Choosing euthanasia for yourself is one thing, choosing it for another is quite a bit different. It is also different between choosing merciful death for an elderly person, who even if they overcome the immediate difficulties will not have long to live, and choosing it for a very young person who may, if luckly, overcome and live a long life.

One aspect of the abortion debate that bothers me, although only tangentally related to partial birth abortion is aborting children who are in some way ‘defective,’ the huge abortion rate of Down’s syndrome effected fetuses being a prime example. Doubtless the Mothers in this case beleive they are practicing something which is similar to euthanasia, but I worry about our values that say a being that is not ‘perfect’ is worthless. That said, in the first trimester I am willing to cede this judgement to the woman, as time goes on though and we can more certainly say that the fetus is becoming a person other interests weigh in.

While obviously abortion is only applicable to women, I think it is unfair to say that women are not trusted to make this decision, there are many regulations we have about medical treatment and legitimate and unlegitimate practices. There is also the fact that we are talking about a second life here, at this point in development the fetus has independant brain function and is a living being.

I would guess that very few responsible women would choose an abortion at this point in pregnancy unless it was a life threatening issue. The fact is though, not all people, women included are responsible. Mothers sometimes kill their children. We certainly don’t accept that as their own decision and the state has a right there. Defining and otherwise viable life as simply a peice of tissue, simply property of the woman just because of a few inches of difference in location strikes me profoundly immoral and something that society as a whole as a right and duty to regulate.

I have some friends who had a child born at 24 weeks. Granted, abortion was never a question for them, they very much wanted a child, but the boy is now 2 years old, healthy, beautiful and happy. That he wasn’t a person a couple of minutes before he was born is a premise I cannot accept.

At 27 weeks, no serious health issues, I agree with you. Point of fact, though, I only know/have read of 1 truly voluntary (no reason other than the mom didn’t want it) abortion (self performed, using medication to cause an abortion). The baby was born alive (25 weeks) and died a few days later. Actually, I take it back, it does appear in the news every now and again…in all cases, the “mother” did something herself to try and cause an abortion.

Dave,

That’s why I am slightly on the fence-because letting a terminal child be born first is possible. Sometimes the parents are concerned that a live birth would be more painful. I understand that some feel D and X is the best option, but there are other ways. I’m mostly hanging back to see how this will be implemented, and what the effects will be. Am concerned, though, and uneasy. I wish women could be trusted to make their own decisions about what’s best for them with their medical council. But apparently we’re not considered able to do that.

A mother is in danger of miscarrying. The doctors will strive to extend her pregnancy as long as possible, but there comes the point where the fetus is born and becomes a baby; let us say at 27 weeks. The doctors then strive to keep that baby alive and (in NZ at least) survival from 27 weeks gestation is better than 90%.

A woman reaches 27 weeks and is in danger of stroke and death because of blood pressure problems. Same deal…

A woman decides at 27 weeks to abort her fetus. So we have arguments about the legal niceties of “death in utero”, RvW, etc etc. Why can that pregnancy not be terminated WITHOUT killing the fetus? Why not put the same resources into saving that baby. Why can that baby not then be adopted by another mother?

No. There is somethng quite wrong with the idea.

I believe that Roe holds that it cannot be illegal to prohit abortion before viability, it does not mandate that after viability abortion be illegal, that is still left up to states, and the federal government.

This law also does not ever apply to a fetus that has died in utero, as unless the fetus is intentionally killed the law doesn’t apply to it. Also opponants argue in the cases where the fetus would die anyway, after it was delivered, why not deliver it and let it die naturally if it cannot be saved rather then pause during the delivery to kill it?

Haha. Did your mother have any children that lived, Probligo?

It seems that no one is able to put together two facts -

First, sometimes an abortion is a necessity for the health and survival of both mother and baby.

Secondly, it is now routine for a premature baby to survive after 25 weeks gestation. NZ hospitals (reputedly third world standard) are investigating the long term consequences of birth at 23 weeks gestation.

On the basis of that, an abortion after the 25th week should not involve the death of the fetus.

For that reason alone, I for one can support abortion in the first 12 weeks of gestation, but can count post-25 weeks abortion as murder.

The Court decision is right. Why is there debate about it?