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.