actually we probably have around 1000 abortions a year in the republic as well at the moment using mail ordered pills. No one knows for sure but the number of women forced to travel has dropped by 2k in a decade plus customs are intercepting & stealing thousands of such pills from the postal system (grim stuff if you consider what that means for the women waiting for the post to be delivered).

i understand these pills are illegal (or their purchase is ) but how do customs KNOW which packets have the pill in? are they just guessing, or is there something strange about the fact they are Finding them all?

The assumption being made here, I assume, is that most opponents of abortion are men who want to control women. I am a man, I oppose abortion, and frankly I no more wish to control a woman than believe such a thing is possible in the first place.

Everybody I know who holds my view holds it because they believe, as I do, that a child is as human the day before it is born as the day after it is born, and as deserving of the legal protections you would arbitrarily have us deny to it.

John, I’d have to be really bad at maths to be making that assumption and I’m neither. No need to personalise it to individual men or women and why they hold their particular viewpoints, I see it more in terms of an overall cultural belief system. It’s not that long ago that the cultural belief system of this country thought contraception a bad thing. Belief systems change, people change their minds. I think it would be interesting however, to see how close to a majority of women, who are the ones whose rights are restricted, are in favour of self-determination for women.

People of varying hues of opinion on abortion are pro-baby. I’m so pro-baby I’ve even had one of them. Fact is, as long as we accord the same rights to the womb-dweller as the woman whose womb it is, then we are in the current situation where women will have to “prove” they are in danger of imminent death and beg to have an abortion here in Ireland. That is inhumane. Women continue to chose abortion, whether people give arbitrary rights to the embryo/foetus/womb-dweller/baby or not, as that is a decision that women have always had to make, and will always have to make because we have real lives and real bodies.

Nothing you say there is untrue, in fairness. Yes, we have historically (as have nearly all societies) been guilty of denying women an equal chance at success and freedom to men. Yes, attitudes have changed on contraception, and yes, attitudes might even change on this issue to the point where abortion does become legal on demand at some point.

As for being pro-baby, I agree. I don’t know anyone who isn’t pro baby. And I genuinely don’t know anyone who isn’t pro-woman – regardless of their views on abortion.

As to the substantive issue, there is, obviously, a balance to be struck between mother and baby. Arguing that the unborn child should have more rights than the woman is and would be ridiculous – we deny rights to children that we give to mature adults all the time. But I think it’s also fair to grant the unborn child *some* rights, the most fundamental being it’s right to exist.

There is a balance to be struck, and clearly where the life of the mother is medically threatened by the presence of the baby then it must be removed to save her. Nobody I know would argue differently – I don’t even consider that to be abortion for the purposes of the debate. But nor do I think in a civilised society we should just accept that the unborn child can consciously have it’s life ended as a right. I accept that some disagree, but that’s what I, and I think a great many others, think about this.

” .. the life of the mother is medically threatened by the presence of the baby..” There is never a choice between the life of a woman and the life of a baby.

A baby is a person. A fetus is not a person.

“” Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman’s body to survive. Those in favour of compulsory maternity do argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the important difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or a disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else from the unemployment register to do it.

Another important difference is that a fetus doesn’t just depend on a woman’s body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive. “”

http://bit.ly/QBoH3b

In answer to John Brennan: Just to be logically consistent, the idea of cohabiting individuals in a single body is not necessarily ridiculous at all. Conjoined twins would fall into this category, some of whom share vital functions etc.

Also, your definition of a fetus is chronologically determined “but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus.” Many prematurely born babies, who would have died had they been born hundreds of years earlier, are able to be kept alive on life support machines and eventually live healthy lives. To assume that a fetus is that which cannot live without the mother is to assume that, as medical science improves, the human creature spends less time as a fetus and more time as baby. This links the definition of personhood to the progress of science at any one point in time.

It is odd that one of the most fundamental biological definitions of a species (DNA) appears to be absent from the debate on life. I have neither the interest or time to get into a prolonged debate but I thought that some clarification was in order.

Mouse and man share 99% genetic similarity – including the genes to make a tail. Humans and mice shared a common ancestor about 100 million years ago. A mouse has about the same number of genes as a [hu]man. Due to preserved genetic similarities, even after 530 million years of separation, introduced human genes can operate within the Fruit Fly genome.

The nematode worm shares many genes with human beings, including the genes to make muscle. Puffer fish and Zebra fish are so genetically similar to human beings that their genomes are being deciphered as ‘model’ organisms for research.

Genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is between 96% and 99.4%

‘LUCA’, the ‘Last Universal Common Ancestor’ existed around four billion years ago. We are probably descended from a mud-burrowing worm.

The common ancestor of all placental mammals was probably a small nocturnal shrew-like creature, snuffling about more than 80 million years ago.

75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin – 57% the same as a cabbage.

Source: US National Human Genome Research Institute, 2003

I wonder how balanced that link to the “Pro-Choice Action Network-Canada” is Andrew? Somehow I have my doubts as to its objectivity.

I think David did justice in rebuffing most of your assertions, I just felt this one had to be properly flagged in case they thought you were actually forming your own argument rather than copying and pasting it.

And as we all know, the % DNA similarity to a cabbage is the crux of the matter.

Dee i dont think its related to gender in this case (survey) lots of women are pro-life

John McGuirk if you read this you might understand how as a culture pro-life Can be anti-women not always, some just are all about cute babies, or some are for religious reasons, or consider zygotes/embryos/fetuses souls etc http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

@David Dancey: while it is true that fetal viability outside the womb is coming at an earlier and earlier gestational stage, that does not translate into you having a right to force continued pregnancy on an unwilling woman. If I don’t want it in my body anymore, I have every natural right to remove it…if you want to have it at that point and think you can artificially keep it alive long enough to achieve biological independence, go right ahead. But I’ll give you fair warning…80%+ of abortions worldwide are performed in the first 12 weeks, and no amount of artificial intervention is capable of sustaining a fetus that underdeveloped.

I think that’s a very good question, actually.

The answer I think lies in the intent. IVF is a process that replicates conception and is intended to create a human life that would not otherwise have existed.

Abortion is an attempt to prevent the development of a human life that would otherwise have existed. That’s the difference.

I would object, as would a majority of pro-life people I know, to embryonic stem cell research, however. That is the process of creating and developing a human life just to experiment on it as one would a lab mouse. I don’t think that’s ethically supportable.

Actually, John, the majority of embryonic stem cell research is conducted on discarded IVF embryos. If there are being destroyed after a successful IVF pregnancy, why should they not be donated to research?

As I say, it’s one thing to create an embryo as a byproduct of trying to create a human life. It’s another thing, then, to turn around and develop that embryo part of the way into a human purely to conduct experiments on them. If the ethical argument is that they are never going to live or be sentient anyway, then surely it would be ethical to conduct harmful experiments on people in a persistent vegetative state? It’s the same principle, but nobody would seriously argue that.

I, personally, would consider a human being with a living will or a family member to be able to donate the organs of a dying human being. Embryos which are being destroyed are not remaining in a vegetative state – they are being destroyed. How is that different from cases where family members approve organ donation?

Haha McGuirk, you’re still wandering these comment sections.

Took you nearly a month to get over the pummeling suffered by Romney.

You got that result seriously wrong. So don’t berate and pontificate people on women’s rights.

Well written article Lisa. Clare, I think the difference in their mind, and in law, is that the embryo is not implanted in the womb and so is not considered a life. This is how the morning after pill was legalised. These are not my beliefs but they are in our constitution unfortunately.

I am in favour of abortion on demand.

I am in favour of abortion on demand.

Just double checking here, does limited circumstances include time in your eyes?

I agree that rape/incest thing is a really weird arbitration, though one mainly made because of human kindness.

I would completely “blank check” abortion is the most illogical. By that I mean abortion on demand at ALL STAGES. I’d be a supporter for abortion on demand for roughly the first half of the pregnancy.

As someone said at last Wednesday’s demo: Savita Halappavanar should have had an abortion for one reason and one reason alone. Because she ASKED for one.

I am in favour of abortion on demand.

Conor – I would be in favour of following the example of others and set it at around 20 weeks – basically approaching the threshold of viability outside of the womb.

That’s an interesting assumption Aoife. But that’s exactly what it is – an assumption.

By Kitty Hollands own admission, the journalist who initially broke the story in the Irish Times, the facts of the case are ‘muddled’.

When asked whether she was “absolutely certain that Praveen did request a termination?” She responded “Oh, I’m not satisfied of anything, I’m satisfied of what he told me. I await the findings of the inquiry as much as anyone else”.

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/174/wednesday/1/?uniqueID=2837929
debate starts at 40 mins.

I’m grateful for the people clarification on their point of view, it’s good to see people stating their true feelings on the issue, even if I disagree with them. But Bob is correct to highlight the discrepancy in the view of supposed pro-lifers who also allow for exceptions in the case of rape, this is hypocritical. This is the case in the US with the GOP and is a position held on grounds of Political convenience, not morality.

Of course abortion is a moral issue if you believe innocent life is being killed.

TBH Dave, I don’t think it is fair to call those with the ‘abortion is ok only in rape cases’ position pro-lifers. I have never met a pro-lifer who conceded this.

The people with this position are neither pro-life nor pro-choice but somewhere illogically between.

Agreed, they do exist though and they are not uncommon. You’ll find it is quite a commonly held belief in the US however, it is as you say illogical however.

Take a look at the presidential/vice presidential debates, this was discussed and the admission made by Paul Ryan I remember specifically saying it.

You’re right that in the US it’s not actually that uncommon, especially around election time.

I’m pretty sure it was Romney who took that position and that Ryan was actually consistent.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/24/ryan-on-abortion-exceptions-rape-is-just-another-method-of-conception/

Maybe we should just sterilize the human race as a whole , cure the scourge of babies once and for all . Problem solved .

I always found that argument really weak, would you agree with full term abortion then? (Btw I am pro choice)

Never mind the trauma to the woman. Pro-lifers always seem to go on about the supposed trauma of abortions and their (debunked, completely imaginary) ‘post-abortion syndrome’. The thought that the alternative is a backstreet abortion that risks their life doesn’t seem to occur to them, or else is just completely ignored.

But pro-life is NOTHING to do with punishing women for having sex. Oh no. Not even a little bit.

In fairness, while I was trying (maybe in vain, I don’t know) to actually have (for once) a constructive debate about this issue, I do have an ulterior motive.

If you had the pain in the ass thing on your desk that I have on mine, you’d be trying to distract yourself too. Sorry if it’s annoyed you.

I understand the emotional response on the other side of this debate that leads to statements like this, but it is objectively not true. There are laws, for example, against me or any other man paying a woman to have sex with us because of the widely held (and, I think, correct) belief that this would lead to exploitation of vulnerable women.

That restriction on your choice and mine does not, I think, make your body the property of the state. Nor does a law that says I can’t inject myself with heroin make my body the property of the state.

I don’t want the state to own you. I want the state to say that if you get pregnant, which – rape aside – is almost always the result of a consensual act that carried the risk of pregnancy, then you (and the other party) have a duty of care to the unique human life you created.

Yes, actually, John, all of those laws do chip away at your bodily autonomy and remove your power over your own body.

This is particularly important for women, who have historically had any control over their own bodies taken away from them. I am very uncomfortable with a society which tells women that someone else (whether foetus, spouse or father) has more of a right to their body than women do. Particularly a society when 1 in 5 adult women are raped and sentencing in Ireland is currently a bit of a joke – women’s bodily autonomy simply is not highly valued enough.

As to your argument that this is a natural requirement due to sex – parents can and do relinquish parental responsibility after birth – which means that pregnancy is the one exception. And while I’m sure you have nothing but good intentions, the fact is that you will never be forced to risk your health in a pregnancy (and it is, obviously, easier to offer up someone else’s bodily integrity rather than your own.)

It’s a rights balancing issue, Nick. I would argue that there is, of course, a right to relinquish the child after birth as this does not impinge on the child’s right to exist. But it is a voluntary act to begin with that caused that existence, and I do think the responsibility to allow that created human to determine it’s own path in life depends on guaranteeing it’s right to live. Not it’s right to a family, not it’s right to permanent care from the mother, but it’s right to live, for nine months.

As for the bodily integrity debate, I agree that this is not something men will have to experience. But neither is it something that men have chosen to designate to women. It’s a biological reality that it is the female who becomes pregnant. I think society has to do a far better job of forcing men to take responsibility for the children they bear and the women they impregnate, but I do not think the right of a woman to terminate a life she is partly responsible for creating exists, or can be argued for on the grounds that her biological reproductive role is more intrusive than that of a man.

I accept, of course, that we disagree about this in good faith.

Again, it is a rights balancing issue. But in no cases do we force blood or organ donation – if our society truly values life, why not? If I bash someone over the head and cause their injuries, I’m in no way required to donate blood to save them…but if I simply am responsible for their existence (but not their dependency on me), I am required to?

What it comes down to is that pregnant women have a burden placed on them which is not expected on any other member of society. And I cannot support pregnant women being denied more rights than anyone else.

Nick Beard, you’re my hero.

If you are using contraception in good faith and it fails, are you saying “tough luck Mary?”.
Because we all know abstinence is not realistic. Humans are wired to get pleasure from sex, most mammals aren’t. The females “go on heat” and that’s the only time they bother. For some it’s rather painful.

So if contraception fails. If the morning after pill fails – you should be forced to carry a pregnancy which you took all the necessary precautions to prevent bar remaining abstinent? Do you expect married and long term committed relationships to abstain if they do not wish to conceive?

And what if the woman knows that pregnancy poses risks for her health, obviously she will use contraception – but if it fails? And oral and barrier methods have a large enough failure rate due to things like illness, taking the pill late, splitting, etc. Are you seriously of the opinion that sex should be solely for procreation and that’s that?

While I dislike the term incompatible with life, it is true.

“I do believe that women are intelligent enough to know what they want”

….uhhh, thanks? What?

How about the mother and father look after them?

Thanks Maylena. Look, harsh as this may sound, except in cases of rape, which is an entirely separate issue, everyone knows that when you have consensual sex (either as a man, or a woman) you are risking pregnancy. You can mitigate the risk. If you combine lots of different contraceptives, you can almost eliminate it. But it’s always there, not matter how careful you are. And for that reason, pregnancy isn’t something that “just happens” to people. It’s a risk we all chose to embrace at some point in our lives, and sometimes we’re going to see realised the risk we took.

There’s an argument about a violinist that pro-choicers make. “John”, they say – “how would you like it if you were hooked up to a really famous violinist for nine months so his blood could be passed through your liver and kidneys to keep him alive. Wouldn’t that be an invasion of your bodily integrity??”

Well yes, it would. But, I answer – if I did something, even though it was just a very a small risk, that lead to the violinist being so ill in the first place, it would not be such an unjustified invasion. If the child is human, and I’ve never heard any convincing argument that it’s not, then both mother and father (rape aside) are responsible for it’s being there, and have a duty of care to it.

There should be a law in this country making a father legally financially responsible for his 50% of his child’s needs. If the father is unemployed, this money should be deducted at source from his social payments, whatever they may be. Even as a supporter of small govt and low taxes, I think we should have heavily subsidised childcare, support for single mothers, and anything else that might help.

Slowly but surely we’re moving away from the medieval mindset – propagated by the misogynist Catholic Church – that women are mere incubators of male sperm. It was that kind of mindset that led to 30,000 women and girls (some victims of rape/incest) being interned for life in the Magdalene Asylums and institutions. The babies of these women were then sold on to rich Catholics in America – well those babies that managed to live. In one institution 60 of these babies managed to die in the first year of it’s existence in 1930, the rest were sold.

Seems to me that the people who support compulsory maternity only value life if a few bob can me made or if the child is born to a virgin.

Stop Press!!! Ardent supporter of USA’s previous administrations war policy in Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children now claims to be pro- life!

Oh, just everywhere. But hey, we live in a totally equal society now and there’s no need for feminism anymore!!111!

Jayziz Christ on an effin’ Pashley. It’s not like women are excluded from the discussion are they?

It’s not that simple. Abortion at 8 months is completely different to abortion at 8 weeks.

Jonny, No clinic would perform an abortion at 8 months. The limit is 24 weeks and that may be reduced to 20 weeks in the near future. Most abortions are carried out before 12 weeks, early detected pregnancies can be ended with nothing more than a pill (less than 8 weeks). If it were available here, most cases would end using this method, non invasive and inexpensive as opposed to the average €1000 it costs Irish women at the moment when all costs are factored in.

Should she be arrested? No, because the termination was carried out legally. That’s like asking should a judge in the US who’s sentenced someone to death be charged with murder when he enters a country where it’s not allowed.

Now a question for you. If someone attacks a pregnant woman and kills the baby inside should he be charged with murder or should he get to walk free because the baby hasn’t been born yet?

I would prosecute the doctor, not the woman, in the same way that we prosecute doctors who engage in assisted suicide and not the person who procured them.

And I don’t recall anybody saying that it’s not complicated. There are people with genuinely held views on both sides of this debate. But “it’s complicated” is not an argument *for* abortion, it’s just an argument for not really engaging with the argument – on either side.

@Aaron

Interesting question. Well no1, you’d hardly walk free, if you assaulted a woman to the extent she had a miscarriage surely you could be charged with assault? How does the law treat this issue here do you know? I don’t claim to know the answers, I think it’s a very complicated situation, there is no right or wrong, there’s no abortion = good or abortion = bad IMO.

@John

To be honest I’m in favour of assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness or where people are living in a nightmare, such as Tony Nicklinson, who had to starve himself to death, I can only imagine how horrible a death that must be. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19341722

@John McGuirk “I would prosecute the doctor, not the woman, in the same way that we prosecute doctors who engage in assisted suicide and not the person who procured them.”

Then I suggest you start extradition proceedings against “Babykiller” doctors in the NHS, Marie Stopes etc and see how seriously you’re taken.

John.. You mentioned prosecuting the doctors as opposed to those seeking out euthanasia? Probably just as well, it’s rather hard to secure a conviction on a dead person..

I would also favour euthanasia. I’ve met too many people who have begged their god to end their suffering and lost their faith when their god didn’t help them. Too many people who can no longer hold a conversation because their mind is gone, or they are locked in. I know I would never like to find myself like that, I hope that when my time comes we have granted the same compassion to people as we do to our pets.

That was a standalone comment with no context so sorry if this question is ridiculous.

But did you say the baby survived an abortion at 24 weeks? And 12.2% of those reached their first birthday? If thats the case were the babies mutilated and disfigured? Sounds awful.

Agree. I favour abortion on demand (there’s too many people tbf) but i also think it’s murder (it is!).
The hottest debates have no answer. So the practical pragmatic way is the middle. Limited abortion.

Yeah, you ignored all those science-based and non-hateful anti-choice arguments that definitely do exist

Jack, your position on this thread is, as stated several times, that the foetus is not entitled to be considered human.

Thought I’d give you a chance to explain, since I know you want a respectful, reasoned, science-based debate.

So – why?

I find it strange because we hear from the pro life side that the foetus is a life, a person, from conception and the state seem to agree. Yet, when I was assaulted by by neighbour whilst pregnant, the fact that I was pregnant wasn’t factored into assault charges. My baby wasn’t in fact a baby because I was only pregnant. I could very easily have lost my much wanted baby and nothing would have happened to the person responsible (unless you consider an official caution acceptable punishment). But God forbid, I should decide to end an unwanted pregnancy myself….that’s the real crime apparently!

A non-living foetus which at the early stage of development is an insentient bundle of cells does not have the same rights as a living breathing woman.

Andrea – I think that an attack on a pregnant woman should, indeed, be considered in law an attack on two people.

Jack – if you think something is not human because it is “insentient” – even though it will certainly become sentient in the future – then presumably you would say that your family should be able to terminate you if you go into a coma – even though you might well become sentient in the future?

I’m not trying to offend you, by the way. I just want to know – why is an unsentient unborn person considered unhuman, but an unsentient adult human in a coma considered worthy of legal protection? If sentience is life, as you would have it, neither are human. But if humanity is the potential for sentience, as I would argue, then both are human. You can’t really have one law for one and another for the other.

Oracle, I am pro choice because I believe every woman has the fundamental right to exclusively decide what does or does not happen to her own body. My husband and I decided to have a baby because we wanted to have one, do you see the difference now? I was about to respond to another stupid comment you made about women feeling upset about having a miscarriage. By your logic, we should not feel sympathy for a woman who suffers a miscarriage because other women choose to end their pregnancies. It’s quite frightening that there are people out there who can’t tell the difference.

John, the fact is that it is not considered an assault on two people and nor will it ever be. It’s not considered an assault in other countries either but I would expect a country that puts so much emphasis on the right to life of the unborn to protect that “life” with as much vigour as they do in preventing terminating unwanted pregnancies.

Not entirely true Andrea – for example, President Bush signed the unborn victims of violence act into law in the US in 2004. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

John, sorry, I should have been more clear. It is not a crime in a lot of other countries, it is in others. I should have put the word “some” in front of “other” in my previous comment.

John get some science into yourself.

The more scientifically educated and literate a person is the more in favour of abortion on demand they are.

Abortion happens as a natural process anyway.

You really are irritating because you haven’t bothered to inform yourself even though you sound as though you’re capable of it

Or maybe your a priest or some other religious idealist.

Anyway sorry to say STFU if you can’t get pregnant.
It’s none of your f@&king business just like its not mine.

I support Abortion on Demand

Seperation Church and State now.

Andrea, if every woman has a fundamental right to decide what to do with her body, at what stage does abortion become unacceptable again? Surely at some point in the pregnancy it becomes unethical because the foetus is so well developed. This is the point I’m trying to highlight; the point in which it goes from a meaningless bundle of cells to a protected organism.

For example, I don’t think anyone objects to the contraceptive “morning-after” pill, whereas I don’t think anyone supports extremely late-term abortion of a healthy foetus (say, arbitrarily, after 30 weeks). So there’s something changes in those 30 weeks that changes the fundamental ethical decision. That’s what we need to identify and define. That’s what decides this question.

Jack, you’re just an idiot. No science-based arguments exist? Ever studied developmental genetics? I have. The first signs of neural activity are detected at 8 weeks gestation and the pain pathways myelinate at 22 weeks. There’s two for you. Like I said, I’m pro-choice, but the difference is I know what I’m talking about.

Jayk, I said I believe a woman should have the right to decide what she does with her own body. The fact is, women don’t have that right here and that was my point. As far as I’m aware, in countries where abortion is legal, it is not carried out after 24 or 26 weeks, that number may be slightly off but I’ve never come across abortion on demand at 30 weeks. I haven’t researched the actual numbers but it’s a vague memory from a documentary about Marie Stopes several years ago.

24 weeks is the limit in the UK, for a healthy foetus. I think this is probably a bit too long, but the vast majority are performed long before 24 weeks anyway.

But you understand my point that a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body doesn’t entirely cover the complexity of the situation. At some point, it’s not her decision. I think even the most vehement pro-choice proponent agrees that abortion after 24 weeks is unacceptable. Sure, there will always be nutcases on either side, but we can ignore them.

With that out of the way, I still think we need to define what changes around 24 weeks. I won’t type another essay on foetal development because I don’t think anyone will read it. Suffice to say, the foetus is pretty well developed at 24 weeks. Assuming we make abortion easily and efficiently available early in the pregnancy with zero stigma attached, I don’t there there should be a need for such late terminations.

Jay, that would be why most pro choice advocates would support the right of a woman to have labour induced after 24 weeks. I don’t believe a woman should be forced to remain pregnant at any point against her will – but if a woman can cease to be pregnant, and medical care can be given to the baby to help it survive once born, I’d absolutely support there.

A woman’s right only extends to her own body – once a baby no longer “requires life support”, induced labour seems the most obvious solution – unless there is a pressing medical reason why labour would be inadequate to save a woman’s life.

@ John.
That foetus is not *certainly* going to become sentient.
The odds of miscarriage are incredibly high for the first 3 months, starting at 80% and reducing to 50% by month 3.
Which is why women who are planning pregnancy usually wait until this point to announce the pregnancy widely.

So really, there’s no guarantee in nature that the foetus is going to become sentient at all.

In the second trimester the odds reduce substantially, the pregnancy is well set in and the odds tip in favour of survival. Sadly, even at this point, becoming sentient is not guaranteed. The foetus could have anencephaly, or any other problems that will mean that if it does not die in utero, it will die soon after birth.

I can’t understand why there’s this massive push to guarantee rights to something we cannot guarantee those rights to. We cannot guarantee that every pregnancy undertaken will ever be born and draw breath. So why did we enshrine it in law?

We will NEVER reach a consensus on where “life” begins. This is why it is not murder – nor is it truly comparable as the morals are subjective. For this reason we should have the choice. If the choice is there – no one is forcing their morals upon another. Merely respecting each others decisions and not passing judgement.

Shanti, those figures are complete nonsense. Standard miscarriage rate of 80%? I think you need a new obstetrician.

I said that it starts at 80% and reduces down from there.
80% of pregnancies are flushed out in the first period. If they make it past the first period their odds improve.

“During the first trimester, the most common cause of miscarriage is chromosomal abnormality”

Reference; http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html

The most common chromosomal abnormality is trisomy-21

Reference; http://www.marchofdimes.com/baby/birthdefects_chromosomal.html

“Only one quarter of fetuses with trisomy 21 survive to term.”

Reference; http://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0815/p825.html

So the miscarriage rate of trisomy-21 is about 75% over the entire course of the pregnancy. Trisomy-21 being a major (and most common) chromosomal abnormality, which the female body is adept at recognizing and naturally aborting.

Is there alternative evidence that suggests the abortion rate of healthy foetus’ is 80%? I’m not saying that’s not the case, I’m just saying that’s not the information I have.

Information I can’t reference (its downloaded lecture notes), the survival rate of sex-chromosome trisomies is ~99% at the end of the first trimester, and ~95% to term. For trisomy-21; ~90% survive to the end of the first term, ~75% survive to term (I acknowledge the contradiction, I’m quoting lecture notes from the NHS genetics service). For Turner’s syndrome, trisomy-18 and trisomy-13; survival is 80% after the first trimester an 20% to term. For universal triploidy (all chromosomes), 50% to first trimester, 0% to term.

My replies keep being filtered. I don’t know why. I’ve checked them for dirty words (my usual problem) but there aren’t any. Maybe too many external links? I’m a pretty competent spambot if that’s the problem. Anyway, you’ll have to take my word for it. I’ll try again tomorrow.

Do you have any reference to the fact that first trimester abortions number ~80%? Because I’m a medical geneticist and my figures for first trimester spontaneous abortions of seriously abnormal foetuses is less than 20%. I had links to references but my posts keep being filtered.

1. Probably not. People have been too afraid to talk about such matters given the nature of our once Catholic society and the shadow of shame that we still feel on any number of topics.

2. My personal opinion is that whenever the foetus is able to live independently of the mother that it can be considered an actual person, I’ve read varied reports on that being between 22-26 weeks so if that could be pinned down we could start having an actual debate on that but it all depends on actual medical facts and not mine or your opinion really.

Daniel, the UK carry out abortions up to 24 weeks but they are looking into reducing that to 20 weeks in the near future. I don’t have the numbers on the amount of women who have committed suicide here because of an unwanted pregnancy but I did know one such person. Most families don’t reveal the contents of suicide notes, the pain is too overwhelming but rest assured there are many women who see it as their only option. Even one suicide is unacceptable in this day and age.

Hi, Daniel, you can find statistics which show that pregnant women in Ireland do commit suicide. Is it necessarily because they were denied an abortion? Who knows; it’s hard to place a finger on exactly why anyone ends their own life – mental health is a serious life-threatening concern, just like any health condition, and as a disabled woman, I’ve been frankly disappointed by how suicide has been dismissed throughout the debate.

Yes, the outer limit is 24 weeks in the UK, but abortions after 20 weeks are rare (and actually, a large percentage between 20 and 22 weeks are Irish women who couldn’t scrape up the money to travel before then.) After 22 weeks, it is primarily due to health concerns of the mother. By legalising abortion in Ireland in the first trimester, later term abortions in the UK would be greatly reduced.

Who Are you to moralise to others. If you don’t believe in abortion then don’t have one. Oh that’s right you can’t your a bloke. Your lack of compassion for the thousands of Irish women who have to travel to another country to have this medical procedure speaks volumes. As Bill Hicks says if your really pro-life then lets see you picket graveyards see how committed you are to this arguement.

Why Paul (McCann), I’m surprised. I’d expected it would take an hour or so for someone to accuse me of hating women or lacking compassion or something, but you got right in there in 15 minutes. You must have received a text alert.

But anyway.

1) “If you don’t believe in abortion don’t have one” is as substantively logical as saying “if you don’t believe in beating people up don’t beat people up”. You would, were the latter argued, say “no! society has to protect people from violence done by others” – and you’d be right. If one believes that the unborn child is as intrinsically and undeniably a unique human being as the born child, then it must logically follow that it deserves the same protection from violence as the person getting beaten up on the street.

2) Ye olde Penis argument. Yes, I own one. No, I do not own a uterus. But I have a brain, and the ability to think, reason, and argue, just as all humans have (or will have, at a certain point) regardless of their genitals. Also, this is a democracy, so we all get to partake in this debate. Also, finally, we are both men, but we were also once unborn men. I see no reason to deny the legal protection we had in this country to other unborn men, and women, who don’t have a voice in this debate.

3) The compassion argument. It’s ridiculous on it’s face, obviously. It’s the equivalent of a screaming youth defence protestor calling you a baby killer. But of course, both of you think you’re right, you and the protestor, so there’s no point arguing with you.

4) I am not opposed to death. I am opposed to involuntary human death as a result of another human. There’s a distinction there, which I’m sure you’ll get, at some stage.

With respect, no one wants to legislate according to what you and some others ‘believe’. Legislating according to belief isn’t a happy option is this country.

Jack, unless I’m mistaken, you would have us legislate for your belief that a child in the womb has no rights but a child outside it has basically all the rights we have to give.

Your belief on the issue, one you have not yet chosen to explain, is what you want us to legislate for. Odd, then, that you would criticise others for wanting laws that reflect their own deeply held beliefs.

Aw come on John you big enough to take it. You were not slow getting on here to start moralising the same old arguments against abortion so don’t be disingenuous when countered by the opposing views. Your belief in the sanctity of life is a predominately a religious one most likely. I believe in the woman’s right to choose up until medical opinion indicates the viability of the foetus to survive outside womb. You have the right to express your opinion but it carries little weight with me personally as you will never know the fear of carrying a child when you don’t want one especially in the case of rape. You do by your absolutist opinion display a lack of compassion for the woman and the difficult position she finds herself. It dose not make you a bad person merely in my opinion mid guided.

The rights of a living individual aren’t subject to my belief in them, nor is science. So unless your belief that life begins at conception is firmly backed up by that, it’s just a pie-in-the-sky notion, regardless of how deeply you hold it.

Misguided. Bloody iPhone.

John, your point is well made and well argued, whether anyone agrees or disagrees with you…the only problem is you manage to make it in the most morally smug and sanctimonious way. Making it unpalatable as not so much a point made like being hit with a closed fist, more like being slapped across the face by an aristocrats glove..

Paul, I have not – so far – been countered by the opposing arguments. Opposing assertions, yes, but not actual arguments, with respect.

My view is not based on religion – just logic and reason. Let’s start by asking “what makes a human worthy of human rights like the right to life at all?”

Usually, the answer is that we have, unique amongst animals, an ability to think, feel emotions, and think ethically about issues beyond our own survival.

This is true of all adults and most children after a certain point. It is not true though, of someone in a coma, or a permanent vegetative state, or with a degenerative brain disease. But usually we grant those people rights because at some point they *did* display all those characteristics, right? Or in the case of someone with a coma, might display them again some day.

In the case of a nine month old baby then? It cannot reason or think logically or ethically or feel emotions (at least, it cannot understand that it is so doing) – so why do we grant *it* protection? Again, the answer is that we know for certain that it will grow into a human with all those abilities and characteristics.

But all of those traits – and the potential for humanity are present in the unborn child. You can say – as many pro-choicers do – that it is just a *potential* life, as distinct from a real one. Except that this argument expects us to ignore that it’s entirely artificial since in reality a six month old baby is only really a potential life too, if we go by any analysis of the distinctive traits that make us worthy of rights as humans.

None of this is an argument from religion. I don’t listen to my church on sex before marriage, on gay rights, on fasting on fridays – nor do a great many religious people of all faiths. Yet you think we’re motivated by religion on this, of all issues? It would be illogical.

I’m motivated, frankly, by a belief, that I can’t get past, that the unborn child is as human as the born child. And that abortion is the only procedure in all of medicine that is only successful if it results in the permanent stopping of a human heart, and the permanent cessation of the life and development of a genetically unique human person, or potential human person. I think that mothers who are, in all cases where the sexual act was consensual, partially responsible for the foetus being in the position it is therefore have a duty of care to the foetus, or unborn child, whichever you prefer.

I do not hate women. I am quite certain that the people giving the pro-life comments the red thumbs do not hate babies. I have thought about it, and I think it is a life that deserves the same protection as you or I.

@ John

This is a genuine question, is your belief that stopping a heart beat is wrong? If so are you pro abortion as long as there is not foetal heart beat i.e. pre 5 weeks.

@John Foody No, but I think it’s a good question that gets to the core of this debate which is “when does life begin?”.

My own view is at conception, but I think pregnancy begins at implantation. A lot of pro-life people would disagree with me on that and say it’s inconsistent – but I think that this is the moment at which an unborn child becomes dependent on the mother and therefore the moment her duty of care begins. I do not, as such, have a problem with the morning after pill for that reason.

The best pro-choice argument I’ve heard (and am surprised I haven’t heard on this thread) is that since we legally consider human life to END with the cessation of brain stem activity, we should consider it to start with the first brain stem activity, which is around 12 weeks.

That’s a good argument, actually. Not one I agree with, but the most consistent pro-choice argument I’ve heard.

I believe life begins when the foetus can survive outside the womb. I am happy to be guided by medical opinion on this issue. I do not believe there are inalienable human rights at the point of conception. A bunch of replicating cells do not out way the rights of a woman.

@ John

Is your argument that we should offer legal protection to the foetus because it has the potential to be a life not inconsistent with a pro-contraception argument stance? I mean semen has the potential to meet an egg and become a life if one doesn’t use a condom.

Get some science into you John or STFU.
The more scientifically literate a person is the more in favour of Abortion on Demand they are.

Read some objective scientific literature wud ya. You seem capable unlike the usual pro-lifers brainwashed by their Bible dogma.

It’s not your body. Your views are outdated and you’re on the losing side like you are with Romney and Israel.

I support Abortion on Demand

Separation if church and state now

Though I’m still pro-choice, your argument is rational and based neither on emotion nor religion. I am referring to your comments in response to Maylena, below. What a relief. I’m sleep-deprived, so I am not even going to attempt to express my views fully.

Further, as you’re the FIRST ‘Pro-lIfe’ person (inverted commas to indicate that there are those who don’t think the life of the mother is of importance if we have to choose, you are clearly not one of these) who has argued consistently in a non-inflammatory, reasonable fashion that I have come across after trolling dozens of these forums, please don’t be shut up by those in the choice camp (my camp) who descend to the level of poking and insulting behaviour.

I’m completely unsure where I stand on this, but I’ll say one thing – johns comments seem well thought out and his tone seems reasoned. I wish I could say the same for some of the replies. If you want to persuade people, maybe drop the shrillness.

Ok John.. I can appreciate your position, but let me ask you this;
80% of fertilised eggs are flushed out with the next period. By week 12 the foetus still has an up to 50/50 chance of miscarrying (and an abortion at this stage is a chemically induced miscarriage).
At this point in time while there’s a brain stem, there’s no brain activity. In fact, most of the brain isn’t connected up until nearer 24 weeks, when the foetus has a 50/50 chance of surviving delivery.
Foetuses are essentially in a state of suspended animation without the capability to feel pain up until this point.

Does that change how you view the situation at all? How about the fact that if the mother gives birth before a certain point the foetus will die as it cannot exist without squatting in someone elses body..

12 weeks is when you start going for scans. It’s when you find out whether your baby is healthy or not. You made some rather misinformed comments about termination for medical reasons in one of the first posts in this grouping – you compared this situation to a mental or physical disability that would allow for at least a few years life – this is very different to a child who’s brain has not developed, or their skull, or any of the other TFMR reasons. For you to compare them is rather disingenuous.

Like someone above said, consistency would be nice. But accepting other people’s free will and permitting them to make their own decisions would be better.

John you have made so really excellent points over the course of the discussion. Almost everything you said is logical and makes perfect. The fact that a number of posters on this site have taken up attacking you and the points made shows that you have then rattled. The fact they have had to resort to bringing religion into the argument shows that many of them can’t handle the points you’ve made, it’s as if they think all pro lifers are priest fearing cowards.

While you will never ever convince the pro abortioners opposing you, your arguments will open the eyes and ears of the middle ground who share concerns about abortion but are also conflicted by the unfortunate death of savita. The media in the last week (and the journal here has been one of the worst) have launched a very biased debate on the abortion laws. People like you will have to keep talking to and articulating to as many people as possible the evils of abortion on demand.

Jesus John you really love the sound of your own voice!!

In fairness to the Journal, if this was Indymedia you and I would be branded as hatemongers and banned. Here, we’ll just get branded as hatemongers. And not, usually, by the staff :)

How dare anyone hold differing views to your good self. It’s an outrage.

ah poor John – its not like he gets anywhere other that the comments section on here to get his views across (out of interest what was the name you posted on indy under, I don’t recall you doing it under your own name)

is suicide not a “real” threat to life? tell that to families who’ve been affected by suicide!

As someone who knows men affected by abortion I can assure you it affects them very much , wether they admit it or not .

Offensively crap comment. You don’t get to click your fingers and say ‘legislate for X, no other abortion, simple, do something government’. That’s an affront to the democratic process.

Also, how dare you place the word choice in inverted commas. What are you trying to suggest?

Another man wanting to dictate to women.

No, I think once he says he expected you to say he wants to dictate to women then it means that he doesn’t want to dictate to women.

A woman’s moral choices don’t affect him but he wants to enforce them anyway.

You might be the weak link in this well-oiled PR machine Jack. Have another go there.

I’ll take my internet activity lessons from someone without his face obscured and a fake name, thanks.

Dont forget to feed your white charger Sir Mangina.

You do know that journalistic bias is as old as journalism itself and in no way distills debate? There are plenty of mouth-pieces for the anti-choice side out there, so why not go get your news on the abortion issue from Youth Defence or Iona instead of complaining because this site doesn’t share your view on the matter?

Of course. Just interesting to note. The media bias is now so overwhelming that abortion on demand is pretty inevitable here within 5-10 years. Then, at least the liberal agenda will be able to focus on worrying about the rights of the hare at coursing meetings.

Paul social progression is inevitable and it has always been journalism that has driven public opinion in different directions. Pointing out that it happens does not mean you have uncovered some giant conspiracy.

And what is this liberal agenda you speak of? I literally have no clue what you mean by that.

Generally my experience of the Journal is that they are open to most opinions. If you write a anti-abortion piece that is well written and within their word limit, They will probably publish it.

Hi Paul Rathgar – just fyi, you missed out on quite a few pieces arguing against abortion. Here’s Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute and here’s Dr Ruth Cullen from the Pro Life Campaign – plus here’s Youth Defence on why Savita Halappanavar’s death was nothing to do with Ireland’s ban on abortion, here’s the Pro Life Campaign criticising Kathleen Lynch over her comments on legislation on abortion, and here’s an anti-abortion and pro-abortion take on the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast.

Plus. as Simon pointed out, as long as an opinion piece is good, we’ll run it. Mail tips@thejournal.ie if you’d like to write something and we’ll get back to you.

Fair enough Christine, thanks.

In fairness Paul, if someone who is pro life comments here their comment remains on the site provided it doesn’t go against the comments policy rules. Any comments against the rules can be removed, whatever their view point was.
Also, with the comments section – even when the article may lean one way, the comments may lean very much the opposite.

Compare that to the likes of Youth Defence and the Life Institute.. They delete anything that contradicts their stance. I got blocked from their Facebook page for asking them to provide evidence of a claim that they had made.
Pretty much every pro choice person I know who has visited that site has been blocked – for simply questioning their “facts” and putting forth evidence to the contrary.

I don’t think the journal is biased. I do feel that they tend to report on the sorts of stories that their readership are the most interested in, but that is simply business. Ultimately they are one.

Good thing a tiny foetus is neither ‘life’ nor deserving of the same rights as a living human, so.

Jack – it’s biological fact that from conception the embryo and foetus are alive insofar as it is growing and developing. It’s human insofar as its formed of human biological prerequisites aka the sperm and ova fusing to form the zygote.

No, it’s not a biological fact. That’s not true at all. What’s a biological fact is that you’re due to give birth around 40 weeks after concept. Biology, as of yet, does not designate the beginning of life

*human life

Jack – I’ll leave you with this question. If a biological organism formed of human biological prerequisites – sperm and ova is growing and developing in the womb until birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death what is it other than human and alive?

Are you going to argue that the foetus (Latin for young one) growing and developing dead rather than alive?

Is your kidney alive?

Oracle, worst comment of the day! May you never experience that loss…

I was going to post all of the anti abortion articles here for you to read but it seems Christine Bohan has done it before me. See her post below.

TheJournal.ie have posted several articles from their point of view.

Just because this site has a young, left leaning, liberal following doesn’t mean the site/news pieces themselves are overly biased if biased at all. If you want you can write your own piece and send it in to them.

Jack ,have you ever heard of premature births ? How is that something thats not alive can be born at 24 weeks and suddenly become alive , is there some magical unheard of organ that imparts life to the child on its journey from the womb to the world ??? If your argument is that it couldnt sustain life without the mother then the very same could be argued of a newborn child.

I’m sure every adoptive parent will be interested to realise that a newborn requires their biological mother! Once a child is born, care can be relinquished. Before viability, unfortunately, it cannot be: but that is not sufficient reason to deny pregnant women the same bodily autonomy extended to every other person.

Nick ol buddy , you completey missed my point , the argument often made for not protecting the life of an unborn baby is its inability to sustain life without its mothers input . A new born baby is also unable to autonomously sustain life . It needs to be cared for . So using the same logic ,you may argue that ethically there is no difference in ending the life of an unborn baby or a new born baby . Both need outside input to survive , both need their mothers be they adoptive or otherwise . The problem with logic is that it is easily expanded , and when you expand it you may easily expose the absurdity of it .

No. YOU are arguing that. I am noting that a woman has a right to refuse use of her body. She also has the right to refuse to care for an infant. In the latter circumstance, she can place the child into care – in the former, unfortunately, abortion is the only option to preserve her bodily integrity.

I love how people like you ignore the fact that the authors of the Finnish study specifically noted that abortion was not a cause of the homicides, accidents or suicide (because apparently abortion can cause car crashes?) and use it to argue abortion causes suicide. You’re intellectually dishonest and if you have to resort to untruths, then you must know you’ve lost the argument.

Nick , what might be the cause of a six fold increase in suicides in the twelve months following an abortion be ? Please enlighten me . Improper choice of deoderant ? or bottled water perhaps ? Its not an untruth to infer that maybe …just maybe the trauma of mechanically or chemically ending a pregnancy may have an effect on a womans mental health . Thereby increasing likelyhood of suicide /self harm /substance abuse . I could supply you with reams of anecdotal evidence but given your inability to accept actually impartially obtained stats , I doubt very much you would accept the words of women and men who have suffered the after-effects of abortion .

I suppose the baby born at 24 weeks was a stunt aswell…seriously how low can these pro-lifers go ? Giving birth early to prove that it is really a child in there.

A foetus born at 24 weeks has a 50/50 chance of survival anyway.. What’s the point?
Most people I know who are in favour of abortion switch that to induced labour past 24 weeks for this precise reason!

For goodness sake, I know a man who was born at 24 weeks in the 1940s in Nigeria, they didn’t have any of the tech found in todays neonatal wards, and he’s still here. Big strong chap too.

Now, there was a baby that survived birth at 21.5weeks. THAT’S worth mentioning, although I would imagine that child may not survive long as its brain would not have finished developing.. The point of viability is where birth should be favoured over abortion, if the foetus can survive birth then it should be given a fair shot like the rest of us.

Unfortunately, neither abortion nor pregnancy are cures for mental illness. As the study says (if you read it), women with mental illness are more likely to realise the health costs to them of pregnancy and opt for an abortion. The study argues not that abortion causes mental illness, but women with mental health issues fall through society’s cracks.

This is why you should read the study, by the way!

If the foetus’ odds of surviving delivery are good then it’s too old to abort, it should be delivered and given a chance.

Deliver a baby at 10 weeks it will die. Deliver a baby at 19 weeks it will die. Deliver a baby at 22 weeks there’s an extremely slim chance it may survive. Deliver at 24 weeks and the odds are 50/50.
It seems 20 weeks is a generous limit. Induced labour would be preferred after that.

I find the idea of guaranteeing a right to life of the unborn to be quite silly. We can’t guarantee that right, even when we want to. The majority of pregnancies do not carry to term, no matter how the mother felt about the situation. How do you guarantee life to something that may never take a breath?

If 750 babies are born at 24 weeks and only 98 survived to see their first birthday how is that a 50/50 chance of survival??? Next you’ll be telling us the world is flat, the Earth is only 6000 years old and the Grand Canyon was created by the flood from Noah and his Ark.

Woah there Ceara.
50/50 that the baby will survive DELIVERY. You’re talking survival past year one. They’re not the same thing. I said let the child be delivered and have its fair shot – it may or may not survive but if its capable of drawing a breath and surviving without the placenta then it deserves a chance.

Where did the flat earth comment come from and what was its relevance?

You seem to be pulling statistics out of thin air hence the world is flat comment. Sure why not let babies be born at 24 weeks. Sure if they survived delivery that’s all that matters. I guess its irrelevant if they survive longer than that.

Babies born at 24 weeks don’t “take a breath” as you describe. Most if not all are put on a ventalator as their lungs are no where near developed enough to breath on there own.

Nothing wrong with that, if it is the free and educated choice of the individual concerned. We don’t think twice about relieving other animals of such abject pain and suffering… without their permission. It is, by and large, only religions that promote the lie that humans must suffer to appease their supernatural, non-existent deities which is, of course, exactly why Savita had to writhe, in agony, for three days waiting for the heartbeat of a non-viable, miscarrying foetus to cease. There are no such things as miracles. Trust me, the amniotic sac was not going to heal itself and refill itself with amniotic fluid. Nor was the original cause of the miscarriage going to disappear. Such things only happen in the fantasies, myths and legends of religions, not in the real world. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Jon, I am 100% pro choice (as my previous comments would show). However, I can’t agree with you there. My Mam started to miscarry my brother when she was 12 weeks pregnant, she was taken into hospital where the doctors did everything they could to save both my brother and my Mam. She was gravely ill, her b/p dropped to 40/28 and she almost died but they actually did manage to save him. She was in hospital, technically miscarrying, for the next 4 months and she gave birth to him almost 3 months prematurely but there is nothing wrong with him. He is just like the rest of us. And this was in 1977 by the way, I would like to think that technology and advancements in medical science have improved since then.

Hospitals here will try to save the baby because that is the law and sometimes they do save the baby. The problem for that poor woman was the fact that our hospitals are filthy, germ ridden hotspots these days and she contracted septicaemia as a result.

Andrea, I am delighted that your brother was born fit and well, or, at least, ended up that way and almost certainly went on to fight with you! I also hope that your mum, fully recovered from her ordeal.

I did, however, specifically mention “the amniotic sac was not going to heal itself and refill itself with amniotic fluid” because, to best of my research, I understand that the waters breaking before the foetus is viable is game over, as it was in Savita’s case.

I really don’t want to get too clinical/personal here but do you know if your mother’s waters had broken at 12 weeks? Also, if they did, was the amniotic sac repaired in some way? I can imagine that amniotic fluid would recycle and regenerate naturally, under the right conditions, but I simply can’t see how a foetus could survive without being in amniotic fluid. I really am only asking because I am interested from the scientific perspective. Please don’t reply if this is getting too personal or upsetting.

Are the sick, the elderly etc residing inside someone else’s body?

Jon, I actually don’t know for sure if her waters had broken so perhaps you are right, maybe she was just bleeding. When I find out I’ll let you know. I have mentioned this in previous threads as a reason for abortion on demand because it would remove the whole “grey area” issue. Doctors would be too afraid to act if there was even the slightest doubt.

I think you will find that for most people who are in favour of abortion on demand it means a point short of viability outside of the womb. 20 weeks would seem to be a very safe limit for this.

I am completely pro-choice. It makes me uncomfortable to think about aborting a foetus that might have the capacity to survive outside the womb. However, I know from personal experience that life is complicated. We, as a society, need to do more than pay lip service to the notion that women can be trusted to weigh their options carefully and make a considered decision. I don’t owe anyone an explanation regarding my own choice; likewise, I am not entitled to pass judgment on another woman’s reasons. That is why I must be in favour of abortion without restrictions. If a woman feels she needs to make the difficult and painful decision to have a late-term abortion, her reasons are her own, they are valid to her, and they are none of my business.