It seems to me that, assuming you support elective abortion at any point after conception, drawing the line between when elective abortion is acceptable and when it is unacceptable would depend entirely upon the criteria you use to determine when fetal life possesses moral significance.

If you are purely pro-choice, in that you believe the right of the woman to bodily autonomy *always* trumps whatever right to life the fetus might possess, then any arbitrary deadline for elective abortion would be an unconscionable violation of womens' rights.

Will Never Happen.

Nadine Dorries = Insane Scouser
What about if we denied a woman the right to choose, how bad does that sound?
To counter that I know a woman who has had 11 children but is incapable of looking after any of them so are immediately given to social services, she is about 40 now so theoretically could have another 4 or 5. We can pass a law that takes the child away from her but not a law that prevents her having them.
This could be a good case for forced sterilisation

''It seems to me that, assuming you support elective abortion at any point after conception, drawing the line between when elective abortion is acceptable and when it is unacceptable would depend entirely upon the criteria you use to determine when fetal life possesses moral significance.''

I agree, and some would draw their lines to encompass both foetocide and infantocide. Given that their starting point is one of a complete disregard of the right to life in favour of choice, their position is entirely ''morally'' consistent.

http://www.piousfabrications.com/2011/09/richard-dawkins-sees-no-objection-to.html
“What about infanticide? Morally, Strickly morally I can see no objection to that at all. I would be in favour of infanticide”

Eugenics anyone?

I've heard Dawkins make that claim. He admits that it wouldn't be a position he would support, but he probably wouldn't oppose it IF there were sound reasons for doing it - that is he would not find any moral objection to killing new-born infants. That doesn't mean he sees any sound reason FOR killing new-borns.

Though there may come a time when resources are thin and economics demands the sacrifice to improve the quality of life of everyone else... Again forced sterilisation may be a better option.

@ Orathaic, given the pro-choice position, and given that an infant is every bit as dependant as a foetus, infanticide is entirely morally consistent with abortion. I think that Peter Singer too makes the same point, even more forcibly.
But why limit it there? Why not extend it to the mentally sick, geriatric etc. too? I know that this was a very fashionable view in the last century. Perhaps, as you say, it is making a comeback.

@fullhamish - Not at all, the infant CAN be cared for by any human, with preference being one who happens to be lactating, and thus is NOT dependant on the mother, thus while she may make a choice to not care for the infant this does REQUIRE the infant be put down.

You are making false equivalencies, in some attempt to align late-term abortion with infanticide. And while they are biologically equivalent, they are not morally equivalent.

People like myself might see no difference between putting down a new born and putting a pet out of it's misery (in fact the pet can feel misery, while the infant may not yet have that ability) but that doesn't mean we find a necessity to put down the infant when there are people like you who would no doubt offer to maximize the infant's welfare.

In 1922 Margaret Sanger wrote a book entitled ''The Pivot of Civilization'', chapter 4 of that book is headed ''The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded''. Here you will find the arguments for abortion and sterilisation of, what we might describe today as, the ''underclass'' well layed out.
Sanger, of course, founded Planned Parenthood.

As for the mentally ill and geriatric, i'm sure you are aware that the choice being taken into account is an important consideration for pro-choicers, here just as it is in the case of mothers controling their Bodies.

In both cases whether they are judged to make a competant decision, ie whether they are actually able to make a choice at all is raised. I am against all forms of. Apital punishment, thus equally i would oppose state murder of the old or mentally ill.

Planned parenthood is not the same as forced sterilisation, though the one goal of maximising the welfare of a society may be hoped for in both cases (and thus supported by this one person) that does mean the means are equivalent.

Again false equivalences which are largely irelevant to the conversation.

''You are making false equivalencies, in some attempt to align late-term abortion with infanticide. And while they are biologically equivalent, they are not morally equivalent. ''

It is good and honest for you to agree that they are '' biologically'' equivalent, thank you. Now, moving on, I would say that from the foeus' or inant's point of view (both extant and potential) they are indeed morally equivalent. The difference between us that you see the worth of that point of view only after delivery. I, on the other hand, see something wrong with a society where it is acceptable for a 21 week premature being cared for in the neonatal ward and aborted, perhaps because of gender, in a clinic down the road.

@ Orathiac are you serious about - ''maximising the welfare of a society'', have you seen the demographics of abortion in the USA? How, for example, do Black people figure in the statistics? You want to ''maximising the welfare of a society'' by destroying its potential?

I never claimed i saw the worth of the infants point of view, i said the necessary condition has been removed.

Particularily when giving birth threatens the life of the mother and termination may be desirable, though still her choice. You can see there is a difference in the two situations.

I think we could avoid forced sterilization and opt instead for cutting all state funding for fertility services. The people who really want children but can't conceive can adopt those children that cannot be looked after by their birth parents.

'destroying its potential' - wow, the one thing guarenteed to prevent the black population in america from reaching its potential is poverty, and the one thing guarenteed to increase povert is lack of family planning.

I dearly hope you are a staunch socialist so at least you believe the all of society must help fight poverty... Otherwise your pro-life position is a massively damaging prospect, akin to encouraging people to admire suffering, because it will help purify your soul for it's journey to heaven (ie mother theresa)

@maniac, i could only support such a conclusion for purely eugenic reasons; i would assume that lower fertility rates are due to environmental changes (chemicals we produce which have never been in our environs before) and thus we should encourage whatever genetics are needed to be fertile.

On the other hand limiting our range of genetic material is possible the worst call we can make for the long-term survival of the species...

Let's be practical here. If a woman really wants to abort, she'll do it even if it's illegal. But she'll have to go to a quack with a "private clinic" where she might die. Therefore, abortion should be legal.

On the other hand, the fact that she found herself in the position to abort a foetus indicates that she had made some poor choices in life in the first place (of course, I don't include rape here). Therefore, abortion will continue to be looked down upon, making people more careful not to have unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

An appropriate analogy would be alcoholism, which is legal but looked down upon.

Therefore, prolonging the length of term when abortion is legal would be a pointless exercise. It would be akin to passing a law saying that drinks can be served to alcoholics until they fall dead. Even if such a law is passed, it won't change the general attitude towards alcoholism.

Alcholism is a disease, there are genetic factors which make you more like to develop this disease, just like diabetes - it is a choice to eat whatever food you like but poor diet may result in a debilitating illness.

Alcoholism is a disease? Seems you have issues with free will.

And anyway, even if it WERE a disease, it's irrelevant for my argument, which deals with societal attitudes.

Yes, and the social attitudes which you are talking about are terribly offensive...

But how do you think abortion will be seen as a 'mistake' if it is socially acceptable? If you have a sub-group within any society (perhaps biased by the tv which provides their majority education) who doesn't think it's a bad thing, because 'everyones doing it' - the fact that she found herself needing an abortion is not looked down upon if in the first place an abortion is considered an acceptable option - your is flawed.

On the other hand if the medical procedure is dangerous then it is looked as a stupid thing because you put yourself in a risky situation... Hence an arguement for poor medical care AND lying to people about the risks involved...

'your arguement' which relies on circular reasoning and is invalid outside of the circle...

Alcoholism is not a disease. The idea that it is was a concept invented by parts of the medical community for the purpose of reducing the stigma associated with it and encouraging more alcoholics to be open about their addiction. Sadly this has done more harm than good and should be abandoned.

What you call "circular reasoning" is status quo. But I understand that you prefer your imaginary constructs to the real world.

In the real world there are groups of females (subcultures) who think having a baby is a great idea becuase the local council will give them a flat and they wouldn't have to live with their parents... This is competely at odds with the thinking of those women who are educated and have lived in families which are able to find work and support themselves.

Reality is that not everyone thinks the same, nevermind that the status quo will shift and change. HOW and EVER your arguement is that because it's bad people will co tinue thinking it is bad, yet there are those who put forward the position that it is not bad.

Doctors may have decided that treatment for this medical condition would be easier if there was less of a stigmae associated with it. And they are rigth, if things seem like they are worse, then how much of that is because now we have more accurate data on alcoholism? A problem of free will it is not. 1) genetic factors make you more or less likely to develop an addiction. 2) the physical dependancy is real not imagined. 3) the psychological addiction is still a problem which needs to be addressed like any mental illness - comparable to diabetes in almost everyway. Octaviois, are you saying diabetes is not a disease?

@Orathaic - you may be right about chemical environment changing our fertility but (a) there were always some people who couldn't conceive and (b) we really arn't short of people on this planet.

Actually, i think i'm vaguely off topic - to make my position clear, i don't think we should engage in any eugenics until we are capable of collectively agreeing on some species wide genetic drift - that is nothing we're able to collectively work toward at present. (social goals should be attained by social means)

We should legalize abortion up till the 12th month after conception.

ZMaj said: "On the other hand, the fact that she found herself in the position to abort a foetus indicates that she had made some poor choices in life in the first place (of course, I don't include rape here). Therefore, abortion will continue to be looked down upon, making people more careful not to have unwanted pregnancies in the first place."

Yes, but don't forget the even deeper psychological part in it. It's not only a question of being exposed to social attitudes.
Is there no-one here who imagines that a girl invested part of her innermost feelings when she got herself fructified?

It's downgrading to get it in black-on-white that *all your love's in vain*.
That your love is just play - not maturely meant to bear fruit, or not socially accepted in its full consequences as anything more than a plaything.