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.