Some would argue that they're not safe for the fœtus.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion Laws
- Thread starter Madsaac
- Start date
Reflective Self awareness develops in babies between 15-18 months of age
Source: “So Big”: The Development of Body Self-awareness in Toddlers - PMC).
Are you comfortable with terminating a 14 month old baby as a non-person with social justification?
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
I would be a stickler and re-state what you said, to, laws should allow women access to TOP that will be provided for by qualified health professionals.
I'm not comfortable terminating any babies.
Good, that means your criteria needs amendment in my view
OK. I'm open to suggestions.
Of your listed criteria the only one I know of that doesn't apply to after birth is the ability to feel pain. Since this applies from 22-24 weeks after conception it would appear to make painting a target criteria around the arrow of birth exceedingly difficult in my view.
My suggested fix is in weighing the right of the mother to bodily autonomy in accordance with the agreement of society if you want to weigh the bodily autonomy more heavily than the right of foetal pain avoidance ok, but in weighing it - do not assign foetal pain avoidance a weight of zero.
Instead assign it some small weight such that there would be a preference to arrange society such that post 22 week abortion becomes unnecessary to the extent possible.
What this would then entail in my view is having mechanisms in place such as childcare subsidy such that a mother need not condemn herself to 18 years off learning and financial development if she makes an informed decision to give birth.
In Australia according to my understanding we have maternity leave so that a woman can give birth then return to work after about 6 months so she would not be 18 years unemployed if she chooses to have a child, so if one could resume work after 6 months surely with appropriate support a woman could return to study after a suitable period (which is probably about 6 months to 1 year). In such a case there is no 18 year ramification.
Additionally access to family planning and associated education should be provided (I think Australia does ok on this front) so that women who don't desire it should not be permanently baby making machines.
I'm not advocating birth as the point of status change. I was fine with the regulations we had previous to the recent Supreme Court overturn of Roe vs Wade.
But unless you dismiss the fœtus' personhood, its bodily autonomy must be taken into account, along with the mothers'.
I'm not advocating the maternal bodily autonomy argument for abortion. It doesn't apply unless the fœtus is assumed to be a non-person. The "right to life" advocates argue that the fœtus is a baby, and aborting it, murder. I see the the status of the fœtus/baby as the crux of the matter, taking precedence over the mother's body.
That would be great -- but the pro-lifers usually block anything that might decrease the need for abortion. They block reproductive education, access to contraception, library books touching on sex, and generally try to sweep the whole subject under the rug.
I believe the US is the only developed country with no federally mandated child leave for new parents. The conservatives here wanted small government and neoliberalism, which holds that investment which doesn't return a reasonably quick profit is a waste of money.
Government as a social service is seen as radical socialism these days.
Madsaac
Active Member
Most (Medical experts) would argue that it is safe.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
I note you draw the line at 22 weeks due to the potential for the fetus to feel pain, which is fair enough.
The argument that a woman could reconsider termination at 22 weeks if the Australian government had a structure for social support is a bit of a long bow.
I think if the government was to take responsibility for the fetus at 22 weeks, then we should be offering women the choice to carry the pregnancy to term and deliver the baby, hopefully to be adopted or cared for.
If we want to allow terminations between 19-23 weeks and take pain into consideration, I wonder if the procedures can be performed under general anaesthesia such that the fetus does not feel pain?
Ok
How so?
In my view that is reasonable to the extent that solid policy exists to provide for the care of the baby in the care of the mother if she wants it or to provide for another carer if she doesn't.
I do not know the answer to your question, but I think if anaesthesia were able to cease all suffering countries which provide the death penalty or which provide Euthanasia services would already anasthesatise the people undergoing them. Perhaps somone with more medical knowledge than me could answer if they do or not.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
I agree your argument would encourage more women to carry a pregnancy, but I don't see how this would be relevant to 22 weeks.
Unless you are saying it is only socially disadvantaged women who seek termination at that point?
There is a difference between light sedation and anaesthesia, and also the difference in the need to keep a person alive versus the opposite.
Executions methods have come into question, especially since it is a display of the law also, and a distinction is drawn between inhumane for criminals, and comfort for euthanasia.
With light research I noted that anaesthesia drugs do cross the placenta, so my question to you is, if it allowed for no pain to be felt by the fetus, would this change your views?
Last edited:
Well I guess it all depends on what social services government can afford. If it could afford to care for all foetuses from the moment of conception then with few exceptions I'd say go for it.
But at a more practical level I'd hazard a guess that government needs to weigh the needs of the pre-22 week foetuses against not only post-22 week foetuses but also against the needs of those people who are already born, and this is where some degree of cost-cutting may be a sad but needful necessity in my view.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
The government doesn't need to care for all conceptions, only the ones that require it.
My argument for 22 weeks is because it is 2 weeks shy of 24 weeks, which is the point when a premature baby can be viable.
I'm confused by what you are saying.
What costs does a fetus require that are currently not being met?
Ok, so long as the government can afford the ones that require it I am supportive.
Ok
None, but it does have potential costs which would eventuate if it were permitted to develop into a born child, so if a government can not afford to cover the costs/resources of those already born *and* those yet to be born it may make a kind of lesser of two evils sense to sacrifice those who only have potential to be born to save those who are already here in my view.
But I must stress that in a scenario where there are enough resources to cover both the born and the unborn I'm supportive of trying to save all with few exceptions.
Also @GoodAttention please kindly note that I am not advised when you edit your posts, so if you edit them kindly put an "ETA" (Edited To Add) and make a following post drawing my attention to them or simply make a new post replying to me instead of adding edits to an old post *if* you wish me to respond to them.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
I usually check, and it seems we missed each other by one minute, but duly noted.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
Some women who fall pregnant will never consider a termination of pregnancy, but they also understand that they are unable to provide for them. In this case the government already takes responsibility for the child as a ward of the state, or ideally become adopted.
A very small percentage of women will access termination services at 22 weeks and there are only a few scenarios I can think of.
(1) Allow for the termination to occur as is at 22 weeks onwards, accepting the fetus can feel pain
(2) Consider avenues in the procedure that will minimize pain, such as general anaesthesia
(3) Encourage the woman to carry the pregnancy for the remainder of the pregnancy, with the government providing some form of support to the woman until delivery
What you are suggesting would be effective only IF all or most women who were accessing termination services at or after 22 weeks were unqualified and/or unemployed, AND they had intentions to become qualified and/or employed before they became pregnant.
Abortion is safe for the fœtus?
The primary criterion is personhood. The fœtus has no self-awareness, cannot anticipate futurity, and thus has no self-interest.
Pain is a concern, of course, but as you mentioned, it's easily eliminated if anticipated.
Last edited: