This debate seems to center on the right to life of the baby and the mother. I have no issue referring to a fetus as a baby, for the record, since that is what it is once it is capable of survival outside the womb in any way. The debate seems to be rotating around the point of whether or not a baby has the right to life once this point is hit and that hinges upon whether it impinges on the mother's right to life and good health or not.
I do need to address one point in particular.
Otseng wrote:
If a mother's life is in jeopardy because of a pregnancy, and the choice was between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, it would be the mother's perogative to be able to choose which life to save. Saving her own over the baby's I would not consider to be unethical.
But, excluding this case (which is only a small minority of cases anyways), would they have the same right to life?
Emphasis added.
Are you aware that in the few cases that late term (post 21 week point) abortions are allowed, there does need to be a serious risk of death or major bodily impairment of the mother, so it is actually the vast majority of the cases, not a small minority. That is, unless you are speaking of abortions in general, but that has not been the topic of this thread.
The point I am hoping to get to here is that there are 2 things to consider.
First, if the baby can survive without the mother, why is an abortion necessary and not just a cesarean section?
If the baby is able to
survive, does that mean it is able to do so without the aide of machinery and it can expect to have a normal life?
In adult humans we "pull the plug" on those with a dependence on machines if we cannot expect them to make a reasonable recovery, which I do realize is a generalization but I feel it fair to assume it is what most people would want for themselves. If this is the case, is it fair for us to bring a child into the world before it has a reasonable expectation of a normal life?
According to many studies, one of which can be found here
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7074/107 content that of infants born earlier than 23 weeks almost none survive and even at 23 weeks less than 10% survive the first year, many of the survivors having severe birth defects.
I believe that shows that it is unreasonable to consider 21 weeks an "age of viability" and for all intents and purposes 24 weeks should be used at the standard. The study also notes that 10% of all babies born and survived from less than 28 weeks were destined to a life of total dependency and approximately 27% were disabled. As such, I contend that it is not only fair to offer abortions until the 24th week of pregnancy in the case of a mother's risk of death or disability but it is unfair to the child to attempt to raise it outside the womb. This creates an impasse in which it is unlikely that either the child nor the adult would be capable of maintaining a normal life, therefore it is immoral to require either to continue on this course. If one would be willing to make the sacrifice for the other, it can be left to that person, but since only the mother is capable of communicating that decision it can only be respected if it is her wish. Conversely projecting a fetus's refusal for similar sacrifice is unreasonable to the mother since the fetus is, by definition, a parasite on her body and therefore a burden on her.
