But I bet you we could still find a compromise somewhere in there. Where neither of us is fully happy but both sides can agree to it as a middle ground.

What to do with unwanted children? It seems obvious to me that the logic of your position leads you to support infanticide if any should slip through your proposed abortion filter. As for me, I go with the sanctity of life I am afraid. The children might be unwanted by the mother and most likely although not necessarily by the father, but we as a society owe them respect and care.

On a compromise position, given recent advances in medical knowledge, my line in the sand is 12 weeks, but I am repeating myself.

Fulham, what do you do with fetuses post-20 weeks who do not develop a brain at all but nonetheless have a heartbeat? Force to term? Also, what do you think of hospitals who deliberately delay results of tests so that couples find out about problems after the heartbeat regulations come into effect? Should medical professionals be allowed to mislead women in order to prevent abortions?

Are you willing to pay for them with increased taxes? I know a lot of people, at least in the US, who aren't.

Fulhamish, you wouldn't be willing to compromise after that point at all?

I am a tad confused. It seems perfectly clear to me that killing a healthy child immediately after birth is murder. It seems equally clear that the difference between a child immediately before birth and immediately after birth is essentially nil. Therefore logic dictates that an abortion approximately 9 months into a pregnancy is as close to muder as you can get.

It is also clear to me that an abortion (if that's even the right word) immediately after conception is not even close to murder. I conclude, therefore, that somewhere between conception and birth a line must be drawn.

Who chooses where the line should be? Is it me? Certainly not. I am not nearly qualified enough to say one way or the other with any certainty. Is it the mother? Again, I would say no. Ownership of her womb is all well and good, but it does not give a devine right to control everything that goes on inside it. To use a really quite poor analogy I own the air inside my house, yet if I denied it to my guests I would be in trouble pretty damned quick.

Where the line is drawn depends on two things. The advice of medical science and the will of society.

At Celtic, yes I would go beyond that point in exceptional circumstances. Genuine and proven maternal health issues for example. But you have pinned me down, so let me now ask you - would you be prepared to draw a line in the sand and, if so, where? Are you prepared to compromise? I look forward to reading your answer in the morning - it is getting late in the UK.

Screening for anencephaly can only take place post 16 weeks. So essentially Fulham condemns all women who have fetuses with anencephaly to carry to term. The life expectancy for such infants is a few hours.

How does a woman prove the circumstances are "exceptional", and what for you qualifies as "exceptional"?

See I would say just no 3rd trimester abortions -if- I was compromising. I believe most life threatening birth defects are discovered by then.

The whole "3rd trimester abortion" issue is just a canard. Only 4 doctors in the entire country perform them. They are only done in extremely rare and life threatening circumstances. 3rd trimester is just a trojan horse to restrict abortions across the board. They raise the specter of 'infanticide' in order to scare people to restrict all sorts of medically necessary procedures that occur much earlier in the term.

Putin go back and read what has been discussed please.

Putin -- question: Is a third trimester abortion "infanticide"?

Infanticide (or infant homicide) is the intentional killing of infants.

No, it's a life-saving procedure. Is killing out of self-defense, "murder"? It is by the logic of anti-abortion propagandists.

@Krellin - quite clearly not since foetus's, even in the third trimester, aren't infants. It's not a good thing, for sure, but in the rare cases that it happens it's almost universally better than the alternatives.

OK - so then an abortion is not "infanticide". I guess that issue is settled.

So when a man is charged with a double murder for killing a pregnant woman, you think this is unjust?

Yes, I do.

mendax, then I congratulate you on you consistency of thought.

@ Celticfox "See I would say just no 3rd trimester abortions -if- I was compromising. I believe most life threatening birth defects are discovered by then."

Firstly, thank you for yesterday's discussion, while it got a little heated between us at times, we did remain reasonably polite, I appreciate it.

It seems to me that you accept that there should be some connstraint on the women's right to choose. That is a major point of agreement between us, even if we differ on where the line should be drawn. I suspect that Jamiet might agree with us too, but we will have to hear from him personally I suppose.
As to Putin I strongly suspect that he will disagree - he has done in the past. although all of us (should i say most of us) do change our minds from time to time.

More later when I get home on disability etc., but for now I should like to strongly point out that in any society that I would wish to be a member of, the disabled should be as much entitled to life and medical care as the able bodied.

Yes, thank you for staying reasonable during this discussion. If only all discussions could be this reasonable. Also to clarify.. remember Jamie and I both said we couldn't tell another women what to do with her pregnancy, even if we personally feel differently then what she does. Not our body not our say.

Now the Third trimester thing is also hinging on the mother's life being ok. If her life is in danger then a late term abortion should be allowed. Is letting the mother die for the child no less murder then?

Some birth defects mean the child won't live more then a day or 2 or that the quality of life won't be good. That's not for me to force anyone to carry a child that'll basically be brain dead to term. That's some seriously messed up thing to force on a women.

Why is it that whenever advocates of abortion start to discuss teh topic, the only examples of abortion they can come up with are when a fetus is brain dead or terribly deformed and the life of the mother is at risk.

Sorry...most abortion is simply an alternate form to birth control, and is a murder of convenience (assuming you believe the child in the womb is alive).

As for others telling a woman what she can/can not do with her body...well what gives the woman the right to destroy another sentient being's body?

That's your opinion and your entitled to it. If you feel that way then your partner doesn't have to have one. But, you have no right to tell a women what to do with her body.

And no - a baby is not a part of the woman's body. A baby is a distinct life form, with an entirely separate nervous system. It is effectively a parasite on the woman, if you want to put it that way, but it is in no way a part of the woman's body, any more than a tapeworm is a part of my cat's body.

Ok but it's the women's choice wither to have that parasite in her body or not.

Celtic - please read what I wrote again - I amnot talking about a woman's body; I am talking about the life form within the woman's body.

Sorry to inform you, but they are biologically distinct. It is not a matter of "my opinion" whether or not a child in the womb is or is not a part of the woman's body, and if you have that "opinion", then you are factually wrong, in the same manner as if you stated the opinion that water is dry. You may be of the opinion that water is dry, but you would be factually wrong.

@ Celticfox

I'm trying to get my head around why abortion should be such a special case regarding absolute control over a body. Society has, and always has had, a strong influence over what we do with our bodies. I cannot, no matter how much I might wish to, walk stark naked down Bristol market in the middle of the day. The will of society prevents me from doing this, and the residents of Bristol benefit greatly.

It may very well be her choice to destroy the life form that is within her body. And there are many that believe that it should be the state's right to prosecute a woman for destroying the human life within her body, just as we would prosecute her for destroying any distinct human body other than her own.

Other than the case of rape, if you have choosen to allow something within your female body that deposits sperm, then you are de facto accepting the possibility and risk of developing a life within you.

---

To be clear, I am not bringing up these point to personally express my view one way or the other on abortion, or whether or not situational abortion should be allowed.

I am simply trying to bring a little honesty to what is more often than not a dishonest conversation about brain dead fetus's and a woman's right to her own body, etc, when more often abortion is birth control, and the discussion is about a baby's body that is to be destroyed for a woman's convenience.