For the purposes of this thread I am referring to abortion used as a means of birth control ONLY. I am specifically excluding instances where:

--Continuation of the pregnancy constitutes a risk to the mother; or

--The child is likely to be born with a congenital disease such as haemophilia, spina bifida or Tay-Sachs

In other words I am considering the case of a healthy foetus in a healthy mother where the most likely outcome of continuing the pregnancy is a healthy child born to a healthy mother.

Question:

How late into pregnancy should "birth control abortion" be permitted?

Defend your answer SCIENTIFICALLY – ie no recourse to religious texts.

Note, I am not asking what the law says but what you believe the law OUGHT to say - and why.

How would you modify your answer if you learned that the reason for the abortion was that the couple wanted a child of a different sex?

Dear Stephen,

I'm not sure I can accept the premise of your title “A challenge for pro-abortionists”. I don't think many people are pro abortion, I'm certainly not. By not being anti-abortion it doesn't then follow that one must be pro-abortion.

I would put myself more in the pro-choice camp.

So I must respectfully decline the challenge.

LOL csteele, let me rephrase:

THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE PRO-CHOICE

Not pro-abortion but pro-choice.

I apologise for the error.

I am with csteele on this one. I too am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
No one likes to see abortion as a result of failed contraception or preferred method of birth control.

I am disgusted by this form of birth control, which is usually confined to the socially and economically disadvantaged groups of women and their partners, who are ignorant or apathetic about good forms of contraception- especially those that have multiple abortions.

As a general rule, abortions like these are carried out only up to about the 12th week of pregnancy, and the pregnant woman and her doctor usually come up with some other reason for requesting the abortion.

More effective sex education and contraception methods should be employed to help prevent these sorts of abortions from occurring.

12 weeks - because that is generally the timeframe in which many pregnancies fail naturally. Beyond that - only in unusual circumstances and under legislated conditions perhaps.

I am not pro-abortion but I am a realist. Unwanted pregnancies will happen and solutions will be sought. It is not for me to judge a woman who does not wish to carry a child. I would rather subsidise the cost of her termination than the cost of her unwanted, neglected child and all the associated on-goings.

Ditto I would prefer to subsidise the adoption process for neglected/abused children rather than see them returned to deadbeat parents who just keep doing the same thing and surgical sterilization for said deadbeats so they can't produce any more little victims ......But that's another subject

Steven, I think you need to provide some evidence that women routinely, or even commonly, have abortions as a means for contraception.

In my experience, the women whom I've known who've had abortions did so when contraception failed or when the foetus was flawed.

In such instances - and indeed in any others where women decide that they are incapable of carrying a foetus to term for whatever reason, I'm most definitely 'pro-choice'.

As others have said, I think there are few people who are 'pro-abortion' per se.

Didn't myself and many, many other people address this question like, five times each in this subject before, in numerous different tangents in the hopes of making our points painfully clear?
And I might add, there were more than enough explanations outside the considerations of rape, risk and deformity is factors- such as parental capability, individuality of fetus and mother, and questions over what happens if no foster parents are available in terms of upbringing.

If you're REALLY nice I might even bother coming back to this thread to repeat them... again....

By the way- when you say "scientific proof" what exactly do you mean? Would that include logic in general- or is this topic going to be "prove that a fetus is not alive or else I win"?
Because personally I don't care if it's alive or not- eggs are alive, sperm are also alive. A non-sentient blob growing off an adult person's body that can fit on a teaspoon isn't really a more convincing case in any way.

Anyway, I will answer that basically a woman should be allowed to abort at any stage in the pregnancy until it detaches from her body and thus becomes entirely individual- if she'd want to abort it she sure as heck aint going to look after it once born- and "somebody might adopt it" is not good enough- it's only a POSSIBILITY.

That's all for now- too late at night.

CJ Morgan,

I am not sure why I have to provide evidence that women "routinely, or even commonly, have abortions as a means for contraception". I was posing a purely hypothetical question.

However, for what it's worth:

According to eMJA in 2003 in Australia almost 1 in 5 pregnancies was terminated.

See: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/182_09_020505/cha10829_fm.html

This is actually a low rate of terminations compared to other Western countries. Still, I find it VERY hard to believe that one fifth of all pregnancies involved a "flawed" foetus or constituted a health risk to the mother. I think it reasonable to infer that many, perhaps most, of these terminations were "birth control abortions". However this is actually not relevant to my question.

You state you are pro-choice. Fair enough. But in the case of birth control abortions, up to what point are you pro-choice?

How far into the pregnancy do you think birth control abortions should be permitted?

If you want feel free to give two answers – one covering the case where contraception failed and one for cases where contraception was never attempted. (I am at a loss to know how you could ever distinguish between the two but let's suppose you could).

Can you come up with a number CJ Morgan?

Suzeonline, divine_msn

Interesting you should both pick on 12 weeks. In England according to the "Education for Choice" website an abortion may be procured up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. See:

http://www.efc.org.uk/Foryoungpeople/FAQs

Why 12 weeks Suzeonline, divine_msn?

Why not 24 weeks?

Any point prior to parturition, Steven. A foetus isn't a person until it's born.

It's a quite simple, if brutal, fact. As is the fact that any woman who terminates her pregnancy has to live with her decision for the rest of her life.

But it's her choice, and nobody else's.

An interesting article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091117184531.htm

I'd suggest a termination period up to the point where the foetus could theoretically survive on it's own, albeit with medical intervention. That would be somewhere around 22-24 weeks, and perhaps co-incides with important brain developments. This also allows time for problems to show up on ultrasound or other tests.

Why any unwanted pregnancy would be allowed to progress this far would be beyond me, but sometimes we need limits.

I'm pro-choice but not pro-lifestyle abortion, but it's a moral thing for the individual. Unfortunately you can't exclude lifestyle abortions due to the fact that a woman can lie about her reasoning for getting the abortion. There's a billion genuine reasons someone might get an abortion with no apparent deformity to the foetus or risk to the mother's health.

Nice trolling bait though. Well done, again.

The question for me is when does one become a person. Defining a person as someone who has a knowledge of themselves and a desire to continue living. ie not die. Before that the feotus/child is no different than say a dog or a monkey. Indeed being totally reliant on others for survival makes them even less independent than a dog or a monkey.

The right to life must be given precedence only where the being in question has a desire to continue that life. To take such a persons life would be very wrong and infringe their most basic right. The right to life. If something/someone has no concept of future, life/death, self etc then killing them would not deprive them of anything and would be acceptable. This is the basis on which we indiscriminately and without a guilt, slaughter millions of animals every year.

To anyone who says just being human is enough without the conciousness or reasoning we recognise as seperating us from the rest of the animals, I ask you to justify why humans as a species are so special? Why to you is a deaf, dumb and blind human or a human in a vegetative state, or even a potential human so important and why they should be treated so well while far more intelligent animals are made to suffer? Why should any potential, not yet a person be given precedence over a currently living breathing person?

For us to decide the death of anything should be given much greater consideration and thought than we currently use and be based on harm, benefit, freedom, rationality and knowledge.

Oh and please please please no one say "because god said so" that is just laziness, ignorance and wrong because it doesnt answer the question. If your gunna argue for god tell me WHY god said it.

Steven,

The question you pose is unlikely to be answered on OLO given 'scientifically' implies appropriate knowledge degrees in genetics/medicine etc.

One could suggest you meant 'objectively' as to moral/emotional.

On that basis I'll continue.

Firstly raw figures like 1 in 5 tell you nothing in the causal factors. A more detailed breakdown to accurately(objectively) determine the factors that *may* need addressing.

In that 1-5 there would include , naivety, glad wrap babies, deficient education, rape, deformed babies, psychological damage, availability of contraception, family issues, mothers ailments, incest, last fling of the ovaries and the list goes on.

Timing: down syndrome is more common in 'older' mums and was only detectable about 32 weeks.

My experience is that the decision to abort is an extremely difficult and personal one for the mum in 90% of the cases I've dealt with (the father to a lesser degree).

IMO it is presumptuous (doctrinaire) of anyone pro or anti abortion either directly or indirectly to attempt to impose their views on a victim ( you can believe me that most mums faced with this are victims).

I find the assumption that girls/women would as a generality use abortion as a means of contraception exceedingly superficial, ill informed and very unhelpful to those in real pain.

So endeth my dummy spit.

Well said examinator. I personally have never met anyone who went through with an abortion without considerable angst.

It is no one elses business why they have an abortion.
It is a legal procedure after all.

As long as we keep pressing ahead with more effective contraception methods for both sexes then we may be able to lower the rates of abortion.

I think you will find no one that is Pro abortion, and the fact that you are even using the term shows that you are probably not really open to what others have to say.

Any abortion exacts a toll, and is very seldom a planned contraceptive. Most of those having abortions were using contraceptives that failed.

The whole issue around the legality of abortion hinges around the right of the woman to decide what happens with her own body, and once she has the right to decide whether or not to carry a child, the issue is clear that she has the right to terminate at any point. However, the cut off of 20-24 weeks (at which point it is possible for the fetus to be independent) is often chosen as a bench mark.

However, the stage of the pregnancy determines the risk of the procedure.

In the first trimester, the pregnancy is still at risk as the fetus has not yet established its own control and still relies on the corpus luteum which is why many pregnancies fail. At this stage the termination can often easily be induced hormonally and the body simply rejects the fetus.

Nearly all terminations are done at this stage, as nearly all women (>99%) recognize that they are pregnant, and come to a decision.

However some with irregular cycles may not realize this until more definite symptoms appear.

After 12 wks, the fetus is established, and a stronger intervention is required, with the risk to the mother increasing. Up to 24 wks the fetus is seldom viable on its own and the procedure is still relatively safe, and some clinics are equipped for this.

However, most clinics will not do the procedure past 20 or 24 weeks due to the risk to the mother, unless there are indications that the fetus is severely damaged, or the mother is at risk.

With regards termination for the purposes of deciding the sex of the child, there is only rumours that this occurs in Aus.

Stevenlmeyer “Defend your answer SCIENTIFICALLY – ie no recourse to religious texts.”

I will not defend my position scientifically, your caveat is simply a restraint of opinion and since this is an opinion forum, at odds with the spirit of that forum.

However, I will resist relying on religious tracts (which are mostly relied on by the anti-choice lobby).

I will form my input based on reason and libertarian philosophy

My view is

A pregnant woman is “at risk” during the entire duration of pregnancy, not just the first few months or the first 26 weeks or whatever.

As such, since it is her body at risk, not mine, not yours, not her doctors or even her husbands but her body alone, she should have the final say on whether to go full term or abort at any time before delivery.

Most likely the longer she is pregnant, the less likely she is to decide to abort but regardless of that, she is sovereign of her own body and no one else has any right to usurp her sovereignty.

Shadow Minister “Any abortion exacts a toll”

It may but that is born by the person responsible for the decision.

The worst situation is for some “regulator” to decide that an abortion is not permitted and the woman is forced to go through with that which she would rather not. She then bears the burden of not being allowed to abort, not the “regulator” who insisted she go full term.

If a lady decides to abort, she alone faces the anguish and possible guilt from her choice but at least it was her choice and not an event forced upon her.

And as to reason (eg “don’t like the gender”), how our bodies are used is a private matter. Thus the decision to terminate is a private matter and not the object of third party criticism or complaint, thus any reason, provided the pregnant woman herself is satisfied with it, is a good reason

TO ALL POSTERS

I phrased my original post badly. I should have used "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion". I did not appreciate the nuances. Apologies.

I compounded my folly by phrasing the original question badly.

So here is a restatement:

At what point between conception and one year after birth does a foetus / baby become an entity whose rights deserve consideration?

Justify your answer by considering the physiological development of the foetus / baby.

In other words let's leave religion and the current state of the law out of it.

To help you here is a wikipedia article on foetal development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development#Weeks_13_to_16

See also:

http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_development_pictures_slideshow/article.htm

Based on my poor choice of words some posters, eg SHADOW MINISTER, have attributed opinions to me which I do not have. Thus, for the record:

I know three women who have had terminations. All occurred during the first trimester.

Of these, two seem to have suffered NONE of the regret or guilt of popular mythology. The third was deeply troubled to begin with. My observations seem to bear out the findings reported in the "education for choice website".

http://www.efc.org.uk/Foryoungpeople/Factsaboutabortion/Howdoesabortionaffectwomen

I truly cannot regard a foetus during the first trimester as being a living entity. I suggest that, objectively, an abortion during this period has the same moral baggage as having an appendix removed.

After the first trimester things get steadily more difficult. It seems likely that by week 16 a foetus is able to experience pain and has some sentience. I would suggest that at that point a foetus becomes a being in its own right that deserves some protection from the law.

In other words I suggest that after week 16 it is not always simply a matter of the woman's choice because now another being is involved.

In the 1960s and 70s I was part of a campaign to legalise abortion in South Africa. We eschewed weasel words like "pro-choice" and said we were pro-abortion. It was understood that we were not advocating enforced abortion or "abortion for fun".

The other side called itself "anti-abortion" not "pro-life".

Continued:

Peter Singer, the well-known "ethicist", advocates killing deformed newly-born babies. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/15/peter-singer-profile

While I understand where he is coming from I cannot agree. It seems to me that to do so risks falling down a very slippery slope.

It is "slippery slope" concerns that incline me to set a 16 week limit on birth control abortions. That raises the question of what to do about women who insist on having an abortion at a later stage.

On the principle of prevention being better than cure I advocate making RU-486 freely available over the counter. For once I would give the pharmaceutical industry free rein to advertise the advantages of RU-486 over late term abortions.

IN FACT I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY RU-486 IS NOT AVAILABLE OTC RIGHT NOW.

Making RU-486 available over the counter has another advantage. There are some religious groups who insist on wives having lots of babies. Often it is difficult for women in such groups to practise birth control. If RU-486 were freely available we might see a drop in the birth rate among certain religious groups.

Examinator, make of that what you will! :-D

Nonetheless, despite our best efforts, some women will still want birth control abortions after 16 weeks. I am not in favour of criminalizing such abortions but am not averse to a disincentive or, if you will, an incentive to check whether you are pregnant and get an abortion done early. One disincentive would be a tax on late term abortions. The amount of the tax levied should be linked to the COMBINED INCOMES of the woman and the father of the child.

The amount of the tax should not be so steep that it drives women to seek back street abortions; but it should be set high enough to focus minds on being pro-active when it comes to abortions.

I have set out my position in detail in order to rebut the allegations of Shadow Minister and, by implication, csteele.

Stevenlmeyer <"...truly cannot regard a foetus during the first trimester as being a living entity. I suggest that, objectively, an abortion during this period has the same moral baggage as having an appendix removed."

Spoken by someone who has never been pregnant. From the minute you find out you are pregnant, most women regard that baby as a human being. Women who suffer miscarriages are shattered, no matter how far along they are. It is WAY different to an appendix!

Women considering abortion may not feel the same way, but there are often good reasons for this. No matter which way you rephrase your questions Steven, the fact remains that the decision to abort is a private one between the parents and the doctor- no matter what.

Dear Steven,

I am pro-choice, however with reservations.
I do believe that a decision about an
abortion should be a strictly personal
one, and I can understand women resenting
other people insisting that they should
bear a child they don't want to have.
But, here, for me there are ambiguities.
Half the genes in the fetus were
contributed by the father, and although
the woman must bear the child, society
may make the father responsible for the
child's support for quite a few years thereafter.
If the father waives his responsibilities - by
deserting the mother- then of course he has no
further rights in the matter. But if he accepts
his responsibilities and wants the child born,
what are his rights in relation to the mother's
rights to control her body?

I suppose I'm being selfish -I've got two sons -
and I'm wondering about their rights in this
matter. And I'd like grandchildren one day.

When should an abortion take place?
My preference would be in the first
trimester during which time
its just a cluster of cells.
I prefer it be done as early as possible
when it's a mere collection of cells and
tissue, then its a simple surgical procedure.
As it develops and becomes more human over
the course of pregnancy, from a cluster of
cells to an embryo - then I feel abortion
becomes more difficult to perform -unless
the health of the mother is in danger.

Examinator

LOL

Surely you jest.

You write:

"I find the assumption that girls/women would AS A GENERALITY use abortion as a means of contraception exceedingly superficial, ill informed and very unhelpful…" (Capitalisation added)

Do the maths.

Woman "as a generality" using abortion as a means of birth control coupled with a relatively low rate of 1-5 pregnancies ending in abortion implies that Australians are MONUMENTALLY UNDER-SEXED.

The 1-5 rate actually means that either:

--Most Australians are using effective contraception; or

--They're not getting much if any.

Were you being intentionally funny?

But 1-5 figure does point to some women, for whatever reason, sometimes using contraception for birth control purposes.

If a woman were to use abortion as a primary birth control method I would consider it ill-advised if only because it is an unnecessarily expensive and risky way of going about matters. But provided the abortion is done in the first trimester I see no great moral issue here.

My problem is with abortions after 16 weeks. Thankfully these are rare. I would like to make them rarer.

Suzeonline wrote:

"..the fact remains that the decision to abort is a private one between the parents and the doctor- no matter what."

Fair enough. I asked up to what point in the pregnancy that applies for birth control abortions ONLY. My suggestion of 16 weeks is actually 4 weeks over and above what you argued for in your first post.

I had a reason for inserting the word "objectively" in "I suggest that, objectively, an abortion during this period has the same moral baggage as having an appendix removed".

Perhaps subjectively SOME women do feel they are harbouring a human being on hearing they are pregnant. In my experience women vary widely in their initial reactions.

However, whatever the INITIAL reaction, I doubt most women who have had an abortion feel they've killed a human being. The initial reaction wears off.

Dear Stephen,

You will have to show me where I have made any allegations, implied or otherwise against you in this matter.

As you have rephrased your challenge I think I am obliged to do you the courtesy of attempting a reply.

I must initially state that science should inform the value judgements we make as individuals and society but it should not dictate them.

You have asked; “At what point between conception and one year after birth does a foetus / baby become an entity whose rights deserve consideration? Justify your answer by considering the physiological development of the foetus / baby.”

My answer would be at conception. My scientific justification is that this is the moment that a new entity is created and it should be afforded certain rights from our laws and it is. To quibble about trimesters or weeks or physiological development is not facing the true issue. Those rights are conferred by us in direct proportion to the empathy we feel as a society to that newly created being. This should not be confused with the empathy felt by the mother nor the empathy felt by society toward her.

Without a discernible brain or a beating heart the empathy quota from the rest of us is understandably low. But still as a society we say that only one person has the right to interfere with the continuation of the entity and that is the mother, even the father has no legal influence in the matter. Thus we as a society are prepared to perform forced sterilizations in certain circumstances but not forced abortions. (This has not been true of all societies in the past, even our own). In many countries with the death penalty, pregnant women are spared until after the birth of their child before the sentence is carried out.

Once a nervous system capable of feeling pain develops and limbs become evident empathy levels increase. We tend to want our doctors to be take a more cautious approach toward performing a termination with greater discussion and assessment of the mother.

Cont

Cont

Near full term the resemblance to a new-born is complete and thus is given much greater protection by our society. Abortions at this stage require far more compelling and exceptional reasons for our society to sanction them.

A tactic of the anti-abortion lobby it to raise our empathy levels toward the foetus while lowering those toward the mother.

So what comes into play when we judge a woman who has an abortion because a birth control malfunction results in a pregnancy far less harshly than one who uses abortion as a form of birth control? Science and reason would say there is no difference between the foetuses, all that has really changed are our empathy levels i.e. far less for the second woman.

This is why suzionline can say “I am disgusted by this form of birth control, which is usually confined to the socially and economically disadvantaged groups of women and their partners, who are ignorant or apathetic about good forms of contraception- especially those that have multiple abortions.” while having a pro-choice position and not feel conflicted.

(Dear suzionline I am well acquainted with a woman who is neither socially nor economically disadvantaged yet chooses not to go on the pill because of possible side-effects plus she has infrequent partners and as a result has had multiple abortions over the last twenty years, used purely as a form of birth control.)

So Stephen perhaps your question might be better framed as “When do we as a society feel that our empathy levels for the un-born place it on an equal footing with the rights we afford the mother?”

All things being equal my personal empathy would place this after the second trimester although I'm not sure I would want that enshrined in my laws.

The fact that our empathy often has little to do with science should not dissuade us from using it to make our decisions. It is a trait I deem to be dramatically amplified in our species and something that should be celebrated.

CSteele<"...I am well acquainted with a woman who is neither socially nor economically disadvantaged yet chooses not to go on the pill because of possible side-effects plus she has infrequent partners and as a result has had multiple abortions over the last twenty years, used purely as a form of birth control.)"

Well, she may not be socially or economically disadvantaged, but she is certainly either ignorant or stupid! Are there not many other methods of contraception she could use? She sounds like some one who should have her tubes tied!

Steven,

The fetus continues developing as an individual until at 18 it can vote. However, it is not considered a legal entity in its own right until it is born.

Even though you have rephrased the question, the entire essence of the right to abortion is the woman's right to decide what happens to her body.

Obviously abortion at 9 months would be delivering a live child, so the law has to put some limits in place. The primary guideline it has been using is the ability of the fetus to survive on its own if it was delivered.

Having spent some time talking to a post natal ICU nurse, they have saved premature babies as young as 20 weeks, however, before 24 weeks this is unusual as the baby is completely unable to breathe and the babies seldom survive without long term brain and other damage.

The cut off point that Victoria has chosen of 24 weeks is thus based on empirical evidence.

Dear suzeonline,

I must thank you for making my case so eloquently.

The woman I have spoken of is very scrupulous about seeking terminations at the very earliest stages of her pregnancies. She is exercising her choice which we all say should be permitted to her yet you have little sympathy for her.

You have assessed those who use abortion as a birth control method as probably ‘socially or economically disadvantaged‘. Those who do not fit this label are either ‘ignorant’ or ‘stupid’ and although your remark about having her tubes tied was delivered flippantly I suspect there might be a small wish that society could step in and do it for her.

Your words serve to strip this woman and those like her from deserving our empathy.

On the other hand I feel you would be prepared to countenance a far later termination for a rape or incest victim who was too traumatised/ashamed to have sought one through her first trimester.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with your position it is just that we have to recognise it is beyond reason and science. To use either to formulate cut-off points without acknowledging the importance of our sympathies in a case by case manner is a dangerous exercise.

My own position has lead me to label this woman as selfish to her face but I have had to reflect on why I should feel as I do given my pro-choice stance. To me she is wilfully degrading my society’s respect for human life. Yes this can be regarded as self contradictory but I’m comfortable with it.

However I am not going to be pushing the matter with her any further.

Shadow Minster

You wrote:

"The fetus continues developing as an individual until at 18 it can vote."

That applies only to a subsection of humanity called clerics. These include imams, priests and rabbis.

The rest of us continue to develop through most of our lives.

You also wrote:

"…the entire essence of the right to abortion is the woman's right to decide what happens to her body."

However, as you point out, we do put limits on that right. The current de facto limit appears to be 24 weeks which is thought to be the point at which the foetus has a reasonable chance of being able to survive outside the body.

I am simply saying that given what we now know about neural development a case can be made for moving the limit back to 16 weeks for birth control abortions.

Csteele,

Unlike you I have no moral issues with women who use abortion as a primary means of birth control. My only comment is that it seems to be an unnecessarily risky and expensive way of going about things.

CSteele, I never suggested we should force your friend to do anything at all. I was merely suggesting that she could choose other far less invasive methods of birth control.

Having several unnecessary general anaesthetics and D&Cs over your productive lifetime seems a very extreme way of managing birth control to me.

But, you were right in saying I have absolutely no empathy for her. It is women like her who have abortions so flippantly that give the rest of us a bad name.
However, I would still fight for her right to have abortions rather than force her to carry them through to term.

Steven
In my response to you I made two errors
Downs syndrome was between 16- 18 weeks
new test makes it earlier, so I am now told.

Notwithstanding unclear intentions of your opening statement and the nature of your subsequent answers, to what I also read as reasonable responses my post was following your line of argument.

You said >" I am referring to abortion used as a means of birth control..."<
My point was clear, I don't believe that women use abortion as a means of birth control in Australia (there maybe a Very few exceptions).

Then your "1 in 5" number (which I interpreted as 1 abortion to five births and surprisingly high). I still stand by my assessment of the value of those numbers as indicative of anything.

IMO to interpret them in any other way is doctrinaire and devoid of the human element, in that it simplistically views ALL abortions as birth control issues.

Your idea of RU 486 over the counter is a potentially a dangerous one from what I've read. If by that, you meant more accessible birth control, I agree.

The dummy spit was a wry acknowledgment of other's perception of me as a pontificator.

Notwithstanding the error, and the wry comment my post still stands despite your peculiar interpretation.

I have twins, ten months old.
They had full human rights at their earliest point of gestation as far as we're concerned, though those rights become more compelling with every day that passes. At this point, their rights are as sacred as a centenarian's because they're equally helpless.
But these are sentimental assessments and "rights" are not god-given---if they were, children would not get blown up by land mines, molested or starve to death. Human rights are a privilege, and sometimes an abuse for those who can afford assert them. Babies have no more "right" to life than a lab rat; they are either born lucky and enjoy those rights, or at worst they suffer wretchedly.
Rights, per se, are merely our favourable discrimination. Nature couldn't care a toss. If we are to prate about human rights, then all humans are applicable and we live in an earthly paradise. But our human rights are parochial and self-serving; they are no more compelling than those of the species we drive to extinction in their observance.
We cherish the innocent, most of us, but sometimes we have to leaven our devotion with good judgement. A baby is an adult in potentia, and an adult was once a baby; both deserve compassion; but both are subject to fortune. That's why, when we form cultures, our masters are obliged to make arbitrary judgements about "when" exactly the new life becomes sacred--because no one can be trusted to judge on any other criteria. In a perfect world there would be no abortions. But that world is an endless pasture and no one suffers the least anguish there, and all the animals frolic together, none partaking of the other.
We live in a world of hard decisions, and we're good at it. Its only when it comes to our own, and to self-interest, that we wax sentimental.
Babies should be aborted according to circumstances, preferably before birth, just as many a well-loved elderly relative was lovingly smothered with a pillow in days of yor.
Needs must!
There is no ultimate justification, just human rationale.

Stevenlmeyer,

Without quite answering your question, how about when the cerebral cortex is "adequately" developed?

You mention pain responses, yet these may be mediated by reflex loops and basal processes that have little to do with awareness.

At 12 weeks, the white matter is a thin smooth layer, with none of the volume and convolutions that are very clear at 24 weeks, and a distinctive feature of higher primate brains.

The formation of the white matter involves the tentative random formation and destruction of a great many potential synapses, discarding inappropriate feedback loops and the like. I suggest that this is one of the later stages before birth that determine individuality, capacities, preferences and personality. It is perhaps "adequately" complete when a foetus is reasonably capable of surviving premature delivery.

There is a mundane "individuality" set upon formation of a zygote, yet identical twins are individuals. I propose that their individuality, and personhood, is critically contributed to during white matter formation and is negligible prior to completion.

Rusty.

PRO abortionists - a fetus is not a living entity/person/human, therefore to abort is not murder and so should be legal. BUT are content that a person can be charged with murder for terminating a pregnancy by way of assault or similar. Does this mean only the "unwanted" are not living entities/people/humans?

ANTI abortionist - a fetus is a human life, thus to abort is murder and therefore should be illegal. BUT in cases of rape, then abortion is acceptable. Does this mean that fetuses/human lives resulting from rape are somehow different, not human lives?

Steven, I do wonder why you opened this topic, given that the law has removed from you any legal rights in affecting the outcome of any pregnancy.