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!