Time travel does not yet exist. But the Tories are doing their best

Just have a look what other health news was bubbling under the surface and Hunt’s revelations become all too obvious. I have noticed a similar strategy in staff meetings; if things take a turn in a direction the management (not obviously in my present employment) are not happy then just bring up either homework or uniform and the discussion is soon side tracked for a good half hour by which time hopefully everyone has forgotten the other thing.

Just have a look what other health news was bubbling under the surface and Hunt’s revelations become all too obvious. I have noticed a similar strategy in staff meetings; if things take a turn in a direction the management (not obviously in my present employment) are not happy then just bring up either homework or uniform and the discussion is soon side tracked for a good half hour by which time hopefully everyone has forgotten the other thing.

If you refer to the link helpfully posted above you will note that the UK stands virtually alone in having such a lengthy time limit: 12 weeks appears to be the norm across Europe, with some extensions available only in certain (and typically more medically necessary) cases, so I strongly doubt that the matter is as clear cut as you suggest.

“I don’t see any compelling medical reason to justify lowering the limit”

Nor I, hence my comment that this is a political and moral debate, for which one must accept views will change over time.

However, nor do I accept the “medical” reasoning for the 22 week limit: you appear to equate viability with the starting point for foetal rights to be applicable.  I suggest that is a deeply flawed mechanism for attributing rights, exemplified by the fact that until comparatively recently (i.e. barely a generation ago) this would have provided apparent justification for near full-term abortions.

For what it’s worth, I do not have a fixed view on the “right” limit, I simply accept that the matter remains open for debate, but likewise do not accept that a “women’s rights” (surely “parent’s rights”?) are trampled upon by asking parents to consider their position a little earlier than 5 months down the line.  It would be unusual to have political debates in an honest and transparent manner with the public, but I would be very interested in seeing the stats for abortion reasons and proportions across each of the 22 weeks: my suspicion is that none of the later term abortions relate to circumstances which were already in place at conception, but rather reflect a changing position by the mother.  To change one’s mind is fine, and circumstances do occasionally justify such changes, but I don’t think “women’s rights” include the right to put off decisions unnecessarily while a human being develops inside them, just because they can.

“If you take the paragraph referring to late-term abortions “because they can” in context, you will see that I specifically make a request for the statistics for reasons of late-term abortions. I make no assumption of laziness, merely observe that if it is a significant reason then that should be seen as unacceptable.You meanwhile make an explicit assumption that “virtually all” late-term abortions are all medically necessary. Does that mean you would support a shorter limit for non-medical reasons?”

But if you weren’t sure, then why did you include the sentence ‘I don’t think “women’s rights” include the right to put off decisions unnecessarily while a human being develops inside them, just because they can’, which struck me as unnecessary. In answer to your question, no, because pre-viability I don’t regard the foetus as having any standing. Post viability, the situation changes somewhat, which is where I’m open to restrictions on the reasons for allowing a termination.

“My central point is that in an ideal stable, loving partnership, that both parties should be involved in reaching a joint decision. It is a bugbear of mine to see constant assumptions that it is “only” the mother’s choice, though I do accept there are situations where the mother’s choice must take primacy, and outside those idealised conditions this will be increasingly likely to be the case”.

I still don’t fully accept that contention. The man isn’t entitled to any say. He’s not bearing the medical risks associated with pregnancy, nor with birth. There’s no equality of potential harm in this decision, which makes it inequitable for a man to try and lay claim to a ‘joint decision’. Ideally, I suppose it might be better to discuss the matter, but the ultimately, yes, it is ‘only’ the mother’s choice.

“That the ECHR have ruled using a quantitative measure for ease of defining “humanity” is frankly irrelevant: their judgement is a legal opinion, not an immutable law, and the medical fact is we simple don’t understand brain function well enough to be able to make such judgement with any certainty”.

David, the medical science on foetal viability is strong and certainly compelling enough to influence public policy. Among other issues, the foetus almost certainly does not feel pain ( http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice ) prior to 24 weeks and for the remainder of the pregnancy has only limited cognition of sensual stimuli. Of course the ECHR’s decision isn’t a binding moral law, but it is useful guidance on these issues. There is an established medical consensus that 24 weeks marks the point where the foetus is statistically more likely to survive, with intensive intervention, than die. This is a useful marker in determining what protections we extend to it. 

“You seem to keep glossing over my point that this is moral and political, not medical (because there is inadequate evidence to support any specific term limit, be it 12, 22 or 24 weeks), but this is central to this issue.
To make any comment on the final sentence you will have to explain to me what you mean by “reproductive equality”: to me that suggests some sort of tit-for-tat approach: “I bear the baby so I get to choose whether it lives or dies”: if so I suggest that undermines the remainder of your thesis”.

The medical aspects of abortion are central to its moral dimensions, which is why refer to them. The case being made, by recent proponents of lowering the limit, is that medical science justifies this move – see Hunt and Miller’s comments – which as I have pointed out, is not warranted on available scientific evidence. If this changes, we can revisit this discussion. Morally, as I have set out, medical viability is the most important aspect of the discussion on limits, because it demarcates the point where the foetus ceases, on average, to be merely another part of the mother’s body and acquires a certain, limited standing.

By reproductive equality, I mean the fact that until women are able to control their fertility, true gender equality will be impossible. As pregnancy is a medical condition unique to women, giving women the right to decide whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy is integral to their personal autonomy. It’s not an unqualified right, but it should be a very extensive one.

Why? Because if we accept the principle of personal autonomy in medical decisions over personal health, then if a medical matter only concerns the health of that individual, they have full discretion over what treatment to accept. The foetus, to borrow a legal term, lacks standing.

“what about the 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks that survive?’

Statistical outliers. A foetus born at that age is highly likely to die and therefore cannot be said to be viable, on average. As medical science can’t predict, pre-delivery, whether or not a foetus will survive if born between 21 and 24 weeks – being certain to die before then – we have to apply statistical averages to decide whether or not a limit reflects the viability of a foetus. It doesn’t mean that every decision will be ‘correct’, so-to-speak, but it is the least worst means of resolving medical uncertainty.