Pro choice or pro life?

What stops you from going through with anything? This is a very strange argument -- being able to physically go through with something is no reason to do so.



And what of the physical and emotional impact of and changes brought by a pregnancy? And, as you said, the murky world of care system is another consideration.

That doesn't answer the reason not to go through with the pregnancy though...
Here's the thing, I don't have an issue with it being a choice. I just have an issue with the choice.

What physical/emotional impact? Like post-partum? Why should that start an abortion culture? It's also not very common, and if it is, it's not the common reason people get abortions. People mostly get abortions for the same reason someone gives their child for adoption-no money, no clue, etc. Others are just "scared" to push a kid out.

Yes child care is a mess but that's the government/bureaucracy's problem. They're not doing their job and they're not budgeting properly to make sure that children are taken care of properly under public care.

That doesn't mean kill your kid in the meantime. As the 2nd (I believe) comment on the thread said, there's no excuse for sleeping around.

If it becomes standard across the nation and globe to be able to abort, there needs to be a stricter bureaucratic procedure before and after so that it becomes less of an errand you run at the clinic on your day off.

Post-partum would be an emotional impact, yes. That's one of the potential consequences of a pregnancy -- it's not just a 'what've you got to lose' affair, which is what you seemed to imply in your earlier post.

I'm unsure what you mean by 'abortion culture' -- we don't have abortion on demand in the UK, at least in theory (although one of the conditions under which an abortion is legally permitted is so malleable that it is, in effect, abortion on demand). Even so, the vast majority of people don't use abortion as contraception; to the contrary, they use it when contraceptives have failed, as most of them can. Unless you're advocating abstinence until people are ready to have children, I don't see where this argument leads.



No, it's the problem of every kid that has to go through that system (not in the 'responsibility' sense that you mean it). The counter to this point has already been made on a previous page -- why is it that your concern for the 'kid' (I'd strongly dispute that a zygote or foetus can be compared to a conscious, self-aware child) ends after birth? Knowing that the care system is unlikely to improve, why do you dismiss that point as 'the government's problem?'



As above, this seems to be a simple case of disagreement over personhood -- you evidently don't see any difference between an abortion and killing a self-aware child, but I do. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, I think.



Most civilised countries already regulate abortions. Criminalising it is often a worse way to prevent it and to prevent the mother from coming to harm, than regulating it, in purely quantitative terms.

Also, an abortion really isn't comparable to 'an errand you run at the clinic on your day off.' It's a difficult, emotional choice for most women that takes some time to recover from, and describing it those terms is trivialising a serious matter.

I don't know how to break up the quoting like you did so I'll try to answer as you have quoted:

I said why should it start an abortion culture. As in, there isn't one now.

My issue is, there becoming one when excuses like "the condom broke" are legitimised.

I stand by abortions are done for the same reason adoptions are.

I never trivialised the emotional impact of being a foster kid. I clearly emphasised the responsibility of the government to protect them.

Abortions are definitely done quite casually. It many times is not a difficult nor emotional choice.

Even if it is that doesn't exempt them from social or moral responsibility. It also doesn't invalidate pro life advocacy, though sympathising seeks to.

This might help (see bold text).

But no change to the current situation is proposed, so why would an abortion culture start if there isn't one now?

Is this purely anecdotal or can you back these statements up? And you denied the existence of an abortion culture a few sentences back, and these claims suggest that there is one.

How do you know this is an excuse? Are you suggesting that this is usually a cover for irresponsible, unprotected sex?

In any case, this isn't an excuse for which abortions are permitted in the UK.

Yet only one of them has the potential to adversely affect the mother.

I was referring to your remark about abortions being comparable to an errand run on a day off.

I don't quite understand these points. Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'social and moral responsibility?'

It doesn't invalidate pro-life advocacy, but it does counter the claims of pro-life advocates that abortion should not be permitted because people don't take it seriously enough when, in most cases, people do.

Pro choice because I think that if someone is considering an abortion, it obviously means that they either arent ready or dont want to care for a child. In this case it would be much kinder (for the foetus) to have an abortion because otherwise they could grow up without getting the care and affection that they need. I know that they can be fostered or adopted but these can still cause issues for some children growing up.

Pro choice. Why should someone dictate what a woman does with HER body.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but... Death won't affect the child?

The original arguments for abortion in 1967 suggested that the 24th week was the hard limit for an abortion because children would not be 'Viable' before that - That is, that this child could not possibly survive if it was born in the 23rd week. This was universally agreed because medical technology had not advanced so far.

So, as the arguments for abortion in 1967 had the assumption that 24 weeks was a hard limit, my question would be:

1) Now that children have been born viable prior to this, should the number be changed? and, in relation to this;

2) As science advances, that number will decrease and eventually hit '0', where the child can be kept alive indefinitely - What then?

It's not about their life, it's about the child's life.

Even if a child could survive at fewer weeks, would it have personhood?

When a person ceases to exhibit signs of brain activity, they are no longer a living human. Foetuses also lack this brain activity in that their cortex is not fully developed until 20-24 weeks of gestation, thus making it impossible for brain waves to even be recorded up until this point.

If we consider a person to be brain dead when they lack brain activity, why is it justifiable to force women to go through a pregnancy on the grounds that the foetus is a life, when officially it is not 'brain living'?

This is a very good question and I'll try to answer it. I could be disingenuous and say, "Legally? No, but women weren't granted personhood until the 19th/20th century(Depending on where you lived) either." but you are clearly not asking from a legal standpoint but from a practical standpoint.

I'm very uneasy with this question because the simple answer is: I don't know. What makes a person human? Is it intelligence? If so, some developmentally disabled children could be slaughtered at any point in their lives with no more care than you would have for an animal. Is it having opposable thumbs? Industrial accidents could render any of us inhuman any point in our life.

Is it brain activity? Southampton University's Near Death experience study suggests that may not be a hard limit for experience.

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page

(Specifically, note that during a period of no brain activity there was an example where a patient was able to identify an audible that occurred during brain death).

But just as I don't know - Neither do you. Aside from one person on this thread, we all universally agree that a mother who deliberately throttled their child after it had been delivered but before the umbilical cord had been cut would be guilty of murder. Is the child a child five minutes before that? Five minutes before that? And so on and so forth.

There are developmental stages, certainly, that occur before and even after birth. At what point is a child unworthy of protection?

I would rather err on the side of caution than find out fourty years from now that we were part of the worst holocaust in history.

It is a difficult question and it's essentially the crux of the debate. If we knew then I doubt we'd be having this conversation, and the fact that it's (currently) subjective means it's unlikely that the problem will ever be resolved.

The problem lies in finding something that is universal to all humans and not present in animals. I've head some argue that the wrinkles in the cortex that make it look like a walnut grant personhood, as it is the wrinkles which allow us to develop such an extraordinarily large brain without being ridiculously disproportionate. Of course, this may not be true across all humans.

Some would undoubtedly argue that it's that humans have a soul, but again this is subjective. It is also problematic in that Augustine argued that ensoulment doesn't happen for 40 days for a male and 90 for a female. Although this was hundreds of years ago.



I haven't had chance to read the study yet but it certainly sounds interesting, especially that a 'brain dead' person was able to hear. Perhaps it's in a similar way to how foetuses, when exposed to certain sounds in the womb (such as a dog barking) seem to be accustomed to these sounds after birth? You know, the whole play-classical-music-to-your-baby-so-they're-more-intelligent thing. I'm not sure if that's a myth, though.

Out of interest, if the person was classed as 'brain dead', how did they come back alive? I was under the impression that brain death is absolute. Apologies if that's not the case.

Thank you for the link, though. I'm doing a research-based essay on abortion and that will be helpful.



Yes, I agree that would be murder. Ultimately, abortion is always killing a living thing with potential to be human, but I believe that an already existing human's rights should be prioritised over those of a being with only the potential to become human. While I am essentially pro-life in that I disagree that foetuses should be aborted willy-nilly, I believe it should still be an option as nobody should be forced to go through with a pregnancy that would harm them.

Thank you for responding so politely.