My position is that the pregnant person or parents should make the decision of whether to abort or deliver. It's up to them.

The decision makers need some information, I think, to help them decide. for instance, if labor begins early, it makes a difference whether one rushes to the OB/GYN department to stop labor (and extend the pregnancy to normal length) or just go ahead and deliver. The factors bearing on the decision would be very different at 27 or 37 weeks.

IF parents believe that a fetus who could survive outside the womb is "ensouled" or "impersonated" then they would want to know what the chances of the fetal person making it, or not.

We don't have to decide for them, but it is useful for society to rehearse the practical, medical, and ethical considerations implicit in the decisions it expects individuals to make.

I suspect (don't have proof) that a gynecologist asked to abort a 37 week fetus would probably want a damned good reason for doing so. Even if society could be said to have no stake in the fetus until it is naturally born, it seems like a pregnant woman or parents have a stake in a 37 week old fetus, and way before 37 weeks should have been able to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or not. Maybe circumstances suddenly changes -- a real possibility.

By terminating a fully viable fetus is very close to infanticide. Maybe our society will decide that infanticide is OK (I prefer we not so decide). Most societies officially disapprove of killing babies, even if it happens fairly often (like in India where male babies are strongly preferred).

New medical capabilities will evolve, and therefore the ethical considerations will change too. In an overcrowded world short on resources to solve pressing problems, I am opposed to heroic medical care to enable a 22, 26, or 28 week fetus survive--whatever the severity of prematurity. Cost of survival is also a relevant ethical consideration. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to spend $1,000,000 to enable 1 premature fetus, or 1 senior citizen to survive cancer either. (It's not hard to run up a million dollars in care costs). I would be and am willing to forego elaborate cancer therapy at this point (at 70 years). I don't know how long I will live, of course, but getting to live 10 more years, for instance, is not worth any amount of money. "Whatever it takes" isn't my approach. If I develop a readily treatable cancer with very good survival rates and good quality of life (given age and the staging of the cancer) maybe <$100,000 is worth while -- maybe. If a cancer has, at best, marginal chances of survival and then without good quality of life, it is time to plan for one's death.

Quality of life matters at both ends of life. The children born with the severe brain damage accompanying microcephaly caused by Zika virus are unfortunate victims. Had their condition been detected before birth, it would have made medical, ethical, and practical sense (to me) to abort ASAP--even at 8 1/2 months. Their quality of life will not, can not, be good for those seriously affected. Even a low quality of life will be fairly expensive.

Probably not the best place for an abortion debate. But to be honest, I don't see it is as even debateable when it comes to this case. I mean, if you consider killing a viable eight and a half month old fetus as perfectly moral, you're simply missing a compassion circuit.

:D

I'm more than happy to agree to disagree or wait until a more formal debate, but I am not below trading barbs for barbs either -- keep in mind that if I am correct then your position is no different from the Catholic position, and that my compassion would be well placed whereas yours would be the result of an unexamined squeemishness that then resulted in controlling women for no good reason.

The compassion-sword can cut both ways. ["They are clearly mad for disagreeing with me! A psychopath, clearly"] -- but what I imagine is more appropriate to acknowledge is mere disagreement, rather than something wrong with either your or my character or psychology

If you're going to try a barb, at least get one on target. The Catholic position is no abortion at all even in cases of rape. That's not my position. My position is actually pretty mainstream; somewhere along the lines of Hanover's, I guess. Anyhow, I'm no more interested in your feelings about your character or lack of it than I am about the feelings of people who think it's OK to drop bombs on innocent kids because there might be a terrorist nearby. You don't get to sanction the killing of fetuses that are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from new born babies and then pretend you're just a normal everyday Joe. If that makes you feel bad, tough.

Bah...I should really add supporters of super late-term abortions to pedophiles and creationists on my list of "Not worth debating" on the grounds that it just ends up degrading my view of humanity. Please excuse the public show of anger TPF people, but there's nothing I despise more than the fucking over of the innocent and the vulnerable (whatever end of the political spectrum it comes from).

The truth is that if someone really wanted a gun, they will almost always be able to find a way to get a gun. — discoii

That may not be true. Our economy has made it easy to get a gun if desired, but we could make it considerably harder if needed.

"Think of the children!"

And there was much gnashing of teeth...


The similarity between yours and the Catholic position is more in the above than the exact placement of the line. As far as I'm concerned your placement of the line is the same as defending zygotes -- but Catholics will say that zygotes are persons, and so they will say most of what you say in regards to those who disagree with them.

Couldn't it be the case that we just happen to disagree on the proper placement of the line, rather than a lack of compassion, or a belief that the innocent are not of consequence?

EDIT: I'll also note here that I've already put forward criteria to the question I've asked yourself, @Hanover, and @Sapientia -- only to find no answer from you or Sapientia, and an acknowledgment from Hanover that decisions must be made, and we make our decisions in different places. (Or, at least, no protest there)

So I'd say you're off the mark in lumping me in with creationists or pedophiles. I have provided reasons. I'm still waiting for yours.

For the record this is already legal in some states in the U.S. -- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0 — Moliere

I clicked on your link which supposedly provided a basis for your argument that abortions in some states were legally permissible for 8 1/2 month fetuses. I didn't go through checking out every state listed, but I just choose Colorado. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/colorado-law/colorado-abortion-laws.html . It was as expected, which is that abortion is illegal in such instances except to save the life of the mother. That is, it's a bit of a misstatement to say that some states openly allow abortions well into the 3rd trimester without pointing out this detail.

In fact, if you look at all the laws in all the states, they all adhere to the trimester framework, offering different levels of protection to the fetus depending upon its level of development. They adhere to that framework because it's the system set out by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. You'll note that in the link I cited above, Planned Parenthood only performs abortion up to the 19th week.

A few stats for you: 91% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks), 9% in the second trimester, and .01% in the third trimester. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17/fast-facts-us-abortion-statistics.html . The point being that no one really believes or practices 8 1/2 month abortions, other than probably in some really extreme circumstances, like a true life and death decision has to be made to save one or the other.

As for my take, I don't think states should be making such decisions. I agree with those who say that abortion is a weighty moral decision, but I don't think it should be prevented prior to birth by the power of the law. I think that it is something which a woman should be able to choose in accordance with their own moral compass and life circumstances (it is a moral choice only if it is a choice, after all). — Moliere

And if that is your position, I don't see how you consistently hold that a mother doesn't have the right to kill her child after its birth, as there really isn't anything significantly different between a fetus whose head is crowning at the edge of the cervix and that same baby just a few feet further away, fully outside the birth canal. To call one a citizen entitled to protection and the other the woman's chattel based upon it's physical whereabouts seems arbitrary, considering both are identical down to the cellular level. In fact, the newborn infant is still attached by umbilical cord to its mother for a few moments.

So, I checked out that link that you provided. I see that @Hanover has gone above and beyond refuting your argument on it's own terms, although, as I go on to show, that isn't necessary to refute your statistics-based argument that there's a lack of consensus (presumably regarding the appropriate legal status of aborting an 8 1/2 month old foetus, as that's what's relevant here, because that's where we disagree). Your linked statistics actually indicate that there is a consensus in the U.S. that it should be against the law to abort a foetus after 28 weeks. This is evidenced by the fact that, in accordance with the link that you provided, it is against the law in every state in the U.S. except 9. That's 41 states with an estimated population of 281 million vs. 9 states and D.C. with an estimated population of 28 million.

I did intent to look up the science in order to better explain why an 8 1/2 month old foetus is sufficiently advanced to rightly judge it to be (or that it ought to be) illegal to perform such a late-term abortion under the relevant conditions (cf. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, Offences against the Person Act 1861, et al. Over here, it's a statutory offence named child destruction). However, although it would be interesting, I doubt whether it's necessary. The viability point alone seems like good enough grounds for justification.

I clicked on your link which supposedly provided a basis for your argument that abortions in some states were legally permissible for 8 1/2 month fetuses. I didn't go through checking out every state listed, but I just choose Colorado. http://statelaws.findlaw.com/colorado-law/colorado-abortion-laws.html . It was as expected, which is that abortion is illegal in such instances except to save the life of the mother. That is, it's a bit of a misstatement to say that some states openly allow abortions well into the 3rd trimester without pointing out this detail. — Hanover

*shrugs* I suppose? My point is in showing that 3rd trimester abortions are legal. Up to 8 1/2 weeks. That didn't seem to be understood in this conversation.

Personally, no, I don't care about the qualification -- but others do. And, even with the qualification, that's very different from the absolute that I presumed was being proposed.

In fact, if you look at all the laws in all the states, they all adhere to the trimester framework, offering different levels of protection to the fetus depending upon its level of development. They adhere to that framework because it's the system set out by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. You'll note that in the link I cited above, Planned Parenthood only performs abortion up to the 19th week.

A few stats for you: 91% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks), 9% in the second trimester, and .01% in the third trimester. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17/fast-facts-us-abortion-statistics.html . The point being that no one really believes or practices 8 1/2 month abortions, other than probably in some really extreme circumstances, like a true life and death decision has to be made to save one or the other.

I'm aware of the distribution. You'll note that I'm remaining on the side of the law, and stating that 3rd trimester abortions should be legal. There are cases, extreme ones as you mention, where it's more than justified. That doesn't mean it is not a weighty decision, as I've already said,

And if that is your position, I don't see how you consistently hold that a mother doesn't have the right to kill her child after its birth, as there really isn't anything significantly different between a fetus whose head is crowning at the edge of the cervix and that same baby just a few feet further away, fully outside the birth canal. To call one a citizen entitled to protection and the other the woman's chattel based upon it's physical whereabouts seems arbitrary, considering both are identical down to the cellular level. In fact, the newborn infant is still attached by umbilical cord to its mother for a few moments. — Hanover

I don't think they are identical -- first, I would say that our cellular structure doesn't define who we are. We have both skin grafts, for instance, which are human cells but not human beings. Second, having a separate body is a huge, non-arbitrary difference. In one case you don't even have a body, but in the other you do. Surely you can see how having a body is an important factor in whether or not you count as a citizen?

The brain isn't even fully formed at the time of birth. It is still in development. The cerebral cortex cells don't even differentiate until ~20-22 weeks, and it takes time for them to set into place. And without proper care which occurs outside of the womb, just as there was proper care inside the womb, their will be no growth into a human being.

Lastly, I would say that we already agree that there is no point where the before and after has very large differences. A citizen is a conglomerate of attributes -- there's no magic formula which designates this from that. So I'd hold that your arbitrarity clause holds similarly for times prior to birth -- that if you hold 24 weeks to be acceptable, you should also hold 25 weeks to be acceptable, etc. insofar that the point is an arbitrary point and there is no significant difference between two very close points in time.

Birth is the moment when the body is separated, though. That is more significant than any point you'll find within the uterus, even if the second before and after the umbilical separation is not very different.

So, I checked out that link that you provided. I see that Hanover has gone above and beyond refuting your argument on it's own terms, although, as I go on to show, that isn't necessary to refute your statistics-based argument that there's a lack of consensus (presumably regarding the appropriate legal status of aborting an 8 1/2 month old foetus, as that's what's relevant here, because that's where we disagree). Your linked statistics actually indicate that there is a consensus in the U.S. that it should be against the law to abort a foetus after 28 weeks. This is evidenced by the fact that, in accordance with the link that you provided, it is against the law in every state in the U.S. except 9. That's 41 states with an estimated population of 281 million vs. 9 states and D.C. with an estimated population of 28 million. — Sapientia

I disagree that 8.5 months is the only important point to garner there. My point is to show that the line is drawn at various stages of development. You'll find behind each line-drawing some kind of justification -- heart beating, brain development, "feeling pain", or birth.

Stuff like that.

And, no, there is no consensus. People feel quite differently about the issue, in fact. And how you justify that feeling is what's more important, I'd say. You can't just go about assuming that science has spelled out when humans are human and that happens to coincide with the moment when you feel comfortable while simultaneously claiming to have engaged the topic and have an examined viewpoint.

Where do you draw the line, and what makes that line significant? This is what I'm asking. I've provided my point in time, and my justification. Where is yours?

I did intent to look up the science in order to better explain why an 8 1/2 month old foetus is sufficiently advanced to rightly judge it to be (or that it ought to be) illegal to perform such a late-term abortion under the relevant conditions (cf. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, Offences against the Person Act 1861, et al. Over here, it's a statutory offence named child destruction). However, although it would be interesting, I doubt whether it's necessary. The viability point alone seems like good enough grounds for justification.

I have addressed viability in this thread. Viability changes with both technology and location. In fact, imagine a time in the future where we could just collect sperm and eggs from people and grow humans in a test-tube. Would that, because these are viable, require us to grant the rights of citizenship and the protection of the state to sperm, eggs, zygotes?

Further, I think viability is a cruel standard. There are times when, even if it is not viable, it is good to try and save someone. It's not like as soon as we dip below the 49% chance of survival that we should give up, or even feel like it is permissible to give up on the life of a fellow human. That would be a moral failure. We should strive to preserve human life, even if the chances are against us. As such, even if a fetus were not viable -- say, a 20% chance of surviving -- yet, were human, we should strive to keep said person alive in spite of the low chances of survival simply because they are human. In all cases. This is what we do with humans in the hospital, unless they have a DNR. If the fetus is a human at some point, then shouldn't we do the same in this case?

I disagree that 8.5 months is the only important point to garner there. My point is to show that the line is drawn at various stages of development. You'll find behind each line-drawing some kind of justification -- heart beating, brain development, "feeling pain", or birth.

Stuff like that.

And, no, there is no consensus. People feel quite differently about the issue, in fact. — Moliere

I never disputed that the line is drawn at various stages of development, nor that the justifications differ. That does not entail that there is no consensus. So, in the context of our disagreement, your point is irrelevant. There is evidently consensus in the most relevant sense in the context of our disagreement, which is about the legal status of abortion at approximately 37 weeks. Your own statistics show that it's illegal in 41 out of 50 states (that's 82%) beyond 28 weeks, let alone 37 weeks! Yet you deny that that in any way reflects a consensus?

And how you justify that feeling is what's more important, I'd say. You can't just go about assuming that science has spelled out when humans are human and that happens to coincide with the moment when you feel comfortable while simultaneously claiming to have engaged the topic and have an examined viewpoint. — Moliere

You were the one that provided the numbers in an attempt to show that there is no consensus. That failed, so now you've changed tack, and are saying that it's the content and "feeling" behind the numbers that is more important. Well, I don't agree in the context of our initial and primary disagreement, which is over whether or not abortion should be legal right up until birth. The policy representing at least 82% of the U.S. is that abortion is illegal subsequent to 28 weeks. You can't simply sweep that under the rug - especially given that you were the one to have presented these statistics in an attempt to support your own position.

It's entirely up to me whether or not I decide to elaborate on my claims about the science, and I have chosen not to for the time being, in part because, as I said, I doubt whether it's necessary to get into all of that. Perhaps you're not as cautious as I am about pursuing what might be a lengthy digression - albeit quite an interesting one - but that decision is not for you to make.

One thing I have not claimed is that "science has spelled out when humans are human", yet you've nonetheless suggested that that is what I've assumed. How about you stick to what I've actually claimed? I did speak of advanced life, and I did so intentionally with the hope of avoiding this superficial issue of "personhood" or "humanness". I'd rather just avoid such terms if it's going to be problematic. It's a living thing, yes? A foetus of the species homo sapien, aged approximately 37 weeks, and relatively advanced? One thing that science can tell us is whether or not a typical 37 week old foetus is viable, and to what degree.

I have addressed viability in this thread. Viability changes with both technology and location. In fact, imagine a time in the future where we could just collect sperm and eggs from people and grow humans in a test-tube. Would that, because these are viable, require us to grant the rights of citizenship and the protection of the state to sperm, eggs, zygotes? — Moliere

From a pragmatic standpoint, that doesn't really matter. What matters is how we can best solve the current situation, and we only have access to what we currently know. We can't look into a crystal ball. What would be the point of discussing such a hypothetical future scenario? We're talking about what the law should be, and I don't think that philosophical speculation of the sort that you seem to want to engage in will help matters.

The statistics you cited were about the U.S., and, as far as I'm aware, in the U.S., technology isn't an obstacle for the illegal status of such late-term abortions based on viability. If it becomes problematic along the lines that you suggest, then the legislation could be amended.

Further, I think viability is a cruel standard. There are times when, even if it is not viable, it is good to try and save someone. It's not like as soon as we dip below the 49% chance of survival that we should give up, or even feel like it is permissible to give up on the life of a fellow human. That would be a moral failure. We should strive to preserve human life, even if the chances are against us. As such, even if a fetus were not viable -- say, a 20% chance of surviving -- yet, were human, we should strive to keep said person alive in spite of the low chances of survival simply because they are human. In all cases. This is what we do with humans in the hospital, unless they have a DNR. If the fetus is a human at some point, then shouldn't we do the same in this case? — Moliere

It is a practical standard, I think. We might have to settle for that in the absence of a better alternative. But if you think you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears. Your proposal would only make things worse, and considerably so. And if you genuinely feel that way, then why on earth are you advocating that abortion should be legal up until birth? That's a performative contradiction if I ever saw one.

I don't think they are identical -- first, I would say that our cellular structure doesn't define who we are. — Moliere

Being "embodied" - having a unique cellular structure - doesn't define us? No one else has your cellular structure -- (which incorporates your history of experiences), so what else would define you?

Second, having a separate body is a huge, non-arbitrary difference. — Moliere

What, if not a body, is a fetus? By 24 weeks it looks pretty much like a baby body.

Lastly, I would say that we already agree that there is no point where the before and after has very large differences. A citizen is a conglomerate of attributes -- there's no magic formula which designates this from that. — Moliere

So, how far can we extend this ambiguity indefinitely? "Hey kid, you're 24 years old, you've got a degree: get a job or it's off to the abortion clinic with you."

Further, I think viability is a cruel standard. There are times when, even if it is not viable, it is good to try and save someone. — Moliere

If a newborn--premature or not--is on the table, or if the person was just fished out of the river, or has a gunshot wound, "viability" just means they have a biological future. If the drowning victim has been in the water too long, life for them is no longer viable. One can try resuscitation all day, but once life has departed, is not viable, it's not coming back. If the lost blood can be replaced quickly, the gun shot victim's life may be quite viable. A premature baby (lets say 28 weeks) is probably viable with very good care. If such care isn't available, then viability does not exist.

*shrugs* I suppose? My point is in showing that 3rd trimester abortions are legal. Up to 8 1/2 weeks. That didn't seem to be understood in this conversation.

Personally, no, I don't care about the qualification -- but others do. And, even with the qualification, that's very different from the absolute that I presumed was being proposed. — Moliere

Hanover is a lawyer of some sort, if I recall correctly. So I'm guessing he has a pretty good understanding of the law. And as for my part, I was already aware that the law accounts for such instances in which it's deemed necessary in order to save the life of the mother. Isn't that common knowledge? It's reflected in medical dramas all the time. Additionally, I actually referred to the legal Act which was amended precisely for that reason, although that was later on in the discussion.

I never disputed that the line is drawn at various stages of development, nor that the justifications differ. That does not entail that there is no consensus. So, in the context of our disagreement, your point is irrelevant. There is evidently consensus in the most relevant sense in the context of our disagreement, which is about the legal status of abortion at approximately 37 weeks. Your own statistics show that it's illegal in 41 out of 50 states (that's 82%) beyond 28 weeks, let alone 37 weeks! Yet you deny that that in any way reflects a consensus? — Sapientia

Yes, I do.

Suppose you have some topic, and within that topic there are 8 opinions with an even distribution. You might then say that 1 such opinion is certainly outnumbered by all the other opinions. And therefore has a consensus against it.

But the devil is in the details, so I would say.

You were the one that provided the numbers in an attempt to show that there is no consensus. That failed, so now you've changed tack, and are saying that it's the content and "feeling" behind the numbers that is more important. Well, I don't agree in the context of our initial and primary disagreement, which is over whether or not abortion should be legal right up until birth. The policy representing at least 82% of the U.S. is that abortion is illegal subsequent to 28 weeks. You can't simply sweep that under the rug - especially given that you were the one to have presented these statistics in an attempt to support your own position. — Sapientia

The position that there is no consensus, yes. And I'd still stick to that, as per the above argument.

One thing I have not claimed is that "science has spelled out when humans are human", yet you've nonetheless suggested that that is what I've assumed. How about you stick to what I've actually claimed? I did speak of advanced life, and I did so intentionally with the hope of avoiding this superficial issue of "personhood" or "humanness". I'd rather just avoid such terms if it's going to be problematic. It's a living thing, yes? A foetus of the species homo sapien, aged approximately 37 weeks, and relatively advanced? One thing that science can tell us is whether or not a typical 37 week old foetus is viable, and to what degree. — Sapientia

Sorry, this is what Baden was alluding to -- that the science backed him up, and that my position was therefore on par with creationism.

A fetus is living, without a doubt. Metabolism and all. And it is a fetus of the species homo sapien. But what is "relatively advanced"? That's where I'd say disagreement lies.

From a pragmatic standpoint, that doesn't really matter. What matters is how we can best solve the current situation, and we only have access to what we currently know. We can't look into a crystal ball. What would be the point of discussing such a hypothetical future scenario? We're talking about what the law should be, and I don't think that philosophical speculation of the sort that you seem to want to engage in will help matters. — Sapientia

From a pragmatic standpoint it certainly does, because "viability" has already changed drastically within the past century.

The point of the future scenario is to demonstrate how the principle of viability can fall into error. The reason why, so I would say, is that we should try and save humans even if they are not viable. This is the right thing to do.

Take some of the more extreme cases of cancer, for instance, if you want an example that's in the here and now.

It is a practical standard, I think. We might have to settle for that in the absence of a better alternative. But if you think you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears. Your proposal would only make things worse, and considerably so. — Sapientia

Considering how many third-term abortions there are, I rather doubt that. It's not a very common occurance. It's not something entered into lightly, either, at least if the Guttmacher Institute is to be believed.

And if you genuinely feel that way, then why on earth are you advocating that abortion should be legal up until birth? That's a performative contradiction if I ever saw one.

Because I don't believe that third term fetus' should be treated the same as the rest of us who have grown and developed, have a separate body, a history, relationships, and experiences which have formed who we are (so that we even are a who). So to stop an abortion there is, as far as I'm concerned, the same as stopping an abortion in the first trimester -- neither of which should be entered into lightly (it is a moral deliberation), but neither of which should be prevented by the power of law.

Ok, fair. My bad, then. And, no, it's not common knowledge.

Being "embodied" - having a unique cellular structure - doesn't define us? No one else has your cellular structure -- (which incorporates your history of experiences), so what else would define you? — Bitter Crank

The incorporation of a particular history, of experiences, a physical and social environment are all important aspects of who we are -- but also being physically separate, so I would say.

What, if not a body, is a fetus? By 24 weeks it looks pretty much like a baby body. — Bitter Crank

A fetus is a fetus. It has the potential to be a body, as you note below, but I wouldn't call it a body in the sense of a body someone owns.

A clump of cells, the same as the first trimester, seems more accurate to me.

So, how far can we extend this ambiguity indefinitely? "Hey kid, you're 24 years old, you've got a degree: get a job or it's off to the abortion clinic with you." — Bitter Crank

I think that's the dilemma anyone faces -- this was the point I was trying to bring up in @Hanover's rebuttal of 3rd trimester abortions. The rebuttal works against any arbitrarily chosen line, because the time before and after doesn't have much difference.

I choose birth because you at least have a separate body at that point. Makes sense that you should be treated as a separate being once you have a separate body.

If a newborn--premature or not--is on the table, or if the person was just fished out of the river, or has a gunshot wound, "viability" just means they have a biological future. If the drowning victim has been in the water too long, life for them is no longer viable. One can try resuscitation all day, but once life has departed, is not viable, it's not coming back. If the lost blood can be replaced quickly, the gun shot victim's life may be quite viable. A premature baby (lets say 28 weeks) is probably viable with very good care. If such care isn't available, then viability does not exist. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I agree.

It is. Common folk aren't dumb enough to expect surgeons to be charged with a crime under such circumstances. Give 'em some credit.

It's not whether common people are dumb or not, but whether or not they have the information. I mean, seriously -- who could expect someone to know the 50 various differences in the law? I wouldn't know that. I'd have to look it up. (And I am about as common as they come -- when I speak of common people, I include myself. It's not me and them, but us. And, yes, at times we are dumb and uninformed)

EDIT: Take California's statue, for instance -- this pretty clearly states that it's a decision between the doctor and the patient. Would you agree?

My point was that they are already aware, otherwise they'd expect surgeons to be charged with a crime under such circumstances. Yet oddly enough, that expectation is uncommon. (Young children and idiots are an exception to the rule). Perhaps they've watched enough television to have gotten used to the idea that medical personnel are given some leeway in the eyes of the law.

And no one said anything about awareness of the 50 various differences in the law. You don't need to be a lawyer to know what I was talking about, for Christ's sake. If you haven't been living under a rock, chances are you'll at least have a layman's understanding of the exceptional circumstances-in-question.

Cool. Sounds good.

So, what's your take on California's law then?

EDIT: To remain clear, so it doesn't seem like a bait or anything -- I read it, and yes it does say viability at the end. In good faith, no less. But there's something very different in this particular law -- one, "life of the mother" isn't an issue. And, two, "viability" is done on good faith.

EDIT: Take California's statue, for instance -- this pretty clearly states that it's a decision between the doctor and the patient. Would you agree? — Moliere

No, not in the case of a viable foetus. It clearly states that this is soley about the judgement of the physician in regard to the viability of the foetus and the patients health.

So, what's your take on California's law then?

EDIT: To remain clear, so it doesn't seem like a bait or anything -- I read it, and yes it does say viability at the end. In good faith, no less. But there's something very different in this particular law -- one, "life of the mother" isn't an issue. And, two, "viability" is done on good faith. — Moliere

What? The life of the mother is an issue:

(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician,
continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the
pregnant woman.

And I would expect the "good faith" part either explicitly or implicitly. I don't know English law well enough to know off the top of my head whether our law has a specific part like that. I'd have to look it up.

Edit: Unsurprisingly, it does: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1. And from just a cursory glance, it seems to be more stringent, which is all the better, given that, for example, it requires not one but two registered medical practitioners.

(b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the
following are established:
(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus
was viable.
(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician,
continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the
pregnant woman.

So, even if the fetus is viable, if it poses a threat to the mother you're good -- and even if the continuation of the pregnancy does not pose a threat to the mother's life, if the fetus is not viable (as defined above in the definitions --

"Viability" means the point in a pregnancy when, in the good
faith medical judgment of a physician, on the particular facts of the
case before that physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the
fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application
of extraordinary medical measures.

),


then the abortion is not illegal.


"Good faith", from my familiarity, just means "on your word" -- so if someone sets up an operation to sting a particular doctor, say, and records the doctor stating "I know that this fetus could live, but we're going to do it anyways!" you'd have a strong case against that particular doctor. But otherwise? You have a hard time proving it, at least. I am only familiar with this term from contract negotiations, though, where management basically just has to show up to the meetings to be counted in good faith.. Maybe it's different, here.

So, even if the fetus is viable, if it poses a threat to the mother you're good[?] — Moliere

There should be legislation in place so that there's legal recourse for abortion under such circumstances, yes. But it's no simple matter.

And even if the continuation of the pregnancy does not pose a threat to the mother's life, if the fetus is not viable, then the abortion is not illegal? — Moliere

That's how it should be unless and until a better basis for judgement than viability is found.

"Good faith", from my familiarity, just means "on your word" -- so if someone sets up an operation to sting a particular doctor, say, and records the doctor stating "I know that this fetus could live, but we're going to do it anyways!" you'd have a strong case against that particular doctor. But otherwise? You have a hard time proving it, at least. I am only familiar with this term from contract negotiations, though, where management basically just has to show up to the meetings to be counted in good faith. Maybe it's different, here. — Moliere

I don't know enough to say how effective such legislation is or whether anything more can be done to ensure that it's followed, but at least it's there. Requiring two registered medical practitioners, rather than one, is a step in the right direction, it seems.

That's how it should be unless and until a better basis for judgement than viability is found. — Sapientia

Birth works as far as I'm concerned. ;)

But, I'm not alone in the world, nor the dictator.

It seems, then, that you are pinning "sufficiently advanced" on "viability"?

It seems, then, that you are pinning "sufficiently advanced" on "viability"? — Moliere

Viability is related, and can act as a sort of guide, although how reliable a guide it is or can be is debatable. But I think that it's better than nothing, and better than your proposed alternative - which seem to amount to the same thing, anyway: do nothing.

I'm not willing to commit to it being the sole or even primary determining factor for being sufficiently advanced, though. I need to do more research and give it more thought. But, as interesting as this topic is, I'm not in any rush, to be honest.

Take your time. No need to rush anything.

And, yes, I don't have something that we should do together now. I just know what I believe, and why I believe it.

In the ideal of all ideals, I'd prefer the question of abortion's legality to be settled by women only. But, I'm not sure how you'd implement that.

Suppose you have some topic, and within that topic there are 8 opinions with an even distribution. You might then say that 1 such opinion is certainly outnumbered by all the other opinions. And therefore has a consensus against it.

But the devil is in the details, so I would say. — Moliere

If 7 out of the 8 shared the same conclusion, and the other one opposed it, then, in that respect, there would be a consensus against the other one. That's analogous to the case that we've been discussing, so there is a consensus, whether you acknowledge it or not.

That doesn't mean that the bigger picture, involving full reasoning - premises included - is completely unimportant. But it wasn't necessary to make my point. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority arrived at the right conclusion, namely that it should be illegal to have an abortion after 28 weeks (except those exceptions) - even if the various reasons behind that conclusion aren't all reasons that I'd agree with.

A fetus is living, without a doubt. Metabolism and all. And it is a fetus of the species homo sapien. But what is "relatively advanced"? That's where I'd say disagreement lies. — Moliere

Well, if you think about a 37-week-old foetus in comparison to a zygote shortly after fertilisation, then it should be clear that it has developed over time relative to that initial stage. I would say that it has developed quite significantly, and in significant ways.

I know that in order to back up those claims, I'll have to elaborate, and provide evidence, but I'm reluctant to do so, because I want to get it right; and, like I said, I need to do some more work.

From a pragmatic standpoint it certainly does, because "viability" has already changed drastically within the past century.

The point of the future scenario is to demonstrate how the principle of viability can fall into error. — Moliere

Ok, but again, and still from a pragmatic standpoint, if it's the best that we've got, then we should go with it, despite it's fallible nature. We should, however, look to improve our method.

The reason why, so I would say, is that we should try and save humans even if they are not viable. This is the right thing to do. — Moliere

We should act within reason, or at least use reason as a guide, in these sorts of situations; and there are situations in which it would be unreasonable to try to save the unviable. Bear in mind that we are talking about setting a guideline. Disregarding the guidelines can in some cases lead to good results. For example, it can save lives in certain situations. But it can also result in more death or greater injury. The guidelines are there for a good reason.

I don't agree with your discrimination against those you don't class as human: those unborn members of the human species. The sufficiently advanced ones, at least. (I know, I know. There's that term again which needs to be clarified. But it serves it's purpose).

Considering how many third-term abortions there are, I rather doubt that. It's not a very common occurance. It's not something entered into lightly, either, at least if the Guttmacher Institute is to be believed. — Moliere

Ideally, there shouldn't be any, though - none that don't satisfy the conditions for exception in the relevant legislation. So, pragmatically, we should take advantage of the political tools at our disposal to try to prevent such cases from occurring. We certainly shouldn't scrap the current legal framework in place in England, California, and other such places, so that we end up going backwards.

Because I don't believe that third term fetus' should be treated the same as the rest of us who have grown and developed, have a separate body, a history, relationships, and experiences which have formed who we are (so that we even are a who). — Moliere

They've certainly grown and developed, have a history, and perhaps have - and have had - experiences too, but I think that you factor in things which make little sense or aren't as important as you think they are. I don't think that lacking: relationships of the sort that we have; a completely separate body; and an identity that is as fully formed as ours, means that we should therefore be legally entitled to have them killed without very good reason (as per the relevant laws that we've discussed).

In the ideal of all ideals, I'd prefer the question of abortion's legality to be settled by women only. But, I'm not sure how you'd implement that. — Moliere

That's another statement that I find particularly disagreeable on sexist grounds. Our ideals are clearly opposed in certain respects. The thought that all of my views on this important topic, of which I'm passionate, and with which I have made an effort to be reasonable and conscientious, which effect the whole of society - not just women - would be discounted solely on the basis of my gender... that is a thought that I find highly objectionable.

Decriminalize and then tax most drugs — Thorongil

By "most", what are you thinking here? Just the drugs that don't do too much harm? How are your views on guns (ban private ownership) compatible with your views on drugs (some violent acts have indeed been caused by drugs, alcohol, and the like). It seems as though if you are going to allow drugs then you have to allow guns as well. Both are supererogatory parts of life (well, actually some people depend on guns to survive).