I want to pose a series of questions concerning abortion after the point where the brain is capable of producing emotional and pain responses, or when the fetus can be said to be able to suffer. For the purposes of this thread, let's imagine a hypothetical future where this point in the development can be known exactly. This isn't likely to make any difference to the pro-life side as it views abortion at any point as wrong, with more moderate pro-lifers only making concessions when the health of the mother is jeopardised. As for the pro-choice side, does the stage of development affect your view of the morality of abortion? Would you consider it more wrong to abort beyond this point? Why or why not?
I think if such a time was found, and especially if it occurs around the middle of the pregnancy, it would be a great place to draw a compromise line. I would still want abortion legal after the cut-off in cases of danger to the mother or if debilitating birth defects are found(I maintain that it is inhumane and selfish to bring a damaged child into the world if you have foreknowledge of that damage. That position may not win me friends, but I stand by it). However, I think on an issue like this, where there is no clear-cut right or wrong answer(and no, stomping your feet and throwing out phrases like "It's not a choice, it's a child" does not equal a clear-cut answer, only a clear-cut position) it's good to meet somewhere in the middle. I've always gone with about 20-25 weeks as an estimate for a suitable cut-off. That puts it right about in the middle of the pregnancy, which gives the mother more than enough time to decide if she's going to have an elective abortion. Again, if the mother's health becomes endangered, or if prenatal testing discovers the presence of debilitating birth defects, exceptions could be made.
Of course it does. The further along the pregnancy the more conscience the fetus will be. The later the abortion the more moral issues it raises.
That is true but maybe a more interesting question is the inversion of the original premise. What if it were found there was no "emotional and pain responses" (a phrase I have difficulty with since even BACTERIA have been observed to avoid noxious stimuli) under 20 weeks - would that change some attitudes/beliefs?? And for me it is not about foetal responses - it is about not drawing arbitrary lines in a complex and multivariate situation
If the fetus could feel pain, I may be prepared to reach a compromise and a cut off point. But since the fetus can be put to sleep before the actual abortion, therefore feeling no pain, my views have not, and will not, change.
The lifers would dismiss that proof and claim the fetus would still try and swim away from that nasty suction tube.
Oh yes, definitely. Abortion should be acceptable at any stage in the pregnancy if the baby is seriously defective. I would even support post-natal termination in this case.
Why the sudden change? Wasn't your position before that "human life must be protected"? Why have you reneged on that now?
Defective/genetically inferior human life obviously does not have the same intrinsic worth as healthy human life. We see this all the time in gerontology. Doctors will decide not to perform surgery that would prolong the patient's life if the quality of life would not be very good.
That doesn't make sense. A genetically inferior human life IS STILL a human life. So why do you arbitrarily say its now ok to end a human life when it is genetically inferior? By doing this you are admitting there is nothing special about human life - it is something else. But your argument isn't about quality of life - it was that human life is valuable - so why the change?
