Uncle Ebenezer

You get strangely more lucid, as the evening wears on, don't you?

moneypenny20

It's the alcohol talking.

Uncle Ebenezer

I guarantee he's as sober as the proverbial judge. I, on the other hand. ...

SultanOfSwing

I have my moments.

Not a drop has passed my lips

fatbrit

Perhaps we should force them to drink hemlock?

fatbrit

The argument that men don't get a say since they don't have a uterus is compelling for many men. Unfortunately, the female population is not of unanimity on the issue, and so I'm still left conflicted.

SultanOfSwing

Most people are conflicted, I'd be prepared to bet. Though I err on the side of pro-choice, I'm not always 100% comfortable with that. Even for those who have had the procedure, it is hardly a decision that is taken lightly, by both parties. I'm speaking the obvious there, of course.

I can understand arguments for it, and I can see the point of view of some of those who are against it but it all comes down to interpretation of when, for you 'meaningful' or 'viable' life begins. For many, that is the point of conception, but really if said theoretical foetus could not exist outside of the womb under any circumstance, can it really be considered as such? This, as I said before, is why I think they came up with the 24 week cut-off. Of course, solid arguments could be made to suggest it should be earlier and this is why I believe this debate will go on ad infinitum.

That being said, I still can't say that we should completely remove any option for a woman to consider having an abortion just because we don't like, or are not comfortable with that idea - or indeed ideologically opposed to that idea either, hence my generally pro-choice stance.

Not sure how clear that is, but it's late ...

TheEmperorIsNaked

I don't get the Australian rags that pass for newspapers, but an enforced log off (power cut), had me wander down the street for a coffee and a squizz at the daily.

You'd think that there would be something there, but I could find nothing. Even if this piece is a few days old-I figured that there would be some outraged letters to the Ed-but nothing.

I shall investigate further..

dollface

I agree. I infact feel that 24 weeks (unless there are medical reasons for it) is a bit late to have a termination. I am pro-choice and for me, in cases, such as rape, medical issues, health, safety etc it gets my 100% support, however, abortion should not be a method of contraception, there are many options available (not all 100% baby proof,I know) termination, need not be one of them.

It is never an easy decision to end a pregnancy, and presumably for most people, alot of thought and councelling has gone in to it. The choice whether or not to allow the pregnancy to advance to full term should never be removed, it would be one hell of a mistake to return to the back street abortion days.

As for that rag the article came from, have you seen the other topics? Putin to have first bash at virgins? as I said before ....Sh1t!

Uncle Ebenezer

Playing devil's advocate here ...

Where do you draw this famous "line"? The child cannot survive outside the womb, having run full term, without the long term constant care of the mother and is not cognisant until around six weeks old. So, when does it become a "person"? Our two cold blooded ethicists tell us it's OK to kill the child until around six weeks after birth.

Leslie

My personal position has always been that life begins at the point of viability outside the womb. If the fetus cannot live outside the womb then, in my mind, it is not "alive" and therefore not what fits into my definition of life.

With advances in modern medicine the viability age is increasingly lower and that does weigh on my thought processes.

These are entirely my own beliefs and opinions.

paranoidandroid

Agreed.

I'm inclined to think that modern medicine can extend the period of fetus survival to a period which is far beyond that of natural survival.
My own feeling on the pro-life vs pro-choice subject, is that a woman should have the option to choose what she does with her own body, without someone else deciding for her.
I'm off topic, though.

SultanOfSwing

I did leave it rather ambiguous, I suppose.

I was going from the position of the survivability of a premature birth. One born at 24 weeks can survive (albeit with constant care). However, such a baby, at six weeks old - had it still been in the uterus would still only be a 30 week pregnancy, long before the 37 weeks at which a foetus is considered full term. It is the greyest of grey areas, hence the often heated debates on the subject.

fatbrit

I see you have those same feelings that you've fudged it a little. So let's turn it on its head and attack the premise that it is wrong to take innocent human life. If we so decline, then it's a simple weighing up of the preferences of the mother against those of the fetus.

SultanOfSwing

That would likely fall into the 'abortion as a method of contraception' category though. Obviously, if a 13 year old girl was raped, allowing her a (likely very early - < 4 weeks) termination to mitigate the psychological damage to her for having to carry the baby to term and then face having to maybe give it up for adoption; or the potential psychological damage (and maybe even potential abuse) to the child who isn't wanted, then it's a bit beyond the preferences of the mother outweighing those of the foetus. Again, such abortions are usually not being carried out at 24 weeks, but much earlier, when it is more an embryo than a foetus.

Now in medical cases - such as an unsurvivable or insurmountable birth defect, the decision to have an abortion of a foetus that would not have any quality of life, or even be 'alive' in any meaningful sense of the word beyond that theoretical six week period that is contained in the linked article, must be one that is allowed to be considered and this is where I have to suspend my own feelings about what I'd want to happen if my baby was concerned and at least support the fact that it should be an option.

Does that make sense ... ?