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.