Abortion at 38 Weeks: A Thought Experiment?

[valsa]

Tried? But then did nothing for another 14 weeks. Late term abortions are not illegal in the UK.

Elective abortions? I can't find anything stating elective abortions after 24 weeks are legal in the U.K.

[OkToBeTakei]

True. But I did not say elective.

Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).

The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:

abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic

two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:

if it is necessary to save the woman's life

to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

if there is substantial risk that if the child were born, s/he would have physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped

The bolded can be a compelling and diverse reasoning.

This is a 'thought' experiment. There are I believe anecdotally 130 late term abortions per year in the UK. (excluding NI.)

To 'Elect' to have an abortion at 38 weeks? Legally I would imagine a woman could seek it.

Thankfully this did not happen..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ate-ruling

[valsa]

True. But I did not say elective.

The bolded can be a compelling and diverse reasoning.

This is a 'thought' experiment. There are I believe anecdotally 130 late term abortions per year in the UK. (excluding NI.)

To 'Elect' to have an abortion at 38 weeks? Legally I would imagine a woman could seek it.

Thankfully this did not happen..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ate-ruling

She says she tried to have an abortion but couldn't obtain one because she was over 24 weeks pregnant, so she did not fall into the category of those who could obtain late term abortions for health reasons. You said that U.K. legalities would not stop her from getting a late-term abortion when they obviously did.

[OkToBeTakei]

She says she tried to have an abortion but couldn't obtain one because she was over 24 weeks pregnant, so she did not fall into the category of those who could obtain late term abortions for health reasons. You said that U.K. legalities would not stop her from getting a late-term abortion when they obviously did.

Actually no I said late term abortion was not illegal. Did she seek one? That would very much depend on wether you wish to believe the CPS. It would appear not therefore she precluded herself.

Catt, 35, from Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, had previously given a baby up for adoption and terminated a pregnancy with the agreement of her husband.

She also attempted to terminate another baby but was beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks and concealed a further pregnancy from her husband before the child's birth.

When she discovered she was pregnant again in 2009, she believed the father of the child was her lover and ended the relationship after telling him about the pregnancy. She restarted the "casual" affair in June the following year.

She had an appointment for a consultation at a Marie Stopes clinic on March 16 2010 but a scan the day before showed that she was 29 weeks five days pregnant and too late for a termination.

Between March and May, she made several searches on the internet about illegal abortions and abortion drugs, including "Where can I get an illegal abortion?" and "Inducing an abortion at 30 weeks".

She bought drugs online from a company in Mumbai, India, in April 2010.

The drug was delivered to her home address when she was 38 weeks pregnant and around 11 days later, on May 21, she asked on the internet what would happen if she took the drug at full-term. On May 26 she asked how soon the drug would work.

The scan would have been done at her local hospital. Not at the MS Clinic.

[treemom]

Tried? But then did nothing for another 14 weeks. Late term abortions are not illegal in the UK.

Meh. If she tried and was lie to misled, or confused it happens.

[valsa]

Meh. If she tried and was lie to misled, or confused it happens.

This.

[treemom]

This.

I know that for me it was a lot easier than it would be for some and I was incredibly young, very early twenties. I had the knowledge of the law, support of husband and my gp and obgyn and the financial resources to buy two plane tickets, pay out of pocket and stay in a hotel for a week. And I worked for a pretty liberalism company at the time, so some people there knew.

If just one of those things were not the case it would have been different. One of the reasons I support minimizing regulation is because I believe it will make earlier abortions easier to obtain.

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

Ha! That british woman is proof of a whore killing a fullterm baby for no other reason then she is a whore.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Lookie here, this renders the discussion not entirely hypothetical:

British woman 'aborts' (illegally) at 39 weeks from an unwanted pregnancy, probably through a lover. As far as we know, the fetus had no abnormalities or issues.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/britis ... l-abortion

I despise lifesite news - I've caught them misreporting facts before.

Yes, the odd case happens where a woman self-aborts at or near term - but they are very, very rare. Think about it - what normal person goes through a pregnancy almost until term, and then decides to shoot themselves in the vagina or order drugs off the internet? Most women have a sense of self-preservation, if nothing else, and wouldn't risk their own health. I don't think that we need to criminalize behavior that is so rare and that is more likely to indicate a mental health issue than anything else.

Unlike Lifesite, I think that cases like this make the point that laws cannot be over-restrictive.

[OkToBeTakei]

I know that for me it was a lot easier than it would be for some and I was incredibly young, very early twenties. I had the knowledge of the law, support of husband and my gp and obgyn and the financial resources to buy two plane tickets, pay out of pocket and stay in a hotel for a week. And I worked for a pretty liberalism company at the time, so some people there knew.

If just one of those things were not the case it would have been different. One of the reasons I support minimizing regulation is because I believe it will make earlier abortions easier to obtain

You assume she was lied to, misled or confused. I don't think you can in any way compare your situation to this one. Except here you would not have had to fly anywhere or pay anything. The law in your case would have been clear.

Scrolling through as the above poster said differing news sites can muddy many waters. As can the legal system. Which was under scrutiny after the case..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/ ... sfeed=true

The case of Sarah Catt, jailed for 8 years for aborting her 38 week foetus, has prompted serious questions about the appropriateness of a lengthy jail term for a disturbed woman who poses no threat to the public. There are also concerns about the impartiality of the judge, who has links to a Christian charity which has campaigned for more conservative abortion laws. But the case raises another difficult legal question: what right does a woman have to determine the course of her own pregnancy?

The criminal law stands in interesting contrast to the law on forced interventions in a woman's pregnancy. Since the decision of the court of appeal in S v St George's Healthcare Trust [1999] Fam 26, a pregnant woman's right to refuse treatment has been admirably clear. Unless she is deemed to lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, she has complete control over every decision affecting her unborn child. She can refuse medical treatment, such as caesarean section, that would save her child's life. The appeal court in S stated:

"Although human, and protected by the law in a number of different ways … an unborn child is not a separate person from its mother. Its need for medical assistance does not prevail over her rights. She is entitled not to be forced to submit to an invasion of her body against her will, whether her own life or that of her unborn child depends on it. Her right is not reduced or diminished merely because her decision to exercise it may appear morally repugnant."

Interesting view on the Judge presiding the case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/ ... intcmp=239

Murkier and murkier?

http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/

One of the largest service providers which works in tandem with the NHS. Essentially separate, autonomous.

Marie Stopes International is the UK's leading provider of sexual and reproductive healthcare services. Our nationwide network of sexual health clinics see over 100,000 men and women each year who come to us for information, advice and professional care. We are committed to providing all the help you need to make informed choices about your health. We ensure that there is no wait for appointments and that our centres are safe, friendly, and comfortable places to visit.

Catt, 35, from Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, had previously given a baby up for adoption and terminated a pregnancy with the agreement of her husband.

She also attempted to terminate another baby but was beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks and concealed a further pregnancy from her husband before the child's birth.

When she discovered she was pregnant again in 2009, she believed the father of the child was her lover and ended the relationship after telling him about the pregnancy. She restarted the "casual" affair in June the following year.

She had an appointment for a consultation at a Marie Stopes clinic on March 16 2010 but a scan the day before showed that she was 29 weeks five days pregnant and too late for a termination.

Between March and May, she made several searches on the internet about illegal abortions and abortion drugs, including "Where can I get an illegal abortion?" and "Inducing an abortion at 30 weeks".

She bought drugs online from a company in Mumbai, India, in April 2010.

The drug was delivered to her home address when she was 38 weeks pregnant and around 11 days later, on May 21, she asked on the internet what would happen if she took the drug at full-term. On May 26 she asked how soon the drug would work.

From an opinion in the Guardian

The case of Sarah Catt, jailed for 8 years for aborting her 38 week foetus, has prompted serious questions about the appropriateness of a lengthy jail term for a disturbed woman who poses no threat to the public. There are also concerns about the impartiality of the judge, who has links to a Christian charity which has campaigned for more conservative abortion laws. But the case raises another difficult legal question: what right does a woman have to determine the course of her own pregnancy?

It would be very difficult to determine if she did in fact approach, and seek advice about a late term abortion from all the internet based data. From what is written she did not appear to be unaware as she had previously had an abortion, and given a baby up for adoption whilst in University. Was the failing not picking up her state of mind? Was that a factor? It would be difficult without assumption. Just as assuming she was lied to or misled.

Is the law at fault, it is far from perfect. But compared to what is described in the US there are certainly more choices available.

In 2011 196,082 abortions were carried out in England and Wales. (Scotland is cited differently.) On average 130 late term abortions were performed. The privacy of those are protected from data reporting. Thankfully as I posted up-thread.

In that year this was the only case of it's type that was reported.

My assumption would be that she had choices. The choice she took was incompatible with the law as it stands at the moment. Change the law? So woman have total medical autonomy over their body? Sure, but personally if that happens the law regarding Euthanasia, DNACPR, Capacity, and a myriad of other 'Medical autonomy' issues would also need to be addressed. Rabbit hole?

LOOOOONG and just my tupenny worth.

[treemom]

Oktbt- I don't know how I feel about the whole thing when it comes to an illegal abortion. And I understand if I were in your country my options would have been broader. Hell if I had actually lived in Kansas my options would have been different,

The only reason I said that was because I recognize that all those factors played into it for me. If just one had not been the case, it would have been different.

If she was told that she could not get an abortion that late, then it isn't she merely waited. Not every person has enough gumption to push against what they are told.

At the end of the day, this is an extreme oddity. I admit I did not read the articles and am going from snips here.

[OkToBeTakei]

Oktbt- I don't know how I feel about the whole thing when it comes to an illegal abortion. And I understand if I were in your country my options would have been broader. Hell if I had actually lived in Kansas my options would have been different,

The only reason I said that was because I recognize that all those factors played into it for me. If just one had not been the case, it would have been different.

If she was told that she could not get an abortion that late, then it isn't she merely waited. Not every person has enough gumption to push against what they are told.

At the end of the day, this is an extreme oddity. I admit I did not read the articles and am going from snips here.

Honestly? I am not very good at getting across my feelings online or opinions at times especially with issues like this and especially having no personal emotional experience. The issues I do have experience of ie. Social Welfare regarding Drug users/Homeless I am happy to voice an opinion. My 'go to' is to dig around and see if by reading and dissecting many sources it can help me form an opinion rather than a knee jerk reaction. In this case I am glad it is a 'thought experiment' and not one where I feel I have to.

To the bolded. I would like to think that was the case and that the system failed her. The case certainly sparked enough response to question many aspects of the system. As you said it is an extreme oddity, but I prefer to think that the reason she did what she did was because of some severe emotional stress. From what I have read she still refuses to say where she interred the body. It is a tragedy in all ways.

[Soldier of the One]

You assume she was lied to, misled or confused. I don't think you can in any way compare your situation to this one. Except here you would not have had to fly anywhere or pay anything. The law in your case would have been clear.

Scrolling through as the above poster said differing news sites can muddy many waters. As can the legal system. Which was under scrutiny after the case..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/ ... sfeed=true

My assumption would be that she had choices. The choice she took was incompatible with the law as it stands at the moment. Change the law? So woman have total medical autonomy over their body? Sure, but personally if that happens the law regarding Euthanasia, DNACPR, Capacity, and a myriad of other 'Medical autonomy' issues would also need to be addressed. Rabbit hole?

OKToBeTakei, I know I am quoting stuff out of context but I wanted to get the most interesting bits (to me) out.

A few points IMHO:

1) Like you said, we don't know if she was misled. She might have been mentally il, she might not. In any case, what she did was morally problematic to say the least. Even if she has autonomy over her body. Based on the information that we have on the case (which offers us a limited perspective, to be sure), I think it is possible to say that this woman handled the situation irresponsibly. I am inclined to think that she could have had an earlier abortion - as she had done previously - but for some reason (malice? neglect? fear? indifference? who knows?) she chose not to. Yes, abortion rights stand on the principle of trusting female human beings. Lots of laws stand on the principle of trusting human beings. But that doesn't mean that there will always be (the incidental, I hope/presume) people who violate that trust or at least deal with it irresponsibly. Just think of how the law grants parents autonomy over their children. Most parents are decent - some are abusive.

Maybe she was within her rights under the law. But in my opinion (granted, this is mine and not carved in stone nor do I legislate my opinion to anyone else) what she did was morally reprehensible. As inclined as I am to try and understand people's choices made through the lens of their particular circumstances, I think all of us draw moral boundaries. Our moral boundaries might be different, for compelling reasons. But this is where I draw mine.

2) "Although human, and protected by the law in a number of different ways … an unborn child is not a separate person from its mother. Its need for medical assistance does not prevail over her rights. She is entitled not to be forced to submit to an invasion of her body against her will, whether her own life or that of her unborn child depends on it. Her right is not reduced or diminished merely because her decision to exercise it may appear morally repugnant." I think this paragraph really sums up the tension rather well. A woman should obviously not be forced to submit to the violation of her bodily integrity. But I also think it is fair to say that her decision did appear (or was) morally repugnant.

There was another piece in the quote about the rights of the unborn child. However, the snippet didn't articulate what those rights were. Again, this points to the tension at hand. If a woman's bodily integrity (re: pregnancy) cannot be violated, then what are the rights of the unborn child? How are they determined and what are they?

3) Stretching the autonomy argument: as the post recognized, this raises all sorts of questions about euthanasia and other medical autonomy issues. Rabbit hole perhaps, but an important one to go down into, I think.

Again, my thoughts are still relatively unformed on this issue although I am struggling between sorting out the issues and acknowledging my own opinions and moral boundaries. If the unborn child has rights and those rights are at stake, the the abortion debate is no longer an academic exercise about stuff that's not my business. Then the law has a duty to protect those rights. But I am not sure what those rights are and at what point in gestation they kick in.

[valsa]

I am inclined to think that she could have had an earlier abortion - as she had done previously - but for some reason (malice? neglect? fear? indifference? who knows?) she chose not to.

From what OKTBT posted above:

She had an appointment for a consultation at a Marie Stopes clinic on March 16 2010 but a scan the day before showed that she was 29 weeks five days pregnant and too late for a termination.

Between March and May, she made several searches on the internet about illegal abortions and abortion drugs, including "Where can I get an illegal abortion?" and "Inducing an abortion at 30 weeks".

From this, it sounds like she wanted an abortion at 29/30 weeks and, for some reason, believed she was too far along for a legal termination (seeing as she had already tried to abort a previous pregnancy and was unable to due to being past 24 weeks, I'm guessing she was correct that she wouldn't have been able to get the legal abortion at that point) If the law allowed elective abortions at any point in the pregnancy, the story would have ended here. She would have gotten her abortion at 29/30 weeks like she wanted.

As for why it took her so long to actually abort the fetus:

She bought drugs online from a company in Mumbai, India, in April 2010.

The drug was delivered to her home address when she was 38 weeks pregnant and around 11 days later, on May 21, she asked on the internet what would happen if she took the drug at full-term. On May 26 she asked how soon the drug would work.

She ordered the drugs about a month after she found out she was too far along for a legal abortion (probably around 34 weeks), all the while she'd been searching the internet for places to get an illegal abortion. It sounds like the drugs were a last resort. She didn't receive the drugs until she was already 38 weeks along.

From everything I've read here, it sounds like being able to get an elective abortion at 30 weeks, like she wanted, would have prevented this from becoming an issue of a 39 week abortion.

[OkToBeTakei]

From what OKTBT posted above:

From this, it sounds like she wanted an abortion at 29/30 weeks and, for some reason, believed she was too far along for a legal termination (seeing as she had already tried to abort a previous pregnancy and was unable to due to being past 24 weeks, I'm guessing she was correct that she wouldn't have been able to get the legal abortion at that point) If the law allowed elective abortions at any point in the pregnancy, the story would have ended here. She would have gotten her abortion at 29/30 weeks like she wanted.

As for why it took her so long to actually abort the fetus:

She ordered the drugs about a month after she found out she was too far along for a legal abortion (probably around 34 weeks), all the while she'd been searching the internet for places to get an illegal abortion. It sounds like the drugs were a last resort. She didn't receive the drugs until she was already 38 weeks along.

From everything I've read here, it sounds like being able to get an elective abortion at 30 weeks, like she wanted, would have prevented this from becoming an issue of a 39 week abortion.

I imagine we are all making assumptions that really only the person herself could answer. There are many questions I would like to ask.

From the point of using this one case to further the discussion, you I think are coming from one end of a large spectrum to which the other end is 'pro life' an assumption on my part?

I think the answer will always lie somewhere in the middle. As I mentioned previously the 'rabbit hole' of legalities for me cover many issues and how without oversight they could be open to abuse.

I agree SOA it is a rabbit hole that needs to be explored...

[valsa]

I imagine we are all making assumptions that really only the person herself could answer. There are many questions I would like to ask.

True, we can't know for certain but we can make educated guesses with the information we have (assuming we're taking it at face value) Do you disagree that being unable to have an abortion with a previous pregnancy because it was after 24 weeks could have lead her to believe that this seemingly identical situation would have resulted in the same thing- denial of abortion?

From the point of using this one case to further the discussion, you I think are coming from one end of a large spectrum to which the other end is 'pro life' an assumption on my part?

I'm not sure what the question is here.

[Soldier of the One]

I imagine we are all making assumptions that really only the person herself could answer. There are many questions I would like to ask.

From the point of using this one case to further the discussion, you I think are coming from one end of a large spectrum to which the other end is 'pro life' an assumption on my part?

I think the answer will always lie somewhere in the middle. As I mentioned previously the 'rabbit hole' of legalities for me cover many issues and how without oversight they could be open to abuse.

I agree SOA it is a rabbit hole that needs to be explored...

I'm pro-choice, although not comfortable with abortions (barring exceptional medical reasons etc) past what we currently define as viability - 24, 25 weeks. I am not saying it never should happen (these things can be reviewed on a case by case basis) but very much uncomfortable with it. I believe both the gestating woman and the viable fetus have rights. How these work in tandem, I've not yet figured out.

Abortions below the 24 week mark I don't find particularly problematic although my personal stance would be, 'the sooner, the better'.

I guess that makes me a 'moderate pro-choicer'? I dunno how these definitions work.

Hope that clarifies things.

[2xx1xy1JD]

OKToBeTakei, I know I am quoting stuff out of context but I wanted to get the most interesting bits (to me) out.

A few points IMHO:

1) Like you said, we don't know if she was misled. She might have been mentally il, she might not. In any case, what she did was morally problematic to say the least. Even if she has autonomy over her body. Based on the information that we have on the case (which offers us a limited perspective, to be sure), I think it is possible to say that this woman handled the situation irresponsibly. I am inclined to think that she could have had an earlier abortion - as she had done previously - but for some reason (malice? neglect? fear? indifference? who knows?) she chose not to. Yes, abortion rights stand on the principle of trusting female human beings. Lots of laws stand on the principle of trusting human beings. But that doesn't mean that there will always be (the incidental, I hope/presume) people who violate that trust or at least deal with it irresponsibly. Just think of how the law grants parents autonomy over their children. Most parents are decent - some are abusive.

In this case, we don't trust because we have perfect faith that the decisions made will always be the best. Rather, we have to work with and support pregnant women because on a societal level, that's the best way to support fetuses and babies. When women are given the tools to be able to have greater autonomy over their bodies and the support and information that allows them to make healthier choices, you get better outcomes.

Criminal laws don't prevent these outlier cases - clearly, something is messed up to have Catt's history, or to either self-medicate or physically try to abort a full-term pregnancy. It's not a particularly rational action, so it's not going to be common, and criminal laws really only have a deterrent effect if the crime is a rational one.

The only way to use the law to protect fetuses is to use insanely extreme methods (delivery by force, or literally strapping a woman down and forcing treatment until she gives birth). Even in those cases where these methods have been used, they have not always been successful, and the fear that they cause leads to far more pregnant women making suboptimal decisions and refusing to seek help when warranted.

Maybe she was within her rights under the law. But in my opinion (granted, this is mine and not carved in stone nor do I legislate my opinion to anyone else) what she did was morally reprehensible. As inclined as I am to try and understand people's choices made through the lens of their particular circumstances, I think all of us draw moral boundaries. Our moral boundaries might be different, for compelling reasons. But this is where I draw mine.

Fair enough. I don't think that everything that is immoral must only be made illegal, nor do I think that we have to agree that all legal actions are also moral.

2) "Although human, and protected by the law in a number of different ways … an unborn child is not a separate person from its mother. Its need for medical assistance does not prevail over her rights. She is entitled not to be forced to submit to an invasion of her body against her will, whether her own life or that of her unborn child depends on it. Her right is not reduced or diminished merely because her decision to exercise it may appear morally repugnant." I think this paragraph really sums up the tension rather well. A woman should obviously not be forced to submit to the violation of her bodily integrity. But I also think it is fair to say that her decision did appear (or was) morally repugnant.

There was another piece in the quote about the rights of the unborn child. However, the snippet didn't articulate what those rights were. Again, this points to the tension at hand. If a woman's bodily integrity (re: pregnancy) cannot be violated, then what are the rights of the unborn child? How are they determined and what are they?

From my perspective (and the current Canadian legal perspective) is that they don't exist separately from those of the pregnant woman, in any way that can be enforced against the body of the pregnant woman.

3) Stretching the autonomy argument: as the post recognized, this raises all sorts of questions about euthanasia and other medical autonomy issues. Rabbit hole perhaps, but an important one to go down into, I think.

Again, my thoughts are still relatively unformed on this issue although I am struggling between sorting out the issues and acknowledging my own opinions and moral boundaries. If the unborn child has rights and those rights are at stake, the the abortion debate is no longer an academic exercise about stuff that's not my business. Then the law has a duty to protect those rights. But I am not sure what those rights are and at what point in gestation they kick in.

[Soldier of the One]

2xx1xyJD2 - thanks for clarifying that. That helps.

But what when the fetus *can* exist independently outside of the womb?

[OkToBeTakei]

True, we can't know for certain but we can make educated guesses with the information we have (assuming we're taking it at face value) Do you disagree that being unable to have an abortion with a previous pregnancy because it was after 24 weeks could have lead her to believe that this seemingly identical situation would have resulted in the same thing- denial of abortion?

I'm not sure what the question is here.

No. I do not feel I can make an educated guess based on face value of reporting by a third party. Especially the media. The fact is that abortion is perfectly legal here until 24 weeks. It is not Illegal past that. There are circumstances which I have quoted in regards to that prior to this repeatedly.

Unless you know something different about this case my answer will not change. I can't answer. It was not me. Again though if you want my personal opinion, I would have many questions, not just to the woman concerned. I think your question is too simple.

To the second. In this thread you appear to advocate for the women's right over her body. Full stop. I have no idea if this is your personal view/opinion or just a way to offer a controversial standpoint in which to open other's minds. No idea. It was an assumption. Either way it is an opinion. I apologise if that was an assumption which was wrong.

[Minerva]

I think it is a very polarizing question, personally, as someone who is somewhat middle of the road on abortion - these kind of discussions push me farther towards the anti-abortion side.

I think it's a good conversation and I like to explore just about any topic and am very interested in how people think about things - but I don't think these kind of extreme examples always lead to people thinking more along the lines of the person who holds the view ( the person in the article )... sometimes it has the opposite effect.

The extreme examples in the other direction do the same thing though - hearing about people objecting to plan b, or treatment for tubal pregnancy (for example ) also pushes people away from their views, I think.

I think it's normal for the 38 week hypothetical to push undecided people towards the anti-abortion side because that's what it's designed to do. There's this thing that they feel strongly about. They're seeing certain pro-choice people take a position they find horrifying, whereas the anti-abortion people unanimously agree with them. It makes them want to be "pro-life". Unfortunately, some of them will then transpose this allegiance to questions around choice that are actually pertinent, like whether Dr. X who performs abortions up to 18 weeks deserves to be picketed, and whether their tax dollars should fund 1st and 2nd trimester procedures. At least that's what the people who ask the 38 week question hope to accomplish. It's not a super logical way to function, but the March for Life thread has shown that anti-abortion organizations deal with children a lot, so it makes sense that they use this tactic. As you said, asking a room full of anti-abortion people whether people who kill blastocysts should be charged with murder could probably be used by pro-choice people to their advantage.

The people who use this question as a tactic think that the letter of the law should reflect their morals, and they assume other people work that way, too. By their view, for example, if Canadian lawmakers were just made to do the 38-week thought experiment, we'd get an abortion law because very few people think it's moral to let someone have an abortion at 38 weeks. It ignores the fact that many people think the effects of a law on the public's health and safety are more important than whether every single immoral act can be punished with it.

[valsa]

No. I do not feel I can make an educated guess based on face value of reporting by a third party. Especially the media. The fact is that abortion is perfectly legal here until 24 weeks. It is not Illegal past that. There are circumstances which I have quoted in regards to that prior to this repeatedly.

This thread is about a thought exercise. Given that premise, I'm not arguing so much "This is what factually happened in this case" (the case has its own thread here if I wanted to do that) as "Assuming that the facts presented are true, how does this case relate to the original thought experiment".

According to the facts presented, she felt she wasn't able to get a legal abortion past 24 weeks. I can make a guess that she was probably correct, given her failed previous attempt to get an abortion past that date, but that's neither here nor there. The fact remains, relating to the original thought experiment (remember, this case was presented by Soldier of the One as proof that some women choose abortions at 38/39 weeks), that if elective abortions were freely available at any point in a woman's pregnancy, it would have been a case of abortion at 29/30 weeks instead of 39. I wish she had been able to get her abortion at that point, though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been possible (though you're free to disagree with me on that point)

To the second. In this thread you appear to advocate for the women's right over her body. Full stop. I have no idea if this is your personal view/opinion or just a way to offer a controversial standpoint in which to open other's minds. No idea. It was an assumption. Either way it is an opinion. I apologise if that was an assumption which was wrong.

I'm not much for playing devil's advocate. Usually I'll give an indication if the view I'm presenting isn't one I believe myself. Rest assured, I do believe women should have the medical autonomy to get an elective abortions at absolutely any point in their pregnancy.

[2xx1xy1JD]

2xx1xyJD2 - thanks for clarifying that. That helps.

But what when the fetus *can* exist independently outside of the womb?

Medically, abortion wouldn't make sense too long past viability in most cases (although severe fetal defects and some medical conditions may be exceptions). So, except for a small handful of cases, I think that doctors are justified in refusing to offer the procedure.

The problem with giving a fetus actual independent rights is the practical issue of enforcement of those rights prior to birth. Realistically, she isn't going to get a doctor to perform an abortion unless it's a rare case of genuine medical need. I don't want politicians to get involved in highly traumatic medical cases, where there may be no happy endings and each case really becomes very individual and a personal decision that a patient needs to make with expert medical advice. If you grant rights at the earliest point of viability, are doctors at risk when medical problems arise close to viability? My SIL had her water break at 22 weeks. The pregnancy was very wanted, but they agreed that labor would be induced at that point and there would be no resuscitation efforts. Grant rights, and that decision is no longer fully theirs to make.

Even if a fetus *can* exist outside of the womb, getting to that point requires birth. So, again, if the pregnant woman "can't be trusted" to not endanger the pregnancy, what do you do? Have police find her, strap her down, and force her to undergo a c-section (major surgery) against her will? Have police find her, strap her down spread eagle, give her drugs to induce labor and let her cope with violent contractions without being able to move properly? Have police find her, and handcuff her to a hospital bed until she goes into labor? Really, there is no way to do this without draconian loss of basic rights to autonomy over women's bodies.

American case law also shows that when fetal rights are recognized, there WILL be an attempt to use the law not just in these extreme outlier cases, but in cases of failure to listen to medical advice.

As it is, birth is scary and involves a certain lack of control. I don't want to see anything that compounds that. Birth is not a risk-free process, even in the western world. C-sections are not formalities that get viable fetuses out of pesky human incubators. You don't know ahead of time what can happen. My friend found out that her c-section would start late AFTER they gave the spinal, so the freezing started to wear off before the end of the surgery. I avoided that, but then my spinal paralyzed my diaphragm and I wasn't given oxygen, so I was struggling to breathe throughout the surgery. That was followed by a nurse screaming when she saw my belly after the surgery and realized that I was still bleeding from the incision. I'll use the kidney donor analogy - there are plenty of people who may die unless they have a kidney transplant, but the law cannot require you to be a donor.

[OkToBeTakei]

This thread is about a thought exercise. Given that premise, I'm not arguing so much "This is what factually happened in this case" (the case has its own thread here if I wanted to do that) as "Assuming that the facts presented are true, how does this case relate to the original thought experiment".

According to the facts presented, she felt she wasn't able to get a legal abortion past 24 weeks. I can make a guess that she was probably correct, given her failed previous attempt to get an abortion past that date, but that's neither here nor there. The fact remains, relating to the original thought experiment (remember, this case was presented by Soldier of the One as proof that some women choose abortions at 38/39 weeks), that if elective abortions were freely available at any point in a woman's pregnancy, it would have been a case of abortion at 29/30 weeks instead of 39. I wish she had been able to get her abortion at that point, though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been possible (though you're free to disagree with me on that point)

I'm not much for playing devil's advocate. Usually I'll give an indication if the view I'm presenting isn't one I believe myself. Rest assured, I do believe women should have the medical autonomy to get an elective abortions at absolutely any point in their pregnancy.

I can't quote as I am on my phone.

I cannot disagree on the first point. Nor can I agree.

To the second point. I was being polite. If that is your belief then that is your absolute right. I think though you seem to not want see beyond that and consistently try to provoke the same answer. I approach it differently.

It is strange. I don't genuinely see apart from the Internet people willing to turn their at times controversial opinion into anything other than rhetoric. That being said if you are, fair play. Then I could make a valued decision.

For the moment I will hang fire.

[valsa]

To the second point. I was being polite. If that is your belief then that is your absolute right. I think though you seem to not want see beyond that and consistently try to provoke the same answer. I approach it differently.

It is strange. I don't genuinely see apart from the Internet people willing to turn their at times controversial opinion into anything other than rhetoric. That being said if you are, fair play. Then I could make a valued decision.

For the moment I will hang fire.

Maybe it's your phone but I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying.