Abortion at 38 Weeks: A Thought Experiment?

[treemom]

So I wanted to give my perspective on a few things here...this is my perspective and is going to be heavily shaded by my experience.

The article also doesn't present enough context: is this concerning a medical abortion or an elective abortion? Is there a philosophical difference between saying 'my third trimester baby is dying/very sick, it is more humane to abort' and 'I am carrying a healthy baby but I don't want to bring to term/become a mother'? Part of me says yes, there is a philosophical difference. But I want to be careful about my own prejudices.

Solider o' One- I do know I can't see philosophical differences between me (first example) and the fictional second person. I had such concrete, "acceptable" reasons. But that second person? Still in a crappy situation. Anyone in a situation who is considering abortion at 38 weeks is in a situation that sucks for them. Obviously something happened along the way to change their mind, health, crisis, or they were unable to find out the were pregnant or actually get an abortion sooner. Keep in mind that as it stands in the US even the first situation is unlikely at 38 weeks. It is pretty damn unlikely to happen at 34 weeks! And the second situation isn't something that really does happen legally within the US. So I am speaking only in theory. I just don't see a moral or philosophical difference between the two. No one chooses an abortion at 38 weeks because it is easy. (In fact it isn't...especially since the safer intact D&X is illegal now)

Being both realistic and compassionate is in order. Of course this might all be true: the stigma, the frozen-in-terror, the fetus-in-suffering (here the author seems to confuse the categories: with what kind of termination are we dealing here?) And a compassionate medical and legislative community should consider these factors. OTOH, you also have to be realistic. As adults, we expect to move through the world with a measure of autonomy and responsibility. Is it unfair or cruel to assume that the large majority of women who want to abort are expected to finalize that procedure before the viable third trimester? (Of course, we can always think of exceptions - trauma, distress, financial constraints, medical knowledge etc - and we should accommodate them.)

But how in the world do you deal with those types of exceptions in the real world in practice. And why should women be required to defend their reasons to those not their medical providers. Why can't medical providers and women be those who make the decisions? These are already licensed insured people. They are already trained and doctors. I don't think the judicial system should be involved. And that is what it comes down too...because how else do you decide which exception is "good enough"

Thanks for pitching in, Valsa. Sure, I also think it's academic (hence the title 'Thought Experiment') but it's interesting to think through the issues.

I think 2) is a very important point you make. 1) and 3) could be argued against, I think. 1) because earlier points in the pregnancy where the fetus is not yet viable allow for a real philosophical and medical distinction (I think) and 3) because technically you could argue that the rights to life for a viable fetus trumps the woman's discomfort/trauma of adopting out.

Again, this stuff is very personal, I acknowledge that. And I hope that I don't come across as judgmental. Thanks for your input.

I actually don't think you can make that argument. Or rather, I don't think you can make that argument convincingly to me. The woman is absolutely 100% autonomous.....the fetus is not. Of course...its a tricky argument to make..because it is not currently reality.

Is an abortion at 38 weeks even practical? I thought delivering a dead fetus is harder and riskier for the mother (baby can't turn)? And taking it out piece by piece by like you do a younger fetus doesn't seem like a option either. Fetuses at 38 weeks are much bigger with stronger skeletons.

I can answer this. There are several types of abortions performed in late term. My experience with my two non-live births compared to my one live birth is that yes, a dead baby is harder. (I use baby here only because I guess I personally considered them babies after delivery...and I know I called them babies when I was pregnant. so it is just personal because I am using my personal story). You can do a hysterotomy which is safer for many reasons than a c-section although similar. One of the big reasons it might be physically harder, but safer is that when you are deliver a non-live birth well they aren't worried about what they can do that impacts the fetus. So they have a bit more control over it.

Intact D&X was actually the absolute safest way to deliver that far along. But it is not an option in the US anymore.

Honestly, yes, I think it comes down to whether or not we trust women. Of course I'm squeamish, even slightly horrified at the idea of an "elective" abortion at 38 weeks, but no matter what, I think that I shouldn't be the one having that conversation. It's not my health, my family, or my conscience on the line. It really comes down to that I trust women to be able to make moral decisions.

I suspect that is why this always comes up from anti-choicers (not meaning the OP) is because it does make people squeamish. Hell it makes me squeamish. My own late term abortion made me squeamish. It becomes a way they can demonize those who choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Yes, why not deliver the baby by c-section and give it up for adoption? At that point, this seems like a less invasive procedure than an abortion. OTOH, since this is a theoretical exercise, getting bogged down on specifics may hinder the argument. Not sure.

And yes, the cut-off point is very fine...

It isn't the same, even a surgical abortion via hysterotomy. During a live birth the surgeon must act quick and be careful of the fetus....the same surgery for an abortion the only concern is for the patient.

Soldier O' One - I think there are way better ways to impact the amount of late term abortions than making them morally reprehensible or illegal...so I tend to want to discuss how we can do that. Better medical care and coverage, better support for mothers who relinquish and mothers who don't, advances in fetal surgery and diagnosis, I even think de-stigmatizing it will actually reduce it. Because women will fee free to talk to people about all the options they are considering and may find answers to help them through whatever the reason they felt the need to terminate was. But as it stands now women are expected to feel bad about it.

It is so hard to discuss this in the abstract because it just isn't possible to get a legal abortion on demand at 38 weeks here...so much of what we are discussing is speculation of their reasons etc..not reality.

[Soldier of the One]

Thanks for that, Meda.

Am not sure why the author of the article chose this (extreme) example but she did and she placed the timeline at 38 weeks.

[Soldier of the One]

Hi Treemom,

Thank you for your thorough response. I will go reflect on all those answers. The issues are very new to me - I mean, with these particular hypothetical parameters. I am so sorry for your losses. I can't even imagine... and I credit you with the brave and difficult decisions you had to make.

I know the argument is flawed form the onset because 38 weeks is so extreme. Again, I wouldn't have chosen that argument but that's how the article put it.

And yes, yes, yes on prevention, health care, compassion and breaking down the taboos. That of all things should be obvious! :)

Take care!

[treemom]

The other problem with this thought experiment is that it has the practical result of eliminating access to third trimester abortions for women like Treemom or women who's health will be compromised by giving birth. When we don't trust women to make their own medical choices because of the fear that they will make supposedly "irresponsible" choices, then you have effectively eliminated actual choice for women.

I want to speak to this. The current limitations in late term abortions made it so I effectively had to get on a plane and fly several states away, stay in a hotel, have my abortion, recover in a hotel, and go home.

And also be scared of people bombing the place.

So yes, I will be leery of restrictions because they impact so much more than just the "bad" abortions.

[Rosa]

I'm with everybody else on the "between a woman and her doctor" probably covering this situation - if a woman can be at 38 weeks and want an abortion and convince a doctor it's a good idea, she must have a good reason.

For comparison, I had my son at 35 weeks and he was fully "viable", needed very little medical care (extra warming and food). The pregnancy was killing me, so they induced his birth early - that's what we do that late in pregnancy, unless there is some horrible dire reason to do otherwise. If something in that pregnancy had gone so wrong that abortion was the preferred option at that late point, the very last thing that would have been helpful would be a judge or lawyer involved.

p.s. whenever these kind of thought experiments are suggested, instead of getting all abstract and moralistic, I really want to recommend that everyone read Sara Blaffer Hrdy's book Mother Nature. Humans practice a LOT more infanticide than other primates - Hrdy claims we are the ONLY primates where mothers will kill their own infants. It's part of being human, one of the things where we're different than chimpanzees or gorillas. Instead of assuming an abstract or idealized world, start with the one we have.

[treemom]

Yes, Treemom, you covered it well. At least in the county where I live, concern over a 38 week abortion is purely an academic philosophic discussion. Practically speaking it won't happen because we don't have any physicians who will perform one that late. In fact, it's a bit tough to get one past 13 weeks here. We have a very few doctors who will go up to 18 weeks and possibly 20 for patients already in their practice and then more than likely only if a problem has shown up through lab testing or ultrasound. There is one OB who will do later abortions for conditions such as Treemom faced if referred by their OB although he has a cut-off well before 38 weeks.

I don't think my doctor, who was well known for late term abortions, performed them with any sort of regularity at 38 weeks. I was an outlier in his office I think.

[Minerva]

Soldier O' One - I think there are way better ways to impact the amount of late term abortions than making them morally reprehensible or illegal...so I tend to want to discuss how we can do that. Better medical care and coverage, better support for mothers who relinquish and mothers who don't, advances in fetal surgery and diagnosis, I even think de-stigmatizing it will actually reduce it. Because women will fee free to talk to people about all the options they are considering and may find answers to help them through whatever the reason they felt the need to terminate was. But as it stands now women are expected to feel bad about it.

That's a good point, treemom. We tell anti-choicers that they should be working to prevent the types of abortions they disagree with instead of trying to make them illegal.

There's also the fact that when lawmakers decide where the line between "elective" and "medically necessary" lies, people fall through the cracks and you read about horrible cases where people's babies suffered needlessly because doctors couldn't legally do anything.

[HOTW]

My main issue with the whole idea is viability of the fetus. My son was born at 38 weeks and needed no special care although he was small. I have majoy issues with the interferenceof a Hospital to medically interfere with a child who has little chance to a normal life if it survives beyond birth. I would have issues with a woman who decides to abort at 38 weeks a perfectly viable fetus when there are other options available for her and the child, however as in treemom's case where she had no other choice, due to the laws in her state, to prevent undue suffering of her child at birth, made th e diffucult choice to end her suffering in a humane mannner.

I am a supporter of euthanasia as well if a person is suffering and no medical cure is possible. I watched my Dad suffer with cancer and had a friend who stockpiled her pills during an 8 year battle with cancer so she could end her own suffering if it came to it, and I know what it is like to wach a person wither from pain alone and how much they suffer, yet Dr's hold back drugs because the ill body would kill its owner because pain killing drugs would cause the organs to fail at a much faster rate if given th e drugs at a higher lever!

So many questions arise from such a thought process it is the right qustions that allow you to make a proper choice.

[feministing]

Let me preface by saying that I'm a medical student, so I know a lot about embryology, physiology, and pathology and let's just say that very few medical professionals are pro-life for good reason.

In all my training (undergrad + graduate) I have only met 1 physician who was pro-life (out of hundreds). And even he was borderline. He believes that abortion should be legal under extreme circumstances (rape, incest, danger to mother or fetus' life, etc) but should be strongly discouraged and used as a last resort. He's an endocrinologist, devoutly religious. I also rotated with a clearly very catholic family doc, but the topic of pro-life pro-choice never really came up (I didn't want to rock the boat). Stephen Paine is an anomaly who obviously threw his training by the wayside for Jeebus (i.e. denied it as false if it contradicted the bible).

Let me explain: I believe that life begins at awareness. There was an article in a journal I read awhile ago that said that fetuses only become aware of their existence at around 22-24 weeks (interestingly, this is when they start to become viable). They've done extensive studies of brainwaves to determine consciousness in addition to other means. If you don't trust science, or are stupid enough to believe in "Jesus" over science, then it's easy to dismiss this, but I firmly believe that if the fetus has no idea of its existence and never in the past had any idea of its existence, then it is impossible to cause harm to it at that point in gestation. Getting cut open when under general anaesthetic is a very different experience than getting stabbed while fully conscious.

Interestingly, because awareness begins at viability, I believe that abortion laws should maintain the same gestational age restriction (must be <20 weeks for abortions to be allowed) but once the fetus is under 20 weeks absolutely no restrictions should be made as to who could get an abortion. After 24 weeks, I'm sorry, but the baby's gotta be born or else it's murder because you're harming a living thing that is aware of its existence. Or as Descartes would say, cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. I know Decartes was from the 17th century and decidedly Christian, but these words of ring true to me. I would like to add that comatose/vegetative patients have been seen to dream and even think (again, brainwave studies) unlike a fetus, which is sufficient proof by the Cartesian rule that they are alive. That's why a comatose or vegetative patient should be treated differently than a fetus - because it has lived and it is ethical to do whatever you could as a physician to revive them so that they could continue to live their lives as they desire. An 18 week-old fetus never had any hopes, dreams, desires, or experiences. A 28 week-old fetus might have. I strongly believe that murdering a fetus once it is aware of its existence, or past viability, is murder. Anyone who says that abortion before 20 weeks is murder is not only an idiot and a liar, but obviously knows nothing about physiology and medicine.

/rant

[Soldier of the One]

Feministing, thanks for sharing your perspective which happens to line up pretty closely with mine.

A theoretical question, however: as preferable as it is to 'believe' (stupid word in this context) in science rather than Jesus/Flying Spaghetti Monster, how would you respond to the continual development of science and new findings in fetal physiology? I am certainly not an expert, but what if we become more competent over time to measure more minute brainwaves (go with it, it's an example :)) which would place the date of awareness further? Doesn't this open a new can of worms?

Thanks again for responding.

[treemom]

Feministing,

So you are comfortable inducing delivery at 20 weeks? Because I think abortion is far more compassionate in most cases than inducing delivery. For everyone involved.

[feministing]

Feministing, thanks for sharing your perspective which happens to line up pretty closely with mine.

A theoretical question, however: as preferable as it is to 'believe' (stupid word in this context) in science rather than Jesus/Flying Spaghetti Monster, how would you respond to the continual development of science and new findings in fetal physiology? I am certainly not an expert, but what if we become more competent over time to measure more minute brainwaves (go with it, it's an example :)) which would place the date of awareness further? Doesn't this open a new can of worms?

Thanks again for responding.

It honestly depends on the findings, but at this point in time I am pretty confident about the methods that were used in these studies to make these determinations. If, however, the awareness age is brought back, I would agree with narrowing the window of time during which a woman could get an abortion because if you are killing something that knows it exists you are harming it. Think about it.

However, my knowledge of developmental neurobiology and embryology (how neurons form, etc.) seems to point to the notion that awareness does not begin at conception. Neural networks are simply not sophisticated enough for that. I mean, is Smuggar's jizz aware that it just flew across the room in response to that raunchy sex tape? And even as a zygote it takes months for neural networks, containing millions of interconnected neurons, to differentiate and form into complete enough schemas for thought and awareness to occur? It's a lengthy process. And remember, 24 weeks is when the very first glimmer of awareness occurs - it takes several months for awareness to be fully developed. Nobody remembers being born for a reason - because the brain was so underdeveloped even at 40 weeks or so that memory did not exist yet and awareness was more reflexive than anything else. And think of what a good thing that is - imagine remembering/feeling birth? That would be so traumatizing and painful!

That being said, I still believe that even the blip of awareness that exists at 24 weeks warrants abortion restrictions past that point. 20-24 weeks should be done on a case-by-case basis, measuring fetal brainwaves and seeing whether the fetus is more or less developed than its perceived gestational age.

So you are comfortable inducing delivery at 20 weeks? Because I think abortion is far more compassionate in most cases than inducing delivery. For everyone involved.

Hmm...interesting question. See above about case-by-case basis. Also the mother should have a say in this, and I believe that if the mother or fetus' life is in danger by carrying the baby any further along, and no methods of birth would be less dangerous than abortion (e.g. C-section) then the mother's life always takes precedence over the baby's, and if the baby is nonviable anyway (as in, having a medical condition that makes it unlikely to EVER survive outside the womb or makes it likely to die very young and suffer deeply) who cares if it gets aborted?

[treemom]

So if a woman makes it past 20 weeks if your view she must continue the pregnancy or be a murderer?

[honeyinthesunshine]

I really want to say thank you to Treemom for commenting on this. I'm in awe of your ability to be so incredibly gracious and candid. It's truly awesome.

In response to the hypothetical, I'd have to let good decency and compassion be my guide. I think that allowing anyone total autonomy over their body is decent and compassionate. Allowing a woman unfettered access to the best possible care is decent and compassionate. Allowing a woman the benefits of sacrosanct privacy with her healthcare provider is decent and compassionate. Bottom line. I don't believe any woman chooses abortion at any stage capriciously, and I certainly don't believe that a woman is as flippant as some would have us believe at 38 weeks.

That said, looking at it from another angle, perhaps a more selfish, if not more real one, do I care? If a woman has a very late term abortion, for whatever reason, does it affect me? Is her choice to terminate that pregnancy going to effect me in any material way? If the hypothetical is that this woman goes to her doctor, has this procedure and it is legal and thus protected by doctor-patient confidentiality, how would I ever know?

What exactly is the argument? Are we talking about the rights of a fetus we don't know? Are we talking about the rights of a woman we don't know? Or are we really talking about our right to not be made acutely uncomfortable by virtue of a choice we don't feel comfortable with? I think that's more the crux of the hypothetical. If we don't know (and we shouldn't) about this hypothetical woman's hypothetical abortion, what difference does it make? I am not the moral monitor of other people's decisions, and I really doubt that that woman, in her moment of choice was wondering what I thought. I don't stay up nights wondering about the healthcare decisions of others, and I don't think most other people do either. I wouldn't ever have the occasion to know about this woman's private discussions with her doctor, so really, how would I be outraged or offended or anything at all?

Call me cold, but I have my own shit to worry about. Spending more then a moment thinking about the goings on in anyone else's uterus but my own would be... a bit bizarre.

It's none of my business. Or anyone else's. Denying someone access to care because I'm uncomfortable is just immoral.

Just my two cents.

[feministing]

Well if keeping the pregnancy would mean great harm physically or psychologically then no, she should not. I think by that point it's very fuzzy as to whether it is "murder" or not. Once the baby is viable, then I do feel that it is murder.

What you don't know is that 88% of women who get abortions do so before 12 weeks, and 11.998% more get them between 11 and 20 weeks. So the percentage that gets abortions at 20-24 weeks is so small that it is almost negligible... and most likely a vast majority of those, even, are due to medical conditions of the mother and/or baby (which warrants abortion). 5 months is a sufficient period of time to decide whether you want to keep the baby, and when I begin practice, my mantra would be, "if in doubt, abort it out" for women who are undecided.

Still, I feel uncomfortable about abortions past 24 weeks. 20-24 weeks is very iffy, but again, should be allowed on a case-by-case basis (with the mother and a pro-choice doctor having input).

[Anise]

I think there is a problem when positions are reduced to pro-life/anti-choice = no abortions evar! and pro-choice = some/all abortions are okay. A lot of nuance is missed.

For example, some people take the position that abortion of a conscious "person" is not okay and should not be an option- the same ideas and rhetoric as pro-life/anti-choice, just rolling back the timing to allow for early abortions. In these positions, the role of women's bodies and their autonomy is invisible. The idea that a person by being a person overrides any rights someone has over their own bodies is not questioned as it is in anti-choice arguments.

It's very telling of the influence of anti-choice proponents when people who call themselves pro-choice buy into anti-choice logic.

[feministing]

I think there is a problem when positions are reduced to pro-life/anti-choice = no abortions evar! and pro-choice = some/all abortions are okay. A lot of nuance is missed.

For example, some people take the position that abortion of a conscious "person" is not okay and should not be an option- the same ideas and rhetoric as pro-life/anti-choice, just rolling back the timing to allow for early abortions. In these positions, the role of women's bodies and their autonomy is invisible. The idea that a person by being a person overrides any rights someone has over their own bodies is not questioned as it is in anti-choice arguments.

It's very telling of the influence of anti-choice proponents when people who call themselves pro-choice buy into anti-choice logic.

I too am not a fan of the pro-choice anti-choice dichotomy. There are shades of grey.

I still believe that abortion after 24 weeks is akin to infanticide. Are you okay with infanticide? What would happen if theoretically a woman had no idea they were pregnant, gave birth at 40 weeks, and just left the baby to die? Or worse, chopped it up and put it in a dumpster?

[valsa]

I still believe that abortion after 24 weeks is akin to infanticide. Are you okay with infanticide? What would happen if theoretically a woman had no idea they were pregnant, gave birth at 40 weeks, and just left the baby to die? Or worse, chopped it up and put it in a dumpster?

Aw, and here we were having an intelligent discussion.

I knew some moron was gonna come in and fuck it up.

[treemom]

Well if keeping the pregnancy would mean great harm physically or psychologically then no, she should not. I think by that point it's very fuzzy as to whether it is "murder" or not. Once the baby is viable, then I do feel that it is murder.

What you don't know is that 88% of women who get abortions do so before 12 weeks, and 11.998% more get them between 11 and 20 weeks. So the percentage that gets abortions at 20-24 weeks is so small that it is almost negligible... and most likely a vast majority of those, even, are due to medical conditions of the mother and/or baby. 5 months is a sufficient period of time to decide whether you want to keep the baby, and when I begin practice, my mantra would be, "if in doubt, abort it out" for women who are undecided.

Still, I feel uncomfortable about abortions past 24 weeks. 20-24 weeks is very iffy, but again, should be allowed on a case-by-case basis (with the mother and a pro-choice doctor having input).

So a woman can legally evict someone from her physical residence, but if she makes it past this point it would be murder to evict the fetus.

I will say, I hope when you begin practice you see a lot more grey areas. In Memphis, where I live, there are a ton of young woman, and really sometimes just barely women...who don't discover they are pregnant until well past 20 weeks. And in many areas access issues, waiting periods and costs might be another reason a woman is unable to even try to get an abortion before a more acceptable times.

I think that parenting is a huge, huge decision. So I can see so many reasons why it would change just 16-20 weeks later. Time goes quick. Think about how it was just Christmas what seemed like a few days ago.

Btw, while my child would not have lived, there is no reason to believe there were cognitive delays...her awareness was just the same as a a healthy fetus. And I think we might be ascribing a little much to think that a 24 week old fetus can have hopes or desires. I am not sure my full term newborn had hopes and desires. Other than to not be uncomfortable.

[treemom]

I too am not a fan of the pro-choice anti-choice dichotomy. There are shades of grey.

I still believe that abortion after 24 weeks is akin to infanticide. Are you okay with infanticide? What would happen if theoretically a woman had no idea they were pregnant, gave birth at 40 weeks, and just left the baby to die? Or worse, chopped it up and put it in a dumpster?

And I think we have now moved passed the realm of polite discussion.

Also, earlier you asked who would care is a fetus who has had an incompatible with life diagnosis who would care if it was aborted...well I did. I cared a lot.

[Anise]

I still believe that abortion after 24 weeks is akin to infanticide. Are you okay with infanticide? What would happen if theoretically a woman had no idea they were pregnant, gave birth at 40 weeks, and just left the baby to die? Or worse, chopped it up and put it in a dumpster?

I see infanticide and abortion after 24 weeks as fundamentally different actions because of the involvement of the women's bodies. A lot of anti-choicers act like where the baby/fetus is makes no difference because the body of the mother and the mother's right over her own body are made invisible. Whether a baby is induced, born at term, or aborted requires some level of involvement of the mother's body. By contrast, the care of an infant does not necessarily involve the mother's body. Women are not forced to keep their babies and breast feed them.

Stating that one actor's life is more important than another actor's right over their body is quite a moral claim and does not go without saying.

[treemom]

Also feministing you pointed out this awareness develops near the point of viability...except viability has moved earlier and earlier over time because of medical advances. It isn't an amazing coincidence or some magic of the brain and body hitting a new level of beingness at the same time. It is the case now. 26 weeks wasn't even viability when my son was born.

[feministing]

I see infanticide and abortion after 24 weeks as fundamentally different actions because of the involvement of the women's bodies. A lot of anti-choicers act like where the baby/fetus is makes no difference because the body of the mother and the mother's right over her own body are made invisible. Whether a baby is induced, born at term, or aborted requires some level of involvement of the mother's body. By contrast, the care of an infant does not necessarily involve the mother's body. Women are not forced to keep their babies and breast feed them.

Stating that one actor's life is more important than another actor's right over their body is quite a moral claim and does not go without saying.

There's a key difference between giving up all parental rights to the baby and aborting it. I think once it reaches viability it makes more sense to give it up for adoption. And again, between 20-24 weeks is a grey area, and in the cases you're describing of the troubled women who absolutely could not be able to handle children I would recommend abortion, especially if drug or alcohol use had occurred in the womb to the extent that it would have caused significant damage to the fetus. Also in my experience it is rare for women who have not known they were pregnant for that long to have healthy babies, despite what the reality show "I didn't know I was pregnant" would lead people to believe. You're looking at a vast minority of women who seek abortions - like I said, 99.99% of women who seek abortions are earlier than 20 weeks in which case I wholeheartedly support abortion in all cases, no matter what, no ifs, ands or buts. As for the case by case basis, I assume it to be a sliding scale - with the vast majority of cases warranting abortion at 20 weeks versus only about half of cases warranting abortion at 24 weeks (and this is provided the mother and fetus are completely healthy, which is even rarer in the case of late-term abortions).

Like I said, it's ultimately up to the doctor. Even till term, if the doctor and mother have compelling reasons to allow abortion to occur, I'm all for it.

[feministing]

Also feministing you pointed out this awareness develops near the point of viability...except viability has moved earlier and earlier over time because of medical advances. It isn't an amazing coincidence or some magic of the brain and body hitting a new level of beingness at the same time. It is the case now. 26 weeks wasn't even viability when my son was born.

Also I didn't say viability, I said awareness, which so happens to occur around the same time as viability (as of the present day). Such is a coincidence.

[honeyinthesunshine]

Well if keeping the pregnancy would mean great harm physically or psychologically then no, she should not. I think by that point it's very fuzzy as to whether it is "murder" or not. Once the baby is viable, then I do feel that it is murder.

What you don't know is that 88% of women who get abortions do so before 12 weeks, and 11.998% more get them between 11 and 20 weeks. So the percentage that gets abortions at 20-24 weeks is so small that it is almost negligible... and most likely a vast majority of those, even, are due to medical conditions of the mother and/or baby (which warrants abortion). 5 months is a sufficient period of time to decide whether you want to keep the baby, and when I begin practice, my mantra would be, "if in doubt, abort it out" for women who are undecided.

Still, I feel uncomfortable about abortions past 24 weeks. 20-24 weeks is very iffy, but again, should be allowed on a case-by-case basis (with the mother and a pro-choice doctor having input).

I found your points interesting, though I am well aware of the percentages you mentioned.

I guess, what it comes down to for me is, who cares what you think? Or what I think? All of these arguments begin with, "Well, I think..." or "I feel...' and I don't think my "thoughts", or "feelings", or anyone else's, are relevant to the woman seeking an abortion. They just don't matter. They don't matter in her circumstance, she isn't going to call us at home so that we can opine, and, I can only speak for myself here, but I know I am wholly unqualified to be anyone else's moral arbiter.

You may view it as murder, but so long as she does not, then your opinion is irrelevant. I have opinions about many many things, but I in no way believe that it is moral or within my rights to compel others to adhere to my standards, especially in the arena of their healthcare. I certainly do not have the right to judge them for their decisions, either.