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.