Welcome to Gaia! ::

So, a topic that's been bugging me recently.

While I think we can agree that the member of this guild, by and large, support the legal right and unhindered access to elective and medically indicated abortion, we may differ on the practical implications of it.

Most of the arguments used to defend the legal right to elective abortion -and especially the Bodily Integrity argument- can be used to justify abortion up to the day of delivery. I have encountered those who would like to see elective abortion legal for the full 9 months of pregnancy, and have seen equally many - or more - who would propagate some cut-off point for elective abortions.

Maybe especially in the light of the link LadyInWhite posted [X], the pro-choice side might need to reassert the morality of their position - or at least form a coherent opinion on how desirable a cut-off point would be.

Personally, I wouldn't propose abortion to be legal up to the date of delivery. I couldn't justify that - but I recognize that's a question of morality, and as we all know, morality can't be used as a basis for legislation.
So I tend to use viability as an argument. After the point of viability, I believe the woman in question has had enough time to find out she's pregnant and take the necessary steps to abort, if desired. Aborting a viable fetus is emotionally too close to the eternal accusation of "baby-killing" to justify, in my opinion.

Cons: this argument does not trump the BI argument, as we are still stuck with the situation of an unwanted entity trespassing on the woman - which would not be allowed for any "born person".
Also, this stance can only be maintained if abortion is accessible enough. If there are legal or physical hurdles to overcome that may delay obtaining an abortion a lot - then it is cruel to work with a cut-off date that may disadvantage certain (vulnerable) groups of women.

So - opinions, additions?
Also, if anyone would have links to essays or more thought-out overviews of this issue, they'd be welcome. I couldn't find much.

BI supports the right of the woman to demand the fetus be removed at any time during her pregnancy; not that it be killed.

Because of this a pregnancy may be ended at any point up until the minute of birth. The question is, how (e.g. lethal force or non-lethal force)?


Lethal force is justified where it is necessary, and other alternatives are so risky as to be considered unreasonable (I mean you could kick your rapist and in turn that is the catalyst that has him kill you; or you could kill him from the start - no person is blamed for choosing the latter option, even though kicking the assailant could have been a non-lethal way to get away).




Post-viability a pregnancy has reached a point where abortion may or may not be considered necessary in favor of induced labor/birth or C-section. However, given the risk of C-section and birth in comparison to an abortion at that point in time there is a strong case that these alternatives, like kicking the rapist, are not reasonable. In Re Carder argued that a woman could not be compelled to have a C-section against her will for the sake of a premature fetus (and it won, even though she had already been forced to have a C-section and died).

However, the argument could definately go both ways.

I'd say 25, 26 weeks plus for significant viability.

Also, I was reading what one doctor in a neo-natal care ward for premature babies was saying: "But Costeloe is infuriated by the efforts of anti-abortion campaigners to use her successes to argue for a lowering of the legal time limit for abortions from 24 to 20 weeks.

'I desperately wish our work was not confused with the abortion debate; doing so is at best misinformed, but at worst is a manipulative and deliberately misleading twisting of a highly emotive issue,' she says. 'The babies whose lives we save are not the same ones aborted in the later stages of pregnancy. The babies we care for are desperately wanted.'"

(Rest of the article here.)

Well, I think it's hard to say where the cut-off point should be, if there should be one.

On one hand I'm not sure I think it should be legal right up until it's born. However, there have beeb cases where women didn't find out they were pregnant until very late in the pregnancy, if not right before giving birth.

Once she starts going into labor abortion shouldn't be allowed, because I believe the fetus becomes a baby once it starts coming out.

Also, yes it's true that a woman in her third trimester usually knows she is pregnant, but what if something were to come up and she decides she really can't have a child due to financial reasons.

Maybe abortion should be allowed up until the month before the due date.

I can't imagine if late term abortions were elective, that many women would just "put it off" until the third trimster. The whole point of abortion is to get rid of unwanted pregnancy, if a woman didn't want to be pregnant she'd get an abortion as soon as possible.

Then again, if a woman did just put off getting an abortion until the 7th month, or simply couldn't change her mind until the last minute, do we want her to have a child?

Good point.

Of course, this immediately brings up the problem of prematurity. While preemies above 26 weeks (here, at least, I can't be sure if that's a worldwide standard) are considered developed enough to try and save - to intentionally burden society with another preemie that very likely will have physical and mental handicaps as a result...? I say burden society, because it seems unlikely that the woman who wanted to get rid of her pregnancy will raise the preemie in question.


I'm not fully versed in the statistical risk of late term abortion vs. birth - but can the difference be so large as to consider it unreasonable?


If I'm correct, that's a slightly different case, though. The fetus would have died as a side-effect of her cancer treatment, not due to active termination.

Balancing Angela Carder's life expectancy as a cancer-ridden patient against that of the fetus (based on the neonatologist's unduly optimistic guesswork), the court ordered the Caesarean.[...]When her doctor explained that she might die as a result of the ordered surgery and that he would not perform the surgery without her consent, she said repeatedly, "I don't want it done." source
This looks like a case of medical malpractice more than anything. It most definitely is an odd case, but I find it hard to draw a direct comparison to a late term abortion/induced birth case.

Of course, law isn't my forte, so I could be wrong.





Yes, I'm aware of such cases and exceptions, which is why I most definitely hesitate in arguing that it should be illegal altogether (barring medical necessity).
I think the best answer would be to prevent women from finding themselves in such situations. Abortion should be free of cost or fully covered by insurance, so that the cost of abortion isn't a factor. Abortion facilities should be near enough and available to anyone. Taking days off work without loss of income should be possible.
I'm aware that what I'm describing is far from reality in the USA - but it does rather accurately describe the situation here. That is the reason I have little problem with the cut-off point as it is in place now, at 24 weeks.


As in any public or political campaign, the image and representation of your side are paramount to success. The image of the pro-choice side may suffer from an overly cold or rational outlook on an emotional issue.
I value rational arguments more than emotional ones, obviously, but sometimes admitting that there's an emotional factor to be reckoned with can only strengthen your position in the end.

The later in pregnancy the termination occurs, the more instinctive, emotionally based support the pro-life argument of "you're killing a baby" will garner among the general public.


neutral
If it would be legal, why wouldn't a doctor perform it?

There's so many individual circumstances that lead to a woman aborting... and it's not my lifestyle or experiences to tell a woman she can't abort just because it's considered late term.

It's to her best interests to be

- educated
- have contraception
- get the abortion earlier on, instead of later on, etc

Doing those is financially cheaper, too, and more healthier.

So especially if a woman aborts in the late term as opposed to early term, there's probably a sense of urgency and need that wasn't discovered before then.