Is it ever too late?

[Fawkes]

While it's true that (presumably) everyone on here that is not restricted holds pro-choice views (or is at least good enough at masking their anti-choice ones), there isn't really a clear line as to at what point during a pregnancy women should lose their "right" (I hate that word) to an abortion.

I am strongly of the opinion that until we hear a baby crying in the delivery room, a woman should be able to abort her pregnancy. I don't care about development of the fetus's nervous system because:
1. The stage at which the CNS becomes developed is not uniform for all pregnancies
2. What difference does it make? The fetus is still occupying what could, in the most callous of terms, be referred to as a parasitic position until the moment it pops its head out.

whatchyall thank?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"How late in pregnancy abortions should be permitted and carried out is a matter of great controversy among almost everyone – except the women who need them." ~ Marge Berer, editor of the journal Reproductive Health Matters

[TC]

While it's true that (presumably) everyone on here that is not restricted holds pro-choice views (or is at least good enough at masking their anti-choice ones), there isn't really a clear line as to at what point during a pregnancy women should lose their "right" (I hate that word) to an abortion.

I am strongly of the opinion that until we hear a baby crying in the delivery room, a woman should be able to abort her pregnancy. I don't care about development of the fetus's nervous system because:
1. The stage at which the CNS becomes developed is not uniform for all pregnancies
2. What difference does it make? The fetus is still occupying what could, in the most callous of terms, be referred to as a parasitic position until the moment it pops its head out.

whatchyall thank?

Would a five year old child be permitted to take a liver segment from her father against his will in order to prevent her own death? No. Is a five year old child sentient and self-aware? Yes.

We might think it very decent of a father to give a liver segment to his daughter to save her life, but we would not take it at knife point. And if she threatened to take it against his will, and showed the capacity to take it thereby causing him great pain and significant rehabilitation period (though not shortening his lifespan, leaving him with scars) - and there was no way to prevent her from doing so except with lethal force, we would not condemn a man for using deadly force in self defense to prevent grevous bodily harm from occurring. Indeed, in every country in the world a man in such a scenario would be excused from criminal culpability for homicide in such a scenario.

If we would not use coercion to enforce a five year old's claims against her father's body, why would we use coercion to enforce a fetuses claim against its host's body...

[ZeroNowhere]

The only acceptable position on abortion on the forum is support for unrestricted, widespread, and totally free access to abortion at every stage of pregnancy throughout the entire world.

-FAQ.

So it seems that you may not be getting much debate on this here.

[Sasha]

its also an moot point, abortion (or provoked miscarriage) on medical reasons should be without discussion able to the last day, late term abortions on social reasons in countrys where early term abortions are legal are an extreme rarity and basically only happen in extreme cases like long term sexual abuse and isolation.
And in the case of a very late term abortion wish an doctor, in the interest of the patient, in general would advice to carry out the pregnancy and adopt, not because of some fetus rights but because an very late term abortion is still an very intensive procedure.

[TC]

And in the case of a very late term abortion wish an doctor, in the interest of the patient, in general would advice to carry out the pregnancy and adopt, not because of some fetus rights but because an very late term abortion is still an very intensive procedure.

It would be politically convenient if this was true, but its not. Late term abortion is more invasive than early term abortion but less intensive and risky than childbirth. It is always easier to get a fetus out if preserving it is not the aim, for the simple and obvious reason that it can be taken out in smaller pieces or made smaller before being extracted. There are some legal barriers to this such as blanket bans on abortions after 24 weeks in many places (except for health reasons, which in America, still include psychological reasons, which include everything - which is not to say you can convince a doctor given how few practice abortion in America now due to stigma and death threats) such as the intact d&x ban in America. However these aren't medical barriers.

Moreover there is still good reason to abort an unwanted pregnancy even towards the end: it means avoiding childbirth which is among the principle things abortion intends to avoid anyways.

Needless to say though everyone who wants to terminate a pregnancy for reasons other than unexpected health problems (pregnancy itself inherently creates a certain about of expected health problems) and fetal disorders, wants to do it as early as possible...which is why the barriers to obtaining abortions in a timely fashion are so ridiculously hypocritical.

[NGNM85]

The short answer is yes.

The slightly longer answer is; in cases past 26 weeks, where there is no medical necessity, (EX: stillbirth, severe deformity, danger to the mother's life, etc.) that the mother should be induced or given a c-section, and the baby put up for adoption.

[Comrade J]

Needless to say though everyone who wants to terminate a pregnancy for reasons other than unexpected health problems (pregnancy itself inherently creates a certain about of expected health problems) and fetal disorders, wants to do it as early as possible...which is why the barriers to obtaining abortions in a timely fashion are so ridiculously hypocritical.

This is true, and I have often wondered if there are statistics on the number of rejected abortion requests in late-stage pregnancy. Surely it must be a very low number, excluding those experiencing health problems.

[TC]

The short answer is yes.

The slightly longer answer is; in cases past 26 weeks, where there is no medical necessity, (EX: stillbirth, severe deformity, danger to the mother's life, etc.) that the mother should be induced or given a c-section, and the baby put up for adoption.

Why should you be forced against your will to have your stomach sliced open or to be forced to undergo painful labor inducement for the sake of producing a likely disabled premature infant incapable of living without intense medical support? What magically happens at 26 weeks that transforms a pregnant woman from a rights bearing person into a living incubator/baby machine?

[NGNM85]

[FONT=Verdana]

Why should you be forced against your will to have your stomach sliced open or to be forced to undergo painful labor inducement

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]The woman in the hypothetical scenario, in any case, has already signed onto an uncomfortable and invasive medical procedure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]

for the sake of producing a likely disabled premature infant incapable of living without intense medical support?

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]This is inaccurate. At 26 weeks, a baby has about a 90% chance of survival outside the mother’s body.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]

What magically happens at 26 weeks that transforms a pregnant woman from a rights bearing person into a living incubator/baby machine?

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]It’s not the woman that changes, it is the embryo inside her. For a moment, we should go back to the fundamentals; why am I Pro-Choice? What is the qualitative difference between the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life arguments? Ultimately, the biggest problem with the Pro-Life argument is that it ultimately breaks down to religious ideas. The only way one can characterize a blastocyst as a person, or in any way equivalent to a person is to suggest it has a magic essence. As a metaphysical materialist, I completely reject that, because it’s nonsense. However, we have to acknowledge that at some point, the embryo does achieve personhood, (That’s actually the whole point of the gestational process.) and, therefore, carries moral weight, which has to be factored into the equation. The distinction between a healthy ‘fetus’ (Which is, itself, an imprecise term referring to all the stages of gestation from about the 11th week until birth.) at 35 weeks and a ‘baby’ successfully delivered at 40 weeks is, essentially semantic. There is no morally significant difference between a 35 week old ‘fetus’ and a ‘baby’ delivered shortly afterwards. (Or even before.) Attempts to do so transform a woman’s orifices to a magical gateway, bestowing personhood based on physical relationship to them. It creates ethical absurdities where a premature, but healthy ‘baby’, of 30 weeks has moral value, but a 39 week old ‘fetus’ is morally insignificant, and disposable. Also, it’s virtually impossible to make an argument for terminating a baby/fetus at the 35th week that isn’t equally applicable for some period after birth. Some people have actually suggested as much, like Peter Singer, however, I, personally find that position to be bogus on a number of levels.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Also, I didn’t actually say that said hypothetical woman would be forced to carry a child, merely that at such late stages that there be restrictions on how the baby should be removed from her body. The end result is the same.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Third, is this unreasonable? I don’t think it is. I really don’t see a legitimate argument why a perfectly healthy woman, with a perfectly healthy baby, with free access to abortion, should choose to wait six months, until her baby is, essentially, fully developed, before having this procedure. Also, most women (At least, the ones that have had abortions.) seem to agree. [/FONT]

[TC]

[FONT=Verdana]The woman in the hypothetical scenario, in any case, has already signed onto an uncomfortable and invasive medical procedure. [/FONT]

As described, a much less invasive procedure than a c-section or childbirth.

[FONT=Verdana]This is inaccurate. At 26 weeks, a baby has about a 90% chance of survival outside the mother’s body.[/FONT]

As described: with disabilities and with extreme artificial support, and most estimate 80%.


[FONT=Verdana]

It’s not the woman that changes, it is the embryo inside her. For a moment, we should go back to the fundamentals; why am I Pro-Choice?

You're not pro-choice. Being pro-choice means supporting a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, not supporting only those choices that conform to your patriarchal world view.

[/FONT]

What is the qualitative difference between the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life arguments? Ultimately, the biggest problem with the Pro-Life argument is that it ultimately breaks down to religious ideas.

This is a perfect example of why you are a bigoted sexist. The biggest problem with the "pro-life" position is not that some but not all derive from religious ideas, but that they are oppressive to women. Something that is obviously irrelevant to you.

[FONT=Verdana]The only way one can characterize a blastocyst as a person, or in any way equivalent to a person is to suggest it has a magic essence. As a metaphysical materialist, I completely reject that, because it’s nonsense. However, we have to acknowledge that at some point, the embryo does achieve personhood, (That’s actually the whole point of the gestational process.) [/FONT]

Even infants don't have personhood: they don't have linguistic thought, self-awareness, future aspirations, or a sense of their own life's story. This is not to say that infants should not be protected, they should, for the same reason animals should be protected: because they are important to people and while not persons they are sentient (feel pain, sensation, etc), and unlike fetuses they do not pose a threat to anyone. Humans only acquire personhood after the first 9-16 months of life.

There is no morally significant difference between a 35 week old ‘fetus’ and a ‘baby’ delivered shortly afterwards.

Of course there is, unless you think women are irrelevant objects: a 35 week old fetus is unconcious and inside someone elses body, using it (either with her consent or without her consent) - whereas a 35 week preemie is an independent separate organism.

It creates ethical absurdities where a premature, but healthy ‘baby’, of 30 weeks has moral value, but a 39 week old ‘fetus’ is morally insignificant, and disposable.

The issue isn't that its morally insignificant or disposable, but that the woman carrying it is a rights bearing person, with the inherent right to self defense, and no one has the right to use another's body against their will. Moreover there is no obligation to subject oneself to more pain and disfigurement to avoid killing something/someone who is using your body without your consent. This principle of self defense and bodily autonomy applies with regards to grown adults, to children, to people who are insane or sleepwalking and therefore innocent, and likewise to fetuses.

Also, it’s virtually impossible to make an argument for terminating a baby/fetus at the 35th week that isn’t equally applicable for some period after birth.

Have you not been paying any attention? A born baby does not pose any threat to anyone's bodily integrity, autonomy and dignity, and it is precisely the self-defense elimination of this threat that justifies abortion.

[FONT=Verdana] Some people have actually suggested as much, like Peter Singer, however, I, personally find that position to be bogus on a number of levels.[/FONT]

Cause it doesn't allow you to justify controlling women's bodies? Your personal intuition is not an argument.

[FONT=Verdana]Also, I didn’t actually say that said hypothetical woman would be forced to carry a child, merely that at such late stages that there be restrictions on how the baby should be removed from her body. The end result is the same.[/FONT]

No, its not. Both vaginal childbirth and c-section have profound physical and, for those who do not consent to them, psychological affects. Being forced to give birth is as bad or worse than being forced to have sex, it is a profound trauma, and one that typically causes long term damage.

[FONT=Verdana]

Third, is this unreasonable? I don’t think it is.

No of course not you're not being asked to give up your body and your self for other people's aesthetics.

I really don’t see a legitimate argument why a perfectly healthy woman, with a perfectly healthy baby, with free access to abortion, should choose to wait six months, until her baby is, essentially, fully developed, before having this procedure.[/FONT]

There is no argument for why someone should "wait" six months to have an abortion, but no one chooses to wait six months to have abortions. They rather only decide they want an abortion after six months due to changed circumstances - say they lost their job or their partner or had a change of life priorities or need to care for a chronically sick child or parent. Even more commonly, some women just don't know they're pregnant until relatively late into a pregnancy. Believe it or not, there is not a flashing light that comes on to indicate when you conceive. Women who don't have regular cycles or who have breakthrough bleeding despite being pregnant may have no reason to suspect that they're pregnant - especially if they use birth control diligently.

(71% of women who had late term abortions did not realize they were pregnant, 48% had difficulty obtaining abortion earlier: http://www.medadvocates.org/hfrc/HFRCabortion.pdf obviously neither overlapping group chose to "wait", rather they had no choice but to wait, but once they reached a late term they still had a choice to exercise)

I would further point out that there is no such thing as a healthy woman with a non-consensual pregnancy, since a pregnancy is a health problem for someone who does not want to be pregnant. What medical conditions are medical problems depends on who gets to decide what the problem is. (just as infertility is a health problem for someone who wants to be pregnant but is irrelevant to someone who does not).

[NGNM85]

[FONT=Verdana]

As described, a much less invasive procedure than a c-section or childbirth.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]As described: with disabilities and with extreme artificial support, and most estimate 80%.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Like I said, it was a ballpark figure. The determination would have to be made based on a thorough analysis of all the pertinent medical data.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

You're not pro-choice. Being pro-choice means supporting a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, not supporting only those choices that conform to your patriarchal world view.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Many Pro-Lifers’ make a few exceptions. One needn’t be an absolutist in either case. I support abortion in over 90% of cases (Probably over 99.9%), which is sufficient to qualify as ‘Pro-Choice.’ [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

This is a perfect example of why you are a bigoted sexist.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Now you’re just being melodramatic. Sexism connotes a discrimination against a particular gender. That is simply not the case. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

The biggest problem with the "pro-life" position is not that some but not all derive from religious ideas,

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]No, they all derive from religious ideas. The only way to characterize a blastocyst as a human being, or equivalent to a human being, is to invoke religion. There are no secular arguments for this. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

but that they are oppressive to women. Something that is obviously irrelevant to you.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Of course it’s relevant. However, I generally oppose the subjugation of women, in general, as well as racism, homophobia, etc., not for spurious reasons, but because they are indefensible. They can be demonstrated to be bogus. I’m not interested in Anarchism out of some desire to acquire some social status, but because it appears to me to be the only rational and ethical option. Otherwise, I would have no interest.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Even infants don't have personhood: they don't have linguistic thought, self-awareness, future aspirations, or a sense of their own life's story. This is not to say that infants should not be protected, they should, for the same reason animals should be protected: because they are important to people and while not persons they are sentient (feel pain, sensation, etc), and unlike fetuses they do not pose a threat to anyone. Humans only acquire personhood after the first 9-16 months of life.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Ok, now that’s an ethical argument. I meant ‘personhood’ in the sense of being a human being. A blastocyst is not a human being. A baby is absolutely a human being. This simple determination, according to my philosophy, carries moral weight.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Alright, you’re saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to terminate a baby up until 16 months of age. I think that’s an extremely dubious assertion, not in the least being that the 16 months seems arbitrary, but, that’s alright. As I said, at a certain point in gestation, the separation between ‘fetus’ and ‘baby’ is semantics, that you can’t assign moral value to one and not the other. So, while we have diametrically opposed positions, we actually agree on this point.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Of course there is, unless you think women are irrelevant objects: a 35 week old fetus is unconcious and inside someone elses body, using it (either with her consent or without her consent) - whereas a 35 week preemie is an independent separate organism.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Normally, I would say, again, that the problem here is that you’re arbitrarily assigning greater moral weight to one and not the other, however, as previously stated, in your eyes, they’re equally insignificant, in moral/ethical terms, as previously discussed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

The issue isn't that its morally insignificant or disposable, but that the woman carrying it is a rights bearing person, with the inherent right to self defense, and no one has the right to use another's body against their will. Moreover there is no obligation to subject oneself to more pain and disfigurement to avoid killing something/someone who is using your body without your consent. This principle of self defense and bodily autonomy applies with regards to grown adults, to children, to people who are insane or sleepwalking and therefore innocent, and likewise to fetuses.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]The difference here is that we have conflicting views regarding ethics, personhood, morality etc. Based on my ethical calculus, at a certain point in gestation, an embryo becomes a baby, and upon doing so, acquires the moral weight that status confers.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Have you not been paying any attention? A born baby does not pose any threat to anyone's bodily integrity, autonomy and dignity, and it is precisely the self-defense elimination of this threat that justifies abortion.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I think you’re abusing the word ‘threat’, but it’s a minor point. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Cause it doesn't allow you to justify controlling women's bodies? Your personal intuition is not an argument.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]It isn’t an issue of intuition. It’s an ethical/philosophical conflict. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

No, its not. Both vaginal childbirth and c-section have profound physical and, for those who do not consent to them, psychological affects. Being forced to give birth is as bad or worse than being forced to have sex, it is a profound trauma, and one that typically causes long term damage.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]As I understand it, an intact D&X procedure works just as well, either way. From what I read, the mortality rate for Cesareans is .002%, and recovery times are quite short.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

No of course not you're not being asked to give up your body and your self for other people's aesthetics.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]It isn’t about aesthetics; it’s about ethics, and science, and probably several other things.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

There is no argument for why someone should "wait" six months to have an abortion,

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]That’s what I said. That’s exactly what I said.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

but no one chooses to wait six months to have abortions.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]It’s quite rare, admittedly. However, I speaking hypothetically to make a point.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

They rather only decide they want an abortion after six months due to changed circumstances - say they lost their job or their partner or had a change of life priorities or need to care for a chronically sick child or parent.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I think those might be more common reasons, but not necessarily the only reasons.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]No one is suggesting that anyone be forced to raise a child who is unwilling or incapable of doing so.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

Even more commonly, some women just don't know they're pregnant until relatively late into a pregnancy. Believe it or not, there is not a flashing light that comes on to indicate when you conceive. Women who don't have regular cycles or who have breakthrough bleeding despite being pregnant may have no reason to suspect that they're pregnant - especially if they use birth control diligently. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana](71% of women who had late term abortions did not realize they were pregnant,

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I strongly suspect that a lack of comprehensive education is also a factor in a number of these cases, certainly, after six months.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

48% had difficulty obtaining abortion earlier: http://www.medadvocates.org/hfrc/HFRCabortion.pdf

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]That’s a serious issue. As I’ve said, my position is that it should be free (As all medical care should be, as it is a human right.) and readily available.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

obviously neither overlapping group chose to "wait", rather they had no choice but to wait, but once they reached a late term they still had a choice to exercise)

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]It was a hypothetical.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

I would further point out that there is no such thing as a healthy woman with a non-consensual pregnancy, since a pregnancy is a health problem for someone who does not want to be pregnant. What medical conditions are medical problems depends on who gets to decide what the problem is. (just as infertility is a health problem for someone who wants to be pregnant but is irrelevant to someone who does not).

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]When I said ‘healthy’, I meant something like; ‘free from (biological) disease.’ [/FONT]