Amen-Moses

What infant? It isn't an infant until it is born.

The reasoning behind the 3rd trimester rule is that such abortions are extremely dangerous and unless continuing on to the birth represents a threat to the mothers life it is preferable to continue the pregnancy until such point that delivery can be stimulated.

She can still have the baby adopted if she wishes to.

Amen-Moses

Bad Kitty

Cheetah -- I think we were posting at the same time. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I do think that it is a bad idea to bring the concept of blame into the question, as in:

I could easily have provided a scenario where the woman was completely "blameless" - and there could still be a reason to wish to abort at a late date. Whether or not she should be allowed to abort or not should not be dependent, in my mind, on whether she made some "bad" choices in the past. I think I'm rambling now, I'm just sorting out concepts and thoughts.... so I'll stop now.

Thanks for yor ideas,

Michelle

cheetah

Of course, and I still don't think public policy should be made based on these rare cases. I am still behind current public policy as generally reasonable and I am still behind the idea that women should have the choice about what is inside their bodies as much as possible.

Bad Kitty

I'm sorry, I misspoke, I should have said "fetus".

In regards to the third trimester rule -- you are saying the rule has to do solely with the safety and continued health of the mother? That the viability of the fetus has no bearing on that being the cut-off point?

That is not my understanding.

The ruling in Roe spoke directly to the viability of the fetus, saying something to the effect of when a fetus is capable of meaningful life outside the mother's womb that the state's interest in the potentiality of human life becomes compelling. It is at that point that the state may regulate and/or proscribe abortion (except where the mother's health and life were threatened).

I was looking for some links on the exact wording and came across this on the pro-choice NOW site:

In all the data I'm finding, it seems "viability" of the fetus did and does play a role in the "reasoning" of the trimester system. I'd be interested in seeing data that says this cutoff point was devised for the woman's health (due to the dangerousness of abortions past this point).

Thanks,

Michelle

Bad Kitty

Me neither, that isn't where I was going. I was using the scenario to point out that no matter how compelling the idea is that a woman should always have complete control over their own bodies and no matter how empathetic one might be with a woman in a situation such as I described, we as a society have decided that the woman's rights are not primary when a fetus becomes "viable". That the fetus' right to life outweighs the woman's right to exclusive control her own body.

Of course, this could all change if society changes its mind.

Anyways, the reason this captures my attention is this: with advancing medical technology, what happens when a fetus becomes viable even earlier than the third trimester? Will rights then be applied to ever younger fetuses as technology advances? Should it?

Michelle

Edited because I type for shit.

scigirl

Just wondering if the fact that there are already a lot of children awaiting adoption would factor into anyone's moral code regarding abortion.

scigirl

Alonzo Fyfe

The impermissibility of late-term abortions actually needs to have little to do with viability and other arbitrary measures.

Rather, it can be built on the idea of implied consent. A woman who does not have an abortion when she discovers she is pregnant thereby gives consent to the fetus to the use of her body.

It is a standard concept applied elsewhere in law where, for example, refusal to protect a copyright on a name could mean the loss of the name -- or refusal to stop a neighbor from using a piece of property generates a 'reasonable expectation' that he can continue to use the property and, thus, counts as giving the neighbor consent.

The woman has a right to deny consent to the use of her body, but does not have a right to have the fetus killed.

Yet, on the other side of the consent argument, the issue of consent gives the woman the right to have the fetus extracted from her body, but not a right to have the fetus killed. If it is possible to end the use of the fetus' body without ending the fetus' life, then the consent argument does not provide any argument in favor of the "end the life" option.

As technology develops, at some point, we will be able to provide artificial wombs to those fetuses extracted from the mother. And, in fact, we will some day reach the point where the more controlled environment in an artificial womb is safer than development in a natural womb. At this point, it may be even considered unethical (a form of child endangerment) to subject a child to the risks of natural development.

But these options do not exist today. Nor do they have any relevance to what we may permissibly do today.

If I could fly, I might have an obligation to save a child from a burning building. But this does not imply that I have such an obligation in the real world where I cannot fly -- and can only enter the building at extreme risk to myself.

cheetah

I should hope not. It would be horrible that a woman should be forced to know she has a child in the world, or take care of that child, because of an accident (again as most abortions are) and not have a chance even for a couple of months to choose to get rid of it. My earnest hope is that sex education becomes more accepted, common and thorough (as I've said before, a reason why I don't believe ardent pro-lifers are saving babies: because they don't put their resources toward preventing unplanned pregnancy and therefore abortion in the first place!) and we can reduce the need for abortion, the horrible instance of people finding out that they are pregnancy accidentally and do not want it.

If the above happened, people would essentially be required to have sex only for procreative purposes, since recreational sex could result in a baby. Actually, I'd predict you'd get a lot more back-alley abortions and self-inflicted miscarriages. Sex is not only for procreation and we should not pretend that it is ok to force procreation from recreational sex.

cheetah

Absolutely! I have said this many times on abortion debates and no one seems to care. Adoption is not a good answer! It just adds to the idea that ardent pro-lifers care only about lives *in* the womb and if we all want to have any rights or protections, we ought to crawl back in, because outside of the womb, most of them (particularly conservative religious ones) couldn't give a damn about ya! I think that any pro-lifer that says a woman should give a baby up for adoption ought to be required to adopt babies in the same proportion to the number of times they say it. It is a simplistic answer that they would not like so much if it affected them. But, nobody sees the kids in foster homes and on lists. out of sight, out of mind.

Hedwig

Good luck with that, phil.