interesting, people deciding to draw the line on when someone’s bodily resources ceases to be deployed at their discretion, in the manner of their personal choosing.

I find using any number of weeks a completely arbitrary matter be it 0 weeks (the anti-abortionist position), 1 week, 24 or 26 or 39 weeks.

I would support a woman’s right to choose to terminate in the final trimester, in the final days before delivery, without deference to anyone because, we are, after all, talking about her body and not our own

But I would also guarantee, the longer into the pregnancy she is, the harder that decision will become (and of course it should never be taken lightly at any stage) but

it remains her body and her decision, not mine and no one elses.

HRS

<<Many millions have been deemed “not wanted” or “not suitable”, and have been aborted through mass extermination.>>

Interesting use of the word 'abortion'.

Did you happen to note any difference between abortion in the sense used in the article and in the Victorian Parliamentary debate - about the woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy - and the deaths of Australian Aborigines, Cambodians, Chinese, Ugandans, Russian Muslims and Jews?

I suppose if you think for a nano-second, one or two differences might occur, even to you.

Watch that slippery slope. The pool at the bottom of your spiralling logic might be a bit sludgy.

Let’s get this straight a foetus would have a very low survival rate if born at 24 weeks without modern science, even with our advances it is still 50/50.
If women who don't want to have an abortion under then it is their choice not to this bill does not allow forced abortions. Why do people want the choice to be taken away from women?
As for the difference between the men and women voting, I wonder how many of the anti-choice voters were also very religious. It seems to me conservative religion is the last bastion of patriarchal control. Many of the religions trolls on this site love to have Taliban style keepers of the faith forcing their moral views on everyone else, the author of this piece appears to be one of them.
It’s fitting that the author brings up the Republicans in the US. Go to any right wing religious site on the web and you will see to pillars of their world view Anti-Abortion and support of the Death penalty!
Now if you got the kind of mind that can square those two ideas then in the US you join the republican movement but hear thankfully you join the nutter brigade. Long may this debate continue not to be a party platform.
PS. The author needs to watch their language, their last comment might be seen as a threat, after all we all know what religious extremist are capable of.

Just a quicky.

Anyone know whether David van Gend is a proponent of comprehensive sex education, the abortion pill and free contraception?

If he's not, I question his sincerity about his concern about the foetus at 24 weeks.

Spikey
I would think that the reason for decriminalizing abortion is to allow certain sections of society to start encouraging women to have abortions.

They will start brainwashing women into believing that children are not wanted.

Similar has been done for mass exterminations in the past in many countries, where certain sections of society are normally brainwashed into believing that mass exterminations were necessary.

And who brainwashed you, HRS?

I find it ever so odious that those people who oppose abortion
overlook the real problems that women encounter carrying a baby to term
overlook the real mental health problems of post partum depression experienced by 10% of women

I find it absolutely flabbergasting that the people who oppose abortion expect nay demand the women who unwillingly bear the child be expected to raise the child properly until its 15. Remember Daniel Valerio and the countless other abused children growing up in single parent families on our generous social security

Even disregarding the purple prose I also found that 24 week stipulation thought provoking so I did some searching around and found that only 1% of abortions are requested at this time and that in all cases they were like the case already mentioned in another post i.e. unusual and compelling circumstances.

Also the fact that two doctors have to agree upon the necessity for such a late-term termination was put in as a safe-guard as no doctor fancied rising the chance that s/he could be subsequently up on murder charges if an error of judgement or diagnosis had been made.

I also found figures quoted on a couple of sites that said 77% of respondents identifying themselves as Christians voted in favour and 68% of those specifically identifying as Catholic also voted in favour

I too am pro-choice, however when the author quotes a paediatrician:

“The pain experienced during “partial birth abortions” by the human fetus would have a much greater intensity than any similar procedures performed in older age groups.”

then inflicting pain on a 24 week foetus cannot be justified.

I imagine there would be few terminations at 24 weeks anyway when:

Screening for Down syndrome at 11-14 weeks or 15-20 weeks
Screening for neural tube defects at 10-14 weeks or 15-20 weeks
A foetal anomaly scan at 18-20 weeks’ gestation.

So does the author approve early term abortions?

Or has the author raised this thread from a religious conviction? Misguided convictions too since the religious are notorious for ending the lives of other species in the most depraved and sadistic manner.

So what's good for the geese is not good for the ganders....errrr if you know what I mean!

All 6.5 billion of them in plague proportions!

Dickie: It is not only the religious who are adept at extermination. Throughout the twentieth century, the Nazi and Marxist movements were both responsible for eliminating millions of people. Both these movements were anti religious I believe.

This is an interesting debate, but we must all be careul to avoid inaccuracies, overgeneralisations, guilt by association, and slander. Although the Republican movement in the US is pro-life, this does not mean that everyone with pro-life views agrees with Republican foreign policy, especially where the Middle East is concerned.

Billie: I see your point, however you did not mention the high incidence of depression among women who do have abortions. Some of the women I have asked about abortion state that they were pressured into terminating their pregnancies.

Clearly it is not possible (or advisable) to make rash statements about a very complex and emotional issue.

You cannot comment on an abortion, unless you know the circumstances of why an abortion had to take place. To summise is just a waste of time.

Josh_for_social_justice,"the high incidence of depression among women who do have abortions" - OH YEAH.
Clearly it is not possible (or advisable) to make rash statements about a very complex and emotional issue. YEP

David van Gend has deliberately focused on 1% of abortions, which as Romany has observed, have been performed due to exceptional circumstances.

David's argument is just a big red herring to change the focus from women's well-being into an argument that is not about quality of life at all.

Does not any who oppose abortion care for the trauma a woman experiences when at 24 weeks she is informed that her child is so deformed or disabled that to proceed with the pregnancy is not possible? At no stage do we hear a single expression of empathy or compassion for women. Just that we can be easily 'brainwashed' as some of the more extreme opponents claim to believe.

The prevailing attitude from anti-choicers, leaves out the basic fact that women care very much about children and their ability to care for them. WE DO NOT HAVE ABORTIONS ON A WHIM. And to claim that we do simply proves and undercurrent of hatred for woman as self-determining and intelligent beings.

No-one who is anti-abortion has to have one. But these self-appointed judges would force women to endure pregnancies irrespective of their circumstances and abilities to raise a child to adulthood.

The right to control one's fertility has always and will always be about controlling women. It has never been about 'life'.

Fractelle makes an emotional plea on behalf of women which is valid. She however totally ignores the poor child getting its limbs torn apart while being 'terminated'. She says that woman do not have abortions on a whim. Some do some don't, it still does not make murdering the most vulnerable any less evil. Most of the 80000 plus abortions are for convenience sake. She argues dishonestly just like the original arguement was about the 1 in 10000 case where the young girl had been raped. The arguement was dishonest back then and now Fractelle starts on another dishonest arguement now. Only totally calloused hearts could condone this crime.

How sad, and yet how very predictable, that this has turned into a pro vs anti abortion slanging match, with regrettably few posters actually able to pick out the ethical issue raised by this article.

I don't care if the author is completely anti-abortion and has not stated it - it isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not 24 weeks is an acceptable cutoff for terminations on demand. I happen to think it isn't, based on issues of viability. I don't care how many there are per year, that isn't the issue either - one 24 weeker is too many.

It simply has to be earlier, just remove viability from the debate altogether. Most Australian neonatologists agree that offering resuscitation to neonates prior to 23 weeks should not be mandatory.
(Perinatal care at the borderlines of viability: a consensus statement based on a NSW and ACT consensus workshop.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_09_061106/lui11142_fm.html)

The earliest survivor as far as I know is 21 weeks, 6 days (very unusual).

So, since for the purposes of legislation, a cutoff (however arbitrary) seems to be necessary, let's make it 20, or 18. Cleary, I am talking here about "on demand" rather than "medically indicated" (intrauterine infection causing fetal compromise, chromosomal abnormalities - separate issues).

Question for those of you who love to berate anyone uncomfortable with late-term termination - are you so wedded to the hard-won right to reproductive autonomy that you refuse to recognise the possibility of competing interests of a nearly 24 week fetus? Sure seems that way to me...

"The issue is whether or not 24 weeks is an acceptable cutoff for terminations on demand. I happen to think it isn't, based on issues of viability. I don't care how many there are per year, that isn't the issue either - one 24 weeker is too many. "

Good post Stickman

I would agree and believe a 24 week cut-off is too late. Of course there's no escaping the fact that there will always be exceptions under dire circumstances (hopefully with a humane termination process) however, I believe legislation should opt for a shorter cut-off.

It appears that the UK once permitted terminations at 28 weeks which was then reduced to 24 weeks but in 2006, two thirds of abortions were performed under 10 weeks and most under 13 weeks.

Surely the earlier the termination, the lower the risk of medical complications to the Mother?

More good analysis may be found in the Victorian Law Reform Commission report that preceded the drafting of the legislation. http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Law+Reform/resources/file/eb4e310768c8401/VLRC_Abortion_Chapter3.pdf

The law reform commission offered three options: codification of the existing law, abortion on demand, or a two-tier system, with abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, and restrictions similar to the existing scheme after that.

The government has gone for the two-tier system. After 24 weeks the abortion must get the concurrence of two doctors that it is "appropriate in all the circumstances", including "all relevant medical circumstances" and "the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances".

It seems to me that the legislation strikes a good balance, though I'd be happier to see 20 weeks as a cut-off. The fact that in the public system women cannot "obtain abnormality testing until 18–22 weeks gestation, unless they arrange it privately at significant personal expense" suggests that many poorer women will not be able to make an informed decision until 24 weeks or later. Looks like more funding for public pregnancy screening might be in order?

HRS “Similar has been done for mass exterminations in the past in many countries, where certain sections of society are normally brainwashed into believing that mass exterminations were necessary.””

Maybe you could suggest where anyone succeeded in brainwashing me,

It might have been in some anti-smoking tapes I tried, someone threw in a few subliminal suggestions promoting mass extermination (in which case you could then argue that the mass extermination worked, despite me not giving up smoking as a consequence)?

Jason60 “You cannot comment on an abortion, unless you know the circumstances of why an abortion had to take place. To summise is just a waste of time.”

Exactly. Every abortion decision is private and intensely personal.

No one knows the circumstances or issues surrounding the decision as well as the woman who is pregnant.

To surmise or generalize and to then apply arbitrary rules, based on those suppositions and generalizations is to deprive the pregnant woman of her individuality.

Something no one should wish to do to another humanbeing.

Josh_for_social_justice “the high incidence of depression among women who do have abortions.”

And depression is common among women who go to term and have babies.

Post partum depression, I believe is the product of changes in hormones following pregnancy

The depression is not a consequence of having an abortion, it is a result of no longer being pregnant.

Stickman “The earliest survivor as far as I know is 21 weeks, 6 days (very unusual). “

I think the pediatric practice in Holland, is for no attempt to support survival because of the very low survival rate of any delivery under 26 weeks and the high probability of significant disability (eg aggravated cerebral palsy) in those who do.

Col Rouge
It was found that when certain female celebrities had babies, the abortion rate in parts of the world declined.

If there were lots of pictures in the media of female celebrities holding babies, the abortion rate declined. That is how easily people are swayed by propaganda and the media, and the majority of women having abortions are not at risk at all from the pregnancy.

With the decriminalization of abortion, it opens the way for certain groups in society to begin to brainwash women into having abortions.

We are not talking about abortion on demand. It is abortion after 2 doctors agree.

Last week, I commented here that a friend had a late term abortion, when faced with an inevitable tragic outcome. I've been thinking that maybe that was a bit 'easy'. Except for the hardcore 'right to lifers' who would have had her suffer till the end, her right to terminate and try again, was pretty clear. (I use a different name here, to my normal name so nobody's privacy is at risk, including my own).

I absolutely agree that the whole debate about late term abortions is a red herring. The actual numbers of late term abortions is minimal. Women don't front and say, 'give me an abortion, I've just realised the bump is going to ruin my ski season' at this stage. If they need an abortion it's for hard thought through reasons.

If the same friend had fronted me and said she wanted an abortion at this late stage because she had been pressured into it by a violent partner who was now removed from her life, I would absolutely stand by her and her intelligence. If she said though, having previously indicated that she dearly wanted the child, that she now wanted an abortion because she thought the child was the 'devil', and she was behaving oddly, I'd want an urgent talk with her doctor and pyschologist to avoid a tragedy. I think a little discretion in these things is okay.

(to be continued)

My own reproductive history maybe gives me a little bit of a background in this field. It seems that a lot of people commenting here, haven't dived in yet. I had a stillbirth at 28 weeks where the baby died and I almost did. Then a miscarriage. Then twelve months later I had a successful birth where the baby was admitted back at a month for a lifesaving operation and I was rushed back to hospital with complications for a operation two weeks after the birth - that month with sick child and sick Mum, trying to get attention don't rate as one of mine finest.

Number two child, special needs, doing fine, but will need his parents attention for a while yet.

Number three child, special needs, life threatening, life long condition.

Each time after giving birth too, I ended up with concerned nurses injecting and clucking around me, which doesn't inspire confidence in me if I was to go down that path one more time.

Our income in the meantime, went from two incomes, to one. I sold my piano and books to pay the bills and our babies got used to a bland diet there for a while. In the end, it's worked out fine, though the work is continuing. But tell some woman that she should grit her teeth get on with it if she was absolutely against it, and has no support - No.

Thre are also over 10,000 children in foster care in NSW alone. Maybe they should feature more.

JL Deland.. reading your post I realize why I am pro-choice (and more so than many, it would seem).

The difficulties of your pregnancies and the subsequent development of your children brings to mind one of the most important things which should be at the forefront of anybodies thoughts in their consideration of this matter

“There but for the grace of God go I.”

My ex-wifes pregnancies were fine, delivery was a little difficult for the first but nothing on the scale you experienced and both girls are now adults and never had any “special needs”.

I would never want to be someone who would satisfy any personal sense of Christian or secular “righteousness” by insisting you should do anything other than that which you chose for yourself.

Like you said “But tell some woman that she should grit her teeth get on with it if she was absolutely against it, and has no support - No.”

I recall tales of premature babies being delivered who then survived the early weeks of birth but who suffered serious defects.

In years past when the medical profession and their tools were less “skilled”, these babies would not have survived and that just might have best for them and the family who were then responsible for trying to come to terms and deal with the, often extensive, demands of their upbringing for maybe the next 40 years (or so).

HRS says that "when certain female celebrities had babies, the abortion rate in parts of the world declined." I've done a quick Google search and can't find any reference. Have you got a link HRS?

Olly, I think you'll find it is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. 2 doctors have to agree after 24 weeks.

Interesting to note that abortion rates are on the decline and "less than five per cent of women born in the 1980s have had an abortion - a significant drop from the 14 per cent seen in women 10 years older." http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23403616-421,00.html

What can be done to reduce abortion rates? Better sex education would be a good start. Better public hospital pre-natal care would also help. Government-sponsored maternity leave and cheap child-care for single parents and low-income couples might also have an effect. Plenty of good programmes could be funded instead of the useless baby bonus (bribe), which too often is wasted by those who might benefit from better-targetted funding.

As the parent of a child with disabilities I heartily agree with JL Deland's post. As a parent you sign on for life, but a bit of support from others doesn't go astray.

What the hell is wrong with you anti-abortionists?
There is a case for allowing a family who has no access to birth control pills and condoms where there asre aslready too many mouths to feed.They face poverty of the worst kind.They are hopelessly in debt.They sell some kids to slavers.And we wish them worse misery by denying them the right to decide the number of kids they can afford.They need to have their kids educated but cannot when there are too many.This is the sad story of all South American countries.This is the sad story of the Philippines andother countries where anit-abortionists dcide legislation.And some of this cruelty flows from doctrines and interpretation of religious creeds and rules.

In the name of life and freedom,in the name of humanity and mercy let families decide the strength of families.

Johnj,
Agree with your last post, and also, a good point in the last paragraph of your previous post; I didn’t know about the funding. I’m not even sure why it would have to cost more to allow women access to earlier testing/screening, can’t it just be shifted a few weeks earlier?
As women postpone having children till a later age, increased access to screening is necessary. As far as I know the screening can’t be done till the 20th week into pregnancy but I could be wrong.

I have tried to get the “comprehensive sex education” point through in other abortion discussions but the OLO fundies have blind faith in abstinence-only education.

Well said Col, and I also agree with Jason60.
Nobody knows the circumstances better than the pregnant woman herself. Medical advice and counseling can be provided if she needs it, but the ultimate decision should be hers.

The author, HRS, Runner et al have an over-active imagination.
What do they think- that when a law allows late abortions, hordes of brainwashed, pregnant women are going to conspire to dawdle till at least the 24th week into pregnancy, and then gather to swamp abortion clinics and hospitals just for their convenience?
As Romany and Fractelle pointed out, late terminations are very rare and are very traumatic for women.

Runner,
Where is the evidence for your claim that “Most of the 80000 plus abortions are for convenience sake.”
Talk about honesty and emotion!
You have been patiently corrected many times about your ‘confusion’ between fetuses and children, and between murder and killing.
Still, you keep repeating the same old flawed arguments and lies, deliberately ignoring facts.
Also, since when is something legal a crime?

And, at least 15% of known pregnancies end in natural miscarriage.

yes olly - it is dominated by religion. Any writing on abortion or homosexuality attracts the religious right like moths to a flame. You will find the same names on every article on this topic, especially, HRS and runner, who seem to have as their life's mission to ensure that women do not leave the kitchen. Notably I never see these names in comments on child poverty or similar postings on children. The reason for that is that the only kind of life that relgious conservatives value is that from conception to birth, you will never see them put up their hand to assist children who are actually alive and struggling. No wealth distribution there, once born your on your own, its sink or swim - too bad if the cards are stacked against you.

It is interesting to note the article in the Sunday Age on the abuse hurled at pro-choice politicians. Any politicians that voted in favour of decriminalisation have been blasted with abusive emails, flyer calling them 'killers', etc, from the religious right. Some have even received death threats. Its really about a pathological desire to control other people's lives to the most intimate level.

This sort of thing makes a good arguement for Brave New World style propagation of community cogs and wheels. At least in that book, they didnt lie thru their deluded self interest masquerading as whatever beneift for the good of whoever's whatever.

Reproduction politics/power is where the rubber meets the road. It boils down to power. Men wanna have a voice. women want monopoly. Majority of electorate is female, so hardly any surprise here.

In any event, this be secret womens business, so shutup already. Thats OK, afterall, they're left holding the baby and without the psychological appeals and emotional manipulations, they're left to turn to the men with badges and guns to enforce their interests, which puts them in a real tuff bind.

Frankly, as a man l dont see anything to really complain about regarding pregnancy, womens bodies, their feotuses, their babies, their burdens and responsibilities.

Men have just gotta learn to STOP moralising about women and telling them what we think about their ways and offering opinions and solutions (most of which are swimming in mens projected self-interest).

Its easier for men and better for women to let them plough their own fields.

Not bloody likely tho. Men and women get far too much benefit and comfort out of the status quo and recoil in horror at the possibility of giving up the addiction.

What one forgets is that pregnancy is measured from the date of the start of the last cycle. Typically conception takes place at about 2 weeks, and the earliest that pregnancy is detected is 4 weeks.

The third trimester or 6 month mark is actually the 27th week, not the 24th, so 24 weeks is closer to 5 months.

With irregular cycles and low levels of hormone it is actually easier than most realise to pass the 12 wk mark without recognising the symptoms, especially when it is not expected, and the person is not experienced. However, it would be very difficult to pass the 20th week without noticing.

Peronnally I have known of two cases where this has happenned. In both cases the suprise pregnancy was carried to term as the parents were in a relationship.

While I feel 12 weeks is too short, I also feel that at 24 weeks it is possible (though unlikely) for the foetus to survive on its own and would opt for a shorter period say 20 weeks, where survivability is non existant.

Firstly, I believe that no abortion should be available where the baby suffers pain. its just my belief system, but I believe that the baby suffering in this way is reprehensible. It must be able to be given anesthetic, or no abortion.

I support the ability to choose to have an abortion. To choose to have one for a healthy child, there should be a fairly early cut-off point. 15 weeks? Hard to pin a date though, as particularly if a surprise pregnancy it can be easy to be 3-4 weeks out. Where the mother has a life-threatening problem abortion should be available anytime - while it might be noble to lay down your life for the unborn, it shouldnt be forced on you. For an unhealthy baby an abortion should be available anytime (but I am not referring here to something as straight-forward as Downs Syndrome here, which can be diagnosed early anyway). Pregnancy and delivery is still risky business, even in Western societies with modern medicine - something that is regularly forgotten.

To sum up, abortion shouldnt be easily available, but it should be available nonetheless.

Celivia

Only heartless people whose ideology is more important than the life of the unborn could not feel emotional about the murder of these little ones.

You know as well as anyone else that the vast majority of abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies (as opposed to the health risk of the mother). You along with others defend the indefencable. Thankfully some like the doctor I spoke to the other day are waking up to this mass killing. This man now deeply regrets his part in what he now calls murder. I take heart that the younger generation will have more compassion than the selfish baby boomers who want act immorally and take no responsibility.

Runner,
I do feel emotion when I think of the outlook of all those unwanted children who are shoved from one foster home to the next.
I feel emotion when I think of how street kids have to commit crimes to survive or are on drugs.
And I feel emotion when I hear of totally dysfunctional or mentally ill families who have no idea how to raise their children and starve or abuse them.
THAT is what I feel emotion about; that, and about filthy backyard abortions women have had to endure when no legal and safe abortion was available.
I also feel emotional when women have to go through birth only to produce a baby with no other option than lying in their little intensive care cot, suffering severe pain until death relieves them.
Suffering that could’ve prevented if the women had opted for abortion.

You’re still not any wiser about the difference between murder and killing, I see.
Once you learn the difference, perhaps you can tell that (born-again?) doctor he is wrong.

“I take heart that the younger generation will have more compassion than the selfish baby boomers ...”
I take heart that the younger generation will receive a better, more comprehensive sex education, which will probably happen as soon as governments are willing to ignore retarded, loudly lobbying fundies. I hope that the younger generation will have access to free contraception by then, too.

Country Gal,
I have been concerned about any possible pain involved in abortions as well. From what I’ve read there is on pain or awareness involved before the 24 week cut-off date because the foetus’ nervous system isn’t advanced enough to be able to experience pain although they can have reflexes.
If late term fetuses need to be aborted and there is any doubt about their ability to feel pain, I agree that anesthetic should be applied.

Celivia

Changing terms such as murder to termination does not change the act. Changing fornication to partner or adultery to relationship does not change the act. Playing on words to justify actions is pc gone mad.

MOst would prefer not to be brought up in a foster home but I am sure they are pleased that they at least have an opportunity to live.

On your summation many Indigenous kids would be murdered (sorry terminated) because they have very tough home lives. Or could it be that we can work harder to improve the lives of these kids as we could those fortunate enough to have someone caring enough not to abort them.

The trouble with anomous discussion is you have to get around the religion talking and try to decifer what they are realy trying to say. I don't believe in life at all cost, and i don't believe in people suffering without quality of life, at the other end.

Exactly Jason,
If Runner refuses to use the correct terms, then communication becomes unclear.

Runner,
Foetuses are killed by abortion, not murdered. Not many will take your arguments seriously if you keep using emotive language and the incorrect terms.

Fact is that up to 24 week old foetusus have extremely low survival rates when born prematurely, and in the past 12 years there has been no change in their survival rates.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3898503.ece

Runner do you get it that the religious right actually add to the number of abortions instead of minimising them?
We can teach abstinence-only education all we like but there is enough evidence to say it’s a failure!

Celivia - this is a quote from the link you posted:

"There were, however, significant improvements in the survival of babies born at 24 and 25 weeks. Of 497 babies admitted to intensive care in 2000–05, 236 (47 per cent) survived to discharge compared with 174 of 490 (36 per cent) in 1994–95."

This accords with the data I have already posted - roughly half of those born at 24 weeks will surive. So while survival of 23 weekers has not improved, 24 weekers HAS.

Presumably you are familiar with the concept of confounding also... you may like to consider that the very fact that babies are born prematurely indicates some sort of difficulty with the pregnancy, be it PPROM (preterm premature rupture of membranes), intra-uterine infection, maternal trauma, congenital abnormality, hemolytic disease etc. So it is common sense that a hitherto normal foetus, electively terminated at 24 weeks, would have stood a far better (on average) chance of survival than a spontaneously delivered 24 weeker.

I note with interest that you (and others on the "pro-choice" (bad term, used for convenience) end of this debate), appear to be engaging only with the lunar right on this topic, not with those such as myself that merely have an issue with the particular cutoff contained within the legislation.

I agree with you Stickman. I am disappointed by the overgeneralisation and guilt by association which some (but not all) of the pro-choice writers have used.

At the same time, the pro-life movement in general must adopt a much broader view of abortion. Slavery took many years to be abolished, and if we want to end abortion we must look at it as a process, not merely an Act of Parliament.

Thus the pro life movement should set itself some goals, some of which might be:

A: end abortion entirely B: reduce the number of abortions by X %
C: change the point in pregnancy up to which abortion is permissible
D: make pregnant women aware of their options to the decision to terminate or carry a pregnancy is entirely their own (I know this one is debateable, but then so is the aim of the pro-choice lobby... both sides claim to represent the interests of women)

These goals should be structured so that the most achievable ones can be achieved first. Then, the pro-life movement should consider some wider social issues it must engage in to achieve the above goals. These could include:

A: Contraception / Sex Ed. Anyone who thinks they can enforce abstinence has their head in the sand; it is impossible to stop people from having sex without resorting to draconian measures. Encouraging abstinence is feasible, enforcing it is not. I know that some pro-life groups are against contraception (why this is so I cannot understand), but that does not mean that all of them are.

B: Support for mothers and families. By this I mean genuine support that engages with the very real issues mothers and families face.

C: Improved foster care. This way a women need not abort merely because she cannot care for the child.

Overall, my point is that reducing the abortion rate is something that must take place within a broad social agenda.

Runner, neither is calling a termination murder doing anything for your case.

As major heart surgery is done on foetuses without anaesthetic with no apperent shock or side effects, claiming that late term abortions inflict pain is without substance.

As an unwanted pregnancy causes trauma whether aborted or not, the obvious solution would be to reduce the number of abortions would be to prevent the unwanted pregnancies.

The plan of attack should be as follows:
- introduce sex education for all from the age of 10 to 18
- Ban the discredited abstinence based sex ed.
- Ensure that contraception is available at every "conceiveable" moment by having schools able to dispense them and free condoms in boys and girls toilets.

This should reduce the misery that the religious right seem to wish to inflict on us.

Josh_for_social_justice “At the same time, the pro-life movement in general must adopt a much broader view of abortion. Slavery took many years to be abolished, and if we want to end abortion we must look at it as a process, not merely an Act of Parliament”

I will never be able to understand, other than for the purpose of improper emotional blackmail, why certain people make parallels between ‘abortion’ and ‘slavery’ (let alone ‘abortion’ and ‘murder’)

I would have thought it obvious, the basis of all dealings, all considerations and consequently all terminology and statute distinguishes between

A person (woman) dealing with the content and processes of her own body and

A person dealing with a separate sentient individual.

All those who think that “if we want to end abortion” might start by asking those who are pregnant, contrary to their own wishes if they agree.

I would note, the path to ‘social justice’ is through embracing the views of all, not just in declaring the arbitrary limits on everyone, despite how ‘politically correct’ and ‘morally desirable’ these limits may appear.

I would further observe in recent polls

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Poll-backs-abortion-laws/2005/02/15/1108230007300.html

ONLY “17 per cent believed it should be less accessible.”

On that basis,’ Josh_for_social_justice’, in his apparent support for tougher anti-abortion legislation, is an oxymoron in his own logon.

I further note, ambiguous terms like “lunar right on this topic” hardly support the idea of “speaking in plain English”, maybe the author of the comment could define what he / she really means, instead of hiding it in what I suspect is a veiled slight

Col - "lunar right" is hardly an obscure term, it is widely used in political discourse and roughly equates to "somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan." It wasn't meant to be a veiled slight at all. I was talking about the likes of HRS and runner.. and the point was that I wonder why someone like Celivia, who makes interesting and considered arguments, bothers engaing with someone like runner. When the extent of his arguments consist of various unsubstantiated combinations of "evolution is a lie" and "godless secularism will roon us all", and this has been the case for years, why bother trying to argue? It's the old story: never argue with a fool, onlookers may be unable to tell the difference.

And what's with your quotes around "speaking in plain English"? I never used those words.

Getting back to some of your earlier statements also Col:

"I would support a woman’s right to choose to terminate in the final trimester, in the final days before delivery, without deference to anyone because, we are, after all, talking about her body and not our own

But I would also guarantee, the longer into the pregnancy she is, the harder that decision will become (and of course it should never be taken lightly at any stage) but

it remains her body and her decision, not mine and no one elses."

Well that's just silly isn't it? From a medical point of view anyway, given a fetus over 30 weeks gestation is considered pretty much home and hosed from a survival perspective. If your argument is that people should be able to do as they please provided they affect no one else, I would be interested to hear how you can argue there is no competing interest here? And furthermore, who is going to perform terminations that late in the term, without any medical indication?

(cont)

And Josh.. I get the impression from your post that you see me as a kindred spirit me for your "pro-life" crusade. That would be incorrect. The term "pro-life" is as as lazy and meaningless as "pro-choice". Those who see availability of safe termination of pregnancy are no more "anti-life" than those, such as myself, who have qualms with a 24 week cutoff for termination on demand, are "anti-choice". I just happen to acknowledge the existence of a competing interest to the exercise of a particular freedom, which is the ethical basis for what I have argued in this thread.

Stickman,
Yeah I don’t know why I bothered with Runner- just some entertainment, I guess.

OK back to the topic, I am struggling with the cut-off as well.

Although I rationally agree with Col about the ownership of the woman’s body, and that a woman should be under no obligation to carry a pregnancy full term, I emotionally feel that there should be a link between the viability of the foetus and the time limit for abortion but only in situations where women have free choice.

I can’t imagine that a woman who has free choice and who knows she’s pregnant all along would wait deliberately until the 24th week ‘for the sake of it’ to have her pregnancy terminated. It’s more likely that she had to finance it and couldn’t get the money sooner or she couldn’t have access to abortion earlier. In short, she didn’t have free choice or opportunity to have the abortion earlier.
That’s why abortion should be freely available and easily accessible. Legal, financial and practical barriers make women have late or unsafe abortions.

About viability or survival, I have no information about what happens to these surviving 24 weekers longer term. The research I saw counted these babies as survivors upon release from hospital.
What happens after that, have these babies ever been traced for say, a year?
It’s no good if they survived till hospital release but had a miserable existence and didn’t live long.
Don’t many 24 weekers remain weak or have a far higher rate of (mental) health problems than full-term babies?

I’ve always used the development of the foetal brain as a reasonable limit for a cut-off date. I think the brain is fully developed around 26 weeks, which would mean that the 24 weeks limit would be a generous ‘safety cushion’.
On the other hand, if indeed 24 weekers do have a decent chance to develop normally- not just survive, then the 24-week cut-off may be unjustified.

Celevia “I emotionally feel that there should be a link between the viability of the foetus and the time limit for abortion but only in situations where women have free choice.”

Let me ask

A woman remains pregnant for, say, 30 weeks.

Her choice,

Something happens, I don’t know what nor is any specific event particularly important but it is important enough for her to decide to terminate.

For someone 30 weeks pregnant to decide to terminate, I figure, whatever her reason, it must be extremely “significant” for her to contemplate.

In short, the further into any pregnancy, the “bond” developed between the woman and the fetus is developing, the later the termination, the greater the breaking of that bond and the harder it is to do.

That remains, to me, a reason for greater sympathy from other people, not a reason for the woman to be denied her personal sovereignty.

Stickman “speaking in plain English” are my words, in quotations for emphasis, not because you used them.

However, in “lunar right” terms many might describe me as such, although not in this debate. It is a stupid term because it generalizes an untruth.

Politically, I am of the “right”.

I am likewise, because of how I interpret my “libertarian right wing” values, absolutely pro-choice.

“Well that's just silly isn't it”

No, it is absolutely consistent with valuing the rights of the sentient individual (over the rights of something, non-sentient, developing through use of the resources of that sentient individual).

“And furthermore, who is going to perform terminations that late in the term, without any medical indication”

That is a matter of convenience, the solicitation of medical services is much a free market and I am sure, excluding statutory prohibition, not something which is insurmountable.

Finally, the term “pro-choice” is wholly apt to those who share my values.

Nothing I or people like Celevia, have ever posted promotes the idea that any woman should have an abortion.

Every word I and people like Celevia write supports the right of a woman to choose, for herself, whether to have an abortion

Hi Col,
Quite profound! I totally agree with you that abortion should be a woman’s choice at any time.
From a rational perspective, I support the woman’s right to choose.

However, I do struggle with the idea of late-term abortion emotionally. I find it, personally, hard to justify emotionally.
Of course emotion alone is no good enough reason to deny a woman the right to control her own fertility/body.
That's why I support her sole right to choose.

The abortion debate is always hard because both sides can be seen as immoral.
Although the killing of a 24-week-old foetus can be seen as immoral, it would also be immoral to force a woman to carry a pregnancy full term and to make her give birth.
I believe that the latter is more immoral than the former.

With my previous post, I just wanted to point out that I can see Stickman’s perspective and reasoning as well.
I can’t help feeling sad when it comes to late abortions.

I don’t think I have a problem with the term ‘pro-choice’ because it describes someone who supports that women should have free choice.
Not too keen on the term ‘pro-life’, I prefer to call them anti-choice, but that’s a personal preference.
Sometimes these terms can be a bit black-and-white but not sure what would be a better quick description of the opposite stances.

Col rouge said: "However, in “lunar right” terms many might describe me as such, although not in this debate. It is a stupid term because it generalizes an untruth."

Not sure why you have your knickers in a twist about the term, as I have made abundantly clear, I wasn't talking about you.. I was talking about those to whom you are dimaetrically OPPOSED on this issue. 'Lunar right' gets across exactly the meaning I wanted in terms of people whom most would consider extremely socially conservative.

Sentience: The definition I found of "sentient" focuses on ability to perceive through senses and conscious experience. 24 weekers in a NICU crib are quite obviously capable of perceiving through their senses, so I fail to see how you can argue that 30+ weekers aren't.

Anyway, while clearly we will never agree on this issue, I would venture to say that VERY few people would agree with your "termination on demand up to delivery" philosophy, though that is an intuition rather than anything I can point to evidence on.

Celivia, the problem I have with the term "pro-choice" is that, in arguing against absolute freedom of choice on this issue, I am by default cast as "anti-choice". I am not - I just acknowledge a competing fetal interest. But you are right, they are convenient labels and thus widely used. I am a libertarian also in that I would always support moral philosophies that allow people to act as they please, PROVIDED THAT ACTION HARMS NO OTHER.

Celivia said: "Not too keen on the term ‘pro-life’, I prefer to call them anti-choice, but that’s a personal preference."

Thank you for your honesty :)

As I said previously, I don't like either term.

Hi Stickman
“we will never agree on this issue”
I usually find the process of debating just as interesting without having the goal to come to an agreement especially with a difficult topic like this.

Terms
Yes Stickman, I think that these terms –pro-choice and anti-choice- bother me more than they have in other debates.
They are not distinctive enough. I do also not view you as ‘anti-choice’ because you don’t oppose abortion perse. Besides, I still have trouble supporting say, 30 week abortions myself; but as I said, only for emotional reasons.
Whenever I try to think of a rational argument to oppose it, I can always debunk it myself, then there’s nothing left to go on but emotion.

For example:

The sentience argument.
If we rely on the presence of sentience as an argument why aborting a 24-week foetus is unethical, then is it also unethical to slaughter animals that are sentient to the same degree as a 24-week-old foetus?
Perhaps both are unethical, but we slaughter animals anyway without much thought. Not many people are vegetarians.
Either both are ethical or both are unethical if both have the same degree of sentience.

The “PROVIDED THAT ACTION HARMS NO OTHER” argument.
How would you define “other”?
I would define “other” as a "person", and because a foetus is not a person, no person is being harmed by the act of abortion.

Viability.
A 24-weeker may have a 50% chance to be viable, but of that 50% there’s a quite high occurrence of physical and mental health problems- some of which would be reason for parents to consider abortion and for doctors to support it. Viability alone doesn’t say that the survivor is going to live a reasonable quality life.

I don’t know what the death rate of these initial survivors is after a year, five years, or ten years.
Is there a higher than normal rate of child mortality amongst 24 weekers than amongst full-term children?

Hi Celivia

Re: sentience - yes, the question of sentience brings a whole other argument into it, which is why I never brought it up. If you read Peter Singer on "speciesism" then he makes that exact argument (we should ethically all be vegetarian). Most of us though, rightly or wrongly, value human life above all other (and eat meat!), presumably for reasons other than sentience.

Celivia said: "Either both are ethical or both are unethical if both have the same degree of sentience."

Well.. only if you agree with Singer's views that sentience should determine ethical bases for dealing with fellow creatures :)

You could also argue (as the author does and I would tend to agree) that it is ethically inconsistent to treat a 24 weeker differently depending on whether it is in or ex utero.

Re: harm to others - yes you are right, legally anyway, personhood in this country is never conferred to a fetus. My point is that such a distinction (for late term fetuses) is one of convenience and underscores the arbitrariness of treating the same thing (eg 30 week fetus) differently, depending on whether or not it is "out" yet.

Viability: here is a really good link I posted earlier on, with some data for you Celivia, outcomes for 24 weekers are surpisingly good. (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_09_061106/lui11142_fm.html)
Around 60% have no functional disability discerned on examination at 2-3 years. Not sure about later on. It is a really good paper to read, it makes it clear that, as you say, major impairment is possible, and depending on the clinical status of the baby, decision may be made to not treat actively, in the grey zone between 23-26 weeks (the abstract is a good summary).

Stickman,
“Most of us though, rightly or wrongly, value human life above all other for reasons other than sentience.”
True. I only discussed sentience because it was brought up and thought that sentience is no good argument against abortion.
Anyway, after dumping sentience we’re back to why we should value human life at 24 weeks but not at 23.

“You could also argue that it is ethically inconsistent to treat a 24 weeker differently depending on whether it is in or ex utero.”
I don’t think I agree that it’s inconsistent because a 24-weeker in utero completely depends on its host, hasn’t had contact with outsiders and isn’t autonomic, while a 24-weeker ex utero isn’t depending on a host- he/she is autonomic, can be cared for by and has contact with outsiders.

Why should the host be the only one on the planet to be forced to provide for the foetus? Every other carer can quit.
An autonomous 24-weeker has rights, a non-autonomous one does not.

Back to viability
Thank you for the link, I read just the abstract for now but I’ll keep it for future reference.
If viability at 24 weeks is going to be an argument for forcing a pregnant woman to give birth against her will, then it should be a very strong argument.
But we’re only talking about a potential functionality rate of 30% since survival rates of 24 weekers are 50%, and of the ones surviving, 60% are expected to be functionally able- which is a total of 30% of ALL (100%) 24-week premature babies.

That means that 100% of women who seek abortion at 24 weeks would be forced to give birth because there happens to be a potential functionality rate of 30% amongst 24-weekers, who in fact only made it this far with the aid of specialist treatment.
I still don’t find it ethical to deny women the right to terminate their pregnancies at 24 weeks and don’t see a need for too much drama about it since it happens very rarely.

Celivia said: "But we’re only talking about a potential functionality rate of 30% since survival rates of 24 weekers are 50%, and of the ones surviving, 60% are expected to be functionally able- which is a total of 30% of ALL (100%) 24-week premature babies."

Hi Celivia - 2 points on viability here:

1. Firstly, as I have said previously in this thread, there are lots of reasons why premmies arrive early. Premature labour is not normal and things like premature rupture of membranes, intra-uterine infection, maternal infection, congenital abnormalities etc all predispose to it. Hence, if you are looking at survival and function rates, it is unfair to compare apples and oranges - ie, perfectly happily proceeding pregnancies vs extremely premature deliveries. So not only is bub undercooked but is more likely to have additional co-morbidities. Obviously this could never be proven conclusively (try getting that past an ethics committee!) but observational data would steer us toward that conclusion.

2. You really need to look at table 2 in that link I posted. The 61% figure is ZERO functional disability assessed, another 10% are mild and 14% moderate. So it is not really accurate to say only 30% of all 24 weekers are functionally able.

But bearing the above in mind, I can see how you arrive at your view, I just don't agree with it. The other thing I would say is that you have apologised several times for having an emotional response to the issue of late-term abortion. There is nothing wrong with having an emotional reponse to something and, more importantly, it doesn't make it wrong. I find that a great deal of the time (not all) our intuitive responses are aligned with other, more "rational" ways of constructing an ethical stance.

cheers

Hi Stickman,
I see your point about the causes of premature births.

Emotion
Yes intuitive responses can be part of the construction an ethical stance, but emotion is also personal. I don’t think that my personal emotions should weigh more than the emotions of the pregnant woman.
I have no right to deny someone else an abortion at 24 weeks because of my personal emotions, view and stance.

An important aspect to consider is which party (pregnant woman or foetus) is going to be the most effected by a decision to outlaw 24-week abortions.
Having the baby would seriously affect the woman, whereas the 24-week-old foetus has no awareness of life.
You mentioned Peter Singer- you inspired me to go to the library and borrow one of his books. I will start reading it over the weekend, as it might be very interesting to find out what he has to say.

That there should be given special rights and value to humans is a Christian belief, and in my opinion a foetus of 24 weeks, viable or not, should not have equal rights to a person. A viable foetus is still only a potential person.

Anyway, I feel like rounding off this debate and we probably have to agree to disagree, although I don’t completely disagree with you, it's such a difficult issue.

Yep Singer has some interesting stuff to say, his philosophies are appealing to the non-religiously inclined - peace - and enjoy reading him :)

Kudos to both Celivia and Stickman for their sublime debate on one of the most charged issues humans face: abortion.

Together they have shown how to debate constructively, courteously and rationally. I am sure that the OLO reader will have benefited from the views put forth by both.

If only more threads could run like this one. I remain hopeful.

Regards

Sublime - Wow! Thanks Fractelle.. one can only hope.. it seems to be inherent to the format that some people, under the cloak of anonymity, like to say things they wouldn't in a million years in a face to face discussion. Anyhow, cheerio and look forward to seeing you around the boards.