For argument's sake, let's ignore abortions out of medical necessity, as I'm pretty sure that few people would deny a woman the ability to have an abortion if it's going to negatively impact her health to carry the pregnancy to term. What I want to focus on are abortions performed out of pure want.
Sure! But since we agree on this, we must realise that the necessary legislation is going to effectively allow it to be a decision between the woman & her doctor.
Let me ask you a question: Let's assume you're a government official of some sort and a pregnant woman walks into your office. She says to you, "I'm eight months pregnant but I don't want to be pregnant anymore. I've already talked to my doctor and he's willing to perform an abortion on me. Would you allow me to have one?" What do you say to her?
At 30 weeks, I'm agnostic regarding the mental state of a fetus, but I become increasingly distressed. I'm not comfortable with elective abortions at this stage. I cannot think of a way of restricting them without ruins a woman's right to medical privacy or without risking women's lives.
If you're asking if I would authorise, I guess not (though it shouldn't be up to me). If the doctor is saying she doesn't need an abortion, then she doesn't need one.
Wait... But why should 'your ethics' matter in a woman's "private medical decisions"? Do you see where I'm going with this? I would hope so.
I think I do. I guess my answer is that I can think that my ethical opinion shouldn't be official policy (despite my ethical opinion being correct). I don't think parents should be raising their children to believe that Genesis is true, either, but I don't think it's my right to enact policies to stop them. I just wish they wouldn't.
Well, I don't know much about Canada, but if it's anything like the U.S., then the overwhelming majority of abortions aren't medically necessary. They're purely elective procedures, which is why most people find the issue to be rather distasteful.
Of course, you could be solely talking about late-term abortions here, but then you'd be ignoring what I was trying to get at with my question, which was to deal with issues of a woman merely wanting an abortion because it conveniences her do to so, rather than her needing an abortion for some medical reason.
Yeah, they're mostly elective. But they're all first or second trimester. I know some people are bothered by it, but most really aren't. It's hard to express how much less vocal the prolife & prochoice movements are here (and, I've heard, in the UK). We just seem to have a compromise that bothers some people, but not enough to really make it an issue. In the end, having six months to choose seems to be quite enough for most people. It's really a pretty long time.
It's well-known (Or so I thought) that when people discuss positions they tend to talk about the dominant ideology within that position, not the fringe minorities.
I think that the idea of "early abortions okay, later abortions less okay" is actually the majority position of the PC crowd. In the US, the debate is more extreme.
Why he wants to restrict abortion after the 23rd week or so of pregnancy is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What's relevant is that, at some point in time, he wants to restrict a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Therefore, he doesn't believe that the decision to abort should be "between a woman and her doctor" (For if he did, then he would have to say that a woman who wants an abortion her eighth month of pregnancy who has a doctor willing to perform it for her should be allowed to have an abortion), but rather it should be "between a woman and her doctor for so long as the government-- Or more specifically, he-- says it's okay to have one".
I don't know how else to say it. Sure, I wouldn't authorise one in certain circumstances. I'd rather set up a system where I (and the government) has no say. The regulations I'm happy with are "If a woman wants one before 24 weeks, then okay. If she can convince her doctor she needs one after 24 weeks, then okay"
The latter is the same stance that PL'ers more-or-less adopt. That is, most don't want to ban abortion outright, but rather limit it to those instances in which it's needed. The only difference, therefore, between the PC and PL stances is that PC'ers place the line at which abortions should be restricted to those of
need six or so months after the line at which PL'ers argue that abortions should be restricted to those of
need (Viability vs. conception).
If abortions were made illegal except in the case of rape, incest, health concerns and severe fetal defects, I'd be PC then, too, because then one's "choice" would be within the boundaries I want it to be in. You see, when you deny people the ability to exercise the choice want, or say that their choice is restricted to the instances you want it to be restricted to, then you're not really all about choice, but rather "pro-what-you're-okay-with"
.
If you make them illegal except in your exceptions, then what happens?
Does she have to prove a rape?
Does she have to prove incest?
Does she have to prove health concerns to more than just one doctor? If so, what about the risks involved in timely necessity?
...And, for the record, you simply can't presuppose that the fetus isn't a person. That's bad form. Really bad form.
I didn't. It took me years & years of study to get to the educational level where I am completely confident in the position I hold (including confidence that I am agnostic in some areas).
