Yup. Hence why I said that, pragmatically speaking, I opt for the subjective route. In the world we actually live in I don't know how you'd implement such a policy.

@Hanover and @Moliere, your discussion is rather curious. I originally interpreted @Moliere as saying that only the person who is pregnant should get to decide what to do about it, which in one sense means that only women should be empowered to decide in favour of late abortions. But this is different from saying that only women should be able to debate it or decide on policy. I think both men and women should be able to decide on policy, with the most welcome outcome being that my own position carries the day and they decide to make it the sole business of an individual woman what to do about a pregnancy, with no limitation.

I find the notion that only women can debate abortion or vote on abortion policy to be absurd, patronizing, divisive, counter-productive, and anti-democratic.

I formerly maintained a strict permit abortions position, week 1 - 40. The woman's control over her body always trumps the fetus, and trumps the father's interest in the child.

No personal events changed my thinking, but they have changed to a view that aborting a fetus during the last few weeks of a pregnancy -- because, for reasons of convenience, the woman has decided that she no longer wishes to bear the child -- is just too ghastly to contemplate. Fetal development is too close to completion.

In fact, very very few abortions do occur so late in the pregnancy, and presumably medical necessity precipitated the late-term abortion and not merely a change in plans. But as an option to which the pregnant woman is entitled--whatever the reason--no.

Why do I hold the view that a woman's choice trumps the fetus and/or the father's interest at week 20? Abortion is still a ghastly procedure at week 20 or 24. What about week 1 -20? What's different?

What is different is that the fetus is too far from completion.

This does represent a limitation on the woman's right to abortion during the third trimester for purely personal reasons. So you broke up with the father? So the father turned out to be a mafioso kingpin? So the father just died? So the father left you for a younger, more beautiful non-pregnant, wealthier woman? So you found a wealthier, more handsome, available guy? Maybe you just lost your job? All that is most unfortunate, but you are now obligated to complete the pregnancy for the next few weeks. The late stage of development now trumps your convenience.

Five or six months seems like a long enough time for one to decide whether one wants to be pregnant or not. If abortion is being used as a tool for family planning, (oops, too soon or too late for another one) then waiting 6 months to decide is inexcusable. If the pregnancy occurred because of inattention to birth control or sex was forced and not an option, again -- it shouldn't take 6 months to decide that one doesn't want too be pregnant.

Holding that late term abortions are not acceptable isn't the same as holding that abortions are murder starting with week 1. I don't think a 3 week old fetus is a meaningless blob, but it is much closer to a meaningless blob than a person. A 38 week old fetus is all but born.

So, let's have full access to family planning and fertility control services, including abortion, across the land.

Men and women must have an equal role in defining fertility policy. Only women can become pregnant but no woman has become pregnant without a man. (Ok, Mary, we knew you'd bring that up, so you're the one exception--duly noted. Now go back to the grave, please.)

Men should have an interest in a prospective abortion IF, and only if, they are engaged in forming the family with the woman.

One might say that hit and run fatherhood is too short and small an investment to deserve a say. But suppose sex occurs with the assumption that no baby will result. Must the father then be compelled to support the child if the woman later decides to continue an unexpected pregnancy?

Can I ask why it should be illegal, and what the exceptions are or should be? — jamalrob

It should be illegal as a preventive measure. Baden put it well when he spoke of the cases "where the major harm - the complete destruction of one human being, the fetus, is balanced against the minor harm - the inconvenience of completing the birth".

The exceptions can be found here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1.

If the answer to the first question has anything to do with the fetus being a human being or person with its independent interests and rights, I don't see how there could be any exceptions. — jamalrob

It is a human, and I believe that it deserves certain rights which should not be violated by the mother or anyone else, and fortunately it has those rights in English law, at least effectively, given that child destruction is a statutory offence.

It's not a contradiction to state that there should be the exceptions to which I've referred. The rights that I mentioned are in accordance with these exceptions and do not extend beyond them.

That is, I don't see how such abortions could ever be justified, unless murder is justified in some cases. — jamalrob

How so? And, as it happens, I don't know whether they'd technically count as murder, but if so, then I do believe that some such cases are justified: that's why I think that laws regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide could benefit from reform.

looking at the second link you'll see that "having relationship problems/don't want to be single" is the fourth most frequent of the most important reasons given. The top three are -- "Not ready for a(nother) child", "Can't afford a baby now", and "Have completed my childbearing"

Any of those reasons, as far as I am concerned, are adequate for the legal right to obtain an abortion -- and I wouldn't look at it as unjust, either. — Moliere

All terrible reasons to have an abortion. They don't have to keep the baby after giving birth. There are these things that you might have heard of called social services and adoption. If the parent or parents are unfit, the state has the power to intervene.

All terrible reasons to have an abortion. They don't have to keep the baby after giving birth. There's this thing that you might have heard of called adoption. — Sapientia

As the thread's about political affiliation, I thought I'd note that these are very weird words coming from an avowed leftist (or liberal). But I'm all for diversity of thought, so carry on.

These are very weird words coming from an avowed leftist. But I'm all for diversity of thought, so carry on. — jamalrob

I don't think it's that weird, but it was only a generalised label in any case. Being a leftist doesn't entail liberalism in all matters or unfettered liberalism. You specifically mentioned libertarianism. I'm more on the side of state intervention on this one, but not to the extreme of those on the right. I still strongly believe that women should have the legal right to abortion within reason (cf. The Abortion Act 1967).

It was more the judgmental attitude in the post, which is very reminiscent of old-fashioned establishment conservatives. You don't seem to have much of an interest in or clue about the situation of women who get late abortions. If you're interested, try the PDF I linked to: http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/pdf/PCF_late_abortion08.pdf

It was more the judgmental attitude in the post, which is very reminiscent of old-fashioned establishment conservatives. You don't seem to have much of an interest in or clue about the situation of women who get late abortions. — jamalrob

There are judgemental attitudes aplenty on both sides of the fence with this one. And, given your reply, you're hardly an exception.

I am not entirely unsympathetic towards all of those who have or desire late-term abortions. But this is a matter of priorities, and of weighing the pros and cons. It's also a matter of concern about setting a worrying precedent. I certainly wouldn't want to rule in any old case, like @Moliere, who thinks that "any reason they deem necessary" ought to be permissible.

I want to lose weight, but I don't wanna wait until this baby's born, so I need an abortion. My body, my decision.

It isn't any old judgmentalism one can see in your comments. It's the judgmentalism of the conservative who worries about the permissive society and the irresponsible behaviour of loose women. Your talk of "setting a worrying precedent" and your "I don't want to put on weight" example are straight out of the conservative script on this issue. But it was just a passing observation and I'm not expecting to win any points by calling you names or recording my superficial impressions.

Well, I am a conservative on this issue, in that I want to conserve the current law against abolishment or radical reform. And I am judging those who are grossly irresponsible and who wish to legally permit such gross irresponsibility. If that sets me aside from the left, then so be it. I think that my position is close to the centre: far-left being for (unrestricted) abortion up until birth, and far-right being against abortion entirely. But, in general, I have much more in common with the left than the right.

It's a bit of a digression at the fault of my own mention, I think. In the world we actually live in, I agree with you -- that is the position I'm advocating. I was mentioning off-handedly how, if there were some way to do so, women should set policy for issues which effect them more on the basis of the principle that I think any issue which only effects a part of the population (or majorly effects a part of the population -- obviously you can always some kind of effect/affect) should be decided by that part of the population rather than by everybody.

A side issue, because I don't know how you would pragmatically implement such a thing -- and so the policy I favor is one where the individual woman decides up until birth.

As a joke in my office we often try to prove how we're more conservative than the other by picking out comments the other one makes that might be interpreted as liberal.

I see such banter occurs in all circles.

All terrible reasons to have an abortion. They don't have to keep the baby after giving birth. There are these things that you might have heard of called social services and adoption. If the parent or parents are unfit, the state has the power to intervene. — Sapientia

Perhaps in your opinion. But I think all of these are reasonable because I don't think a fetus is a human, but will become a human.

If you have a gall bladder removed, is it a moral crime? Even if you just removed it because it is convenient?

A fetus is not human, but is a human fetus. A liver is not human, but is a human liver. I'd say you are using "human" more or less in the same way that the philosophical literature uses "personhood" here:

It is a human, and I believe that it deserves certain rights which should not be violated by the mother or anyone else, and fortunately it has those rights in English law, at least effectively, given that child destruction is a statutory offence. — Sapientia

I have no problem saying a fetus is human in the biological sense. But to say that a fetus deserves certain rights is basically to accord personhood to a fetus, which I think is still in error -- whether that be called "human", "sufficiently advanced", or so forth.

Fair enough. The reason I was so vociferous about it was that such notions are alive and well today. Brendan O'Neill and Tim Stanley were to debate abortion at Oxford in 2014 until it was called off following a student campaign. The students' complaint was that the debaters were men. It didn't matter what their arguments were; all that mattered to the students was the sex of the debaters. It's because I think this kind of thing is stupid and divisive that I made a point of criticizing your digressive comments.

As a joke in my office we often try to prove how we're more conservative than the other by picking out comments the other one makes that might be interpreted as liberal.

I see such banter occurs in all circles. — Hanover

It's a conservative-only office?

Fair.

Though, to be clear, I don't think debate should be restricted -- even in the event that there were some way that women were the official policy makers, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I thought men shouldn't speak on the matter. I believe in free speech.

(Y)

It's a conservative-only office? — jamalrob

Among those I joke around with, yes. I'd also imagine that you might consider our liberals conservative, considering my location and industry.

I don't think it's that weird, but it was only a generalised label in any case. Being a leftist doesn't entail liberalism in all matters or unfettered liberalism. — Sapientia

↪Sapientia It isn't any old judgmentalism one can see in your comments. It's the judgmentalism of the conservative who worries about the permissive society and the irresponsible behaviour of loose women. — jamalrob

↪jamalrob Well, I am a conservative on this issue, in that I want to conserve the current law against abolishment or radical reform. And I am judging those who are grossly irresponsible and who wish to legally permit such gross irresponsibility. — Sapientia

As the great American Transcendentalist Ralph W. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Marching in lock step to the dogmatic drummers on the right or the dogmatic drummers on the left is a real drag. Sapientia is violating no law of physics by holding an opinion that deviates from doctrinaire dogma. And even if he is, tough shit.

It would be contradictory to say that every fertilized egg is a soul, on the one hand, and on the other hand maintain that fetuses can be aborted at 20 weeks without justification. But that isn't what Sapientia was suggesting. What he said was that at some point in the pregnancy (say, 28 weeks, or pick your preferred cut off point) the nature of the decision changes.

A leftist can hold the view that aborting a very late term fetus -- in the 38th and 1/2 week example -- is an appalling act. Yes, women do and ought to have control over their own bodies, but a woman who has accepted a pregnancy long enough for the fetus to survive as a premature baby has waited too long to reject the pregnancy for any but a very grave need.

Yes, people do behave irresponsibly in all sorts of ways that cause real problems for society as a whole. There is nothing in leftish thought that says leftists should just disregard irresponsible behavior as an irrelevancy.

If you have a gall bladder removed, is it a moral crime? Even if you just removed it because it is convenient? — Moliere

Not seeing much moral difference between gall bladders and fetuses are you?

I made a passing observation, that's all, and I have no interest in faithfulness to dogma or an agreement with conventional positions for its own sake. But as it happens I could make an argument as to why my position is fundamental to a Leftist, especially Marxist, view on abortion. But that would be boring.

I find the notion that only women can debate abortion or vote on abortion policy to be absurd, patronizing, divisive, counter-productive, and anti-democratic. — jamalrob

I'm glad we have at least some common ground contra Moliere's "ideal" world.

This does represent a limitation on the woman's right to abortion during the third trimester for purely personal reasons. So you broke up with the father? So the father turned out to be a mafioso kingpin? So the father just died? So the father left you for a younger, more beautiful non-pregnant, wealthier woman? So you found a wealthier, more handsome, available guy? Maybe you just lost your job? All that is most unfortunate, but you are now obligated to complete the pregnancy for the next few weeks. The late stage of development now trumps your convenience.

Five or six months seems like a long enough time for one to decide whether one wants to be pregnant or not. If abortion is being used as a tool for family planning, (oops, too soon or too late for another one) then waiting 6 months to decide is inexcusable. If the pregnancy occurred because of inattention to birth control or sex was forced and not an option, again -- it shouldn't take 6 months to decide that one doesn't want to be pregnant. — Bitter Crank

The voice of reason.

As a joke, in my office we often try to prove how we're more conservative than the other by picking out comments the other one makes that might be interpreted as liberal.

I see such banter occurs in all circles. — Hanover

:D

Not enough of one to invoke the law, at least. Of course there are differences -- but the fetus is not a person with rights, and shouldn't be considered one if I am correct in considering the fetus an organ.

I had a feeling I wouldn't be able to resist replying. :D

Perhaps in your opinion. — Moliere

That's like, your opinion, man.

But I think all of these are reasonable because I don't think a fetus is a human, but will become a human. — Moliere

Yes, because you apply some special meaning to the word "human" in order to arbitrarily exclude unborn babies. What kind of babies are we talking about again? Wolf babies? Tiger babies? No, human babies. We don't suddenly become human as soon as we pop out of a vagina.

If you have a gall bladder removed, is it a moral crime? Even if you just removed it because it is convenient? — Moliere

I'd find your analogy funny if it didn't have such harmful consequences. That kind of takes the fun out of it.

A fetus is not human, but is a human fetus. A liver is not human, but is a human liver. — Moliere

A newborn is not human, but is a human newborn. A toddler is not human, but is a human toddler. A child is not human, but is a human child. An adult is not human, but is a human adult.

I'm guessing that you reject those claims, even though they're of exactly the same logical form as yours. Special pleading? Why do you draw the line at birth? Odd.

I have no problem saying a fetus is human in the biological sense. But to say that a fetus deserves certain rights is basically to accord personhood to a fetus, which I think is still in error -- whether that be called "human", "sufficiently advanced", or so forth. — Moliere

I don't think that you can square that with the claim that newborns do deserve such rights. Your distinction is superficial.

As the great American Transcendentalist Ralph W. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". — Bitter Crank

I hadn't heard that quote before. I like it.

Of course there are differences -- but the fetus is not a person with rights, and shouldn't be considered one if I am correct in considering the fetus an organ. — Moliere

You aren't correct. At 38 weeks, it's definitely an organism. It has it's own organs.

That's like, your opinion, man. — Sapientia

At this point, considering that you haven't been able to defend your position and have pleaded ignorance and a desire to take your time in coming to a decision, I think it apt to point out that you are just talking about your opinion -- your unjustified belief.

Special pleading? Why do you draw the line at birth. Odd. — Sapientia

Probably for similar reasons that you seem to want to draw the line further back -- because you have to draw the line somewhere, and birth is safely before we are dealing with a human in the sense you mean the word, and it is directly after a significant event.

Not by my reasoning. The fetus doesn't have anything at all. There is no separation between the fetus and the mother. So it is strange to treat the fetus as if it is a human just waiting inside the mother.

The fetus is more like an organ than a human. I did say that this is an analogy when I introduced the comparison. They are obviously not identical.